"Aww, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14% of all people know that." ~ H. Simpson, circa 1994
Interesting. A few comments: Was Spinks rated as a heavyweight only? Povetkin looks to catch Walcott soon. Patterson seems way out of place. Post Marciano, Patterson had his over version of the bum of the month club, avoiding Liston. You might want to give 10 points to fighters who actually beat others on the list to balance things a bit. You might also want to subtract 5 points for each loss a fighter had to opponents who were never ranked in the top ten, stopping at age 37.
I posted my top twenty list on The Ring's Top 20 All Time heavyweight thread--post 186. I included in that list two pre-1924 heavyweights among my top ten. Johnson at #6 and Jeffries at #9. But if restricted to post 1924 heavies as your list is, here is my top ten in order & yours in parenthesis 1-----Ali (Ali) 2-----Louis (Louis) 3-----Marciano (Wlad) 4-----Lewis (Lewis) 5-----Holmes (Holmes) 6-----Wlad (Holyfield) 7-----Holyfield (Tyson) 8-----Foreman (Patterson) 9-----Tyson (Frazier) 10----Frazier (Vitali) We share 8 fighters, and if you notice, rank seven in the same order (Ali, Louis, Lewis, Holmes, Holyfield, Tyson, Frazier). Our one disagreement is Wlad, which your system ranks 3rd and I rank 6th. The two of the ten I don't have in mine (Patterson & Vitali) are replaced by the two you said in your video you would have replaced them with, Marciano and Foreman. So basically we agree on the top ten, each with a 20% variance from your system rankings. Why so close. Well, longevity is also one of my three criteria. The others are dominance (winning decisively and consistently, and not losing, especially in prime years) and fighting the best available opposition. Marciano does not rate near the top in longevity, but is at the very top in dominance and beat the best available competition. I think your system is excellent in delineating longevity. It should be tweaked for dominance and competition, probably by penalizing points for losses, especially KO defeats, and perhaps by giving extra points credit for each victory over men who landed in your top twenty.
I'm gonna sit down at some point and watch these videos you've done Rummy. I love a good formula and even more than that I love a good application of said formula. One issue here is by using the annual rankings (which were sometimes just the December rankings and sometimes input incorrectly, I did the last few years before I stopped buying the ring mag) you omit some fighters true reflection as they could have been rated, say 3rd at the time of the fight but 9th by the end of the year. That being said this criteria is applied consistently so every fighter has the same issue, it's the more active ones who lose out. As I said before, all my ranking now is entirely winnability based. But still I've give it a right good perusal.
