Undersized HW's ranking

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by lufcrazy, Sep 14, 2011.


Page 2 of 2
  1. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    82,092
    22,173
    Sep 15, 2009
    Well unless we are to rank fighters based on separate criteria hence creating separate lists, I completely disagree.

    I can remark under current rules it would be such a decision without trying to rewrite history.

    I'm not trying to understand an era, my passion is the great fighters not the great era. I want to understand valid comparisons between patterson and say byrd. I want to measure them both under consistent criteria.

    Ten point must will do me fine.
     
    lufcrazy, Sep 15, 2011
    lufcrazy, Sep 15, 2011
    #16
  2. bodhi

    bodhi Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,229
    257
    Oct 22, 2009
    Exactly!


    You can understand a fighter only in relation to his era though. You can´t just use a different scoring system and then compare that results to that of a fighter in a different era. Sorry, doesn´t make much sense to me. IMO you´ve got to look what a fighte did in his era and then compare that what another fighter did in his. Everything else is just nonsense. Sorry.
     
    bodhi, Sep 15, 2011
    bodhi, Sep 15, 2011
    #17
  3. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    82,092
    22,173
    Sep 15, 2009
    I'm sorry but that's total rhubarb. I can understand what a fighter did him his era perfectly fine, there is absolutely nothing to lose by scoring and old fight using new rules and making a comment about how that result would be different.

    I do the same today, for instance under old rules I believe marquez beat pac, under current rules I believe pac beat marquez.

    There is absolutely nothing to lose by increasing data and that is a categorical fact.

    Maybe the subtle differences don't interest you but they do me.

    Lest we forget ten point must allows easy comparison because you can just count the 10's as winning the round to see how it'd be scored on a rounds system.

    I think dismissing the interesting notion of how a fight gets scored under modern rules is bizarre and foolhardy. Sorry.
     
    lufcrazy, Sep 15, 2011
    lufcrazy, Sep 15, 2011
    #18
  4. frankenfrank

    frankenfrank Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,965
    68
    Aug 18, 2009
    1) Evander Holyfield
    2) Sam Langford
    3) Rocco Marchegiano
    4) James Toney
    5) Chris Byrd
    6) Orlin Norris
    7) Douglas Jones
    8) Arnold Cream
    9) Ezzard Charles
    10) Floyd Patterson / Jimmy Ellis

    11) Jimmy Ellis/Floyd Patterson
    12) Muhammad Qawi
    13) Juan Carlos Gomez
    14) Al Cole
    15) Michael Moorer
    16) Vassily Jirov

    I compiled it extraordinarily quickly even compared to other lists by myself so I may need a few changes in it.
     
    frankenfrank, Sep 15, 2011
    frankenfrank, Sep 15, 2011
    #19
  5. FlyingFrenchman

    FlyingFrenchman Active Member Full Member

    954
    12
    Sep 15, 2011

    Best HWs under 200-

    First of all, who can be considered? Byrd never fought HWs while weighing under 200Lbs. Louis was usually over 200Lbs. Jack Johnson was over 200 Lbs for more than a few fights. I'm going to include Louis and Johnson. What about Holyfield? He was 208Lbs. when he beat Douglas, 205Lbs. in the first Bowe fight. I don't think I'll include him or even Byrd.

    Louis
    Marciano
    Charles
    Tunney
    Dempsey
    Johnson
    Walcott
    Patterson
    M. Spinks
    Schmeling
    Sharkey
    Braddock
    Johansson
    Langford
    Machen
    Folley
    Moore
    Harold Johnson
    Elmer Ray
    Fitzsimmons
    Burns

    these names just popped in my head, the order doesn't really mean too much after the first few
     
    FlyingFrenchman, Sep 16, 2011
    FlyingFrenchman, Sep 16, 2011
    #20
  6. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    82,092
    22,173
    Sep 15, 2009
    hard to decide. I guess it's the guys you just wouldn't class as natural Hw's.
     
    lufcrazy, Sep 21, 2011
    lufcrazy, Sep 21, 2011
    #21
  7. bodhi

    bodhi Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,229
    257
    Oct 22, 2009
    It´s just not what you are doing in historic sciences - and that´s what you are doing here. The first thing is in histoic science you learn is that you have to look at each era by its own standards, not by ours today. Otherwise you rewrite history.
     
    bodhi, Sep 21, 2011
    bodhi, Sep 21, 2011
    #22
  8. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    82,092
    22,173
    Sep 15, 2009
    I'm not rewriting history at all.

    Tell me what's wrong with saying "scoring rounds floyd clearly beat quarry but if you score it by 10 point then it would be a draw"

    What's wrong with that sentence.
     
    lufcrazy, Sep 22, 2011
    lufcrazy, Sep 22, 2011
    #23
  9. bodhi

    bodhi Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,229
    257
    Oct 22, 2009
    That it´s woulda coulda shoulda.

    Fact is: fights were scored on a round by round base. 10-point-must is not relevant here.
     
    bodhi, Sep 23, 2011
    bodhi, Sep 23, 2011
    #24
  10. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    82,092
    22,173
    Sep 15, 2009
    What you've said isn't really relevant to what I posted.
     
    lufcrazy, Sep 23, 2011
    lufcrazy, Sep 23, 2011
    #25
  11. bodhi

    bodhi Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,229
    257
    Oct 22, 2009
    You asked what´s wrong with that sentence and I said "that it´s woulda coulda shoulda". You have a fact: how the fight was actually scored. And then you have your "woulda" by you scoring it by the 10-point system.

    I mean it´s the same as if I would come here and would only count knockouts as wins. The rest would be ND fights because it was like that in the old days. Makes as much sense.
     
    bodhi, Sep 23, 2011
    bodhi, Sep 23, 2011
    #26
  12. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    82,092
    22,173
    Sep 15, 2009
    Again you're not really being relevant to what i'm posting.

    I can watch pac-jmm 1 and remark how under round scoring jmm should have won whilst under points scoring pac should have won.

    There isn't really anything negative you can say about that without saying something irrelevant.
     
    lufcrazy, Sep 23, 2011
    lufcrazy, Sep 23, 2011
    #27
  13. bodhi

    bodhi Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,229
    257
    Oct 22, 2009
    Of course I can and I did. It is not relevant. It simply doesn´t matter. What mattes is the actual result under the actual rules. Everything else doesn´t matter. It´s "woulda".
     
    bodhi, Sep 23, 2011
    bodhi, Sep 23, 2011
    #28
  14. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    82,092
    22,173
    Sep 15, 2009
    Sorry I think you're just misunderstanding me now because it doesn't really seem like you're being logical.

    Probably best to call it a day and leave it at that.
     
    lufcrazy, Sep 23, 2011
    lufcrazy, Sep 23, 2011
    #29
Page 2 of 2