It's a good exercise. Repeating my comments on youtube on the heavyweight video: remember (of course) that using a one size fits all approach doesn't remove subjectivity, especially with the changes and flux that occur in sport over their long histories. That's why it's good that you question some of your placements according to your formula, because sport isn't math and although it can give us a very solid representation there will be some cases that just don't quite add up, at which point you can exercise honest and fair discretion and trust and believe in your ability to show reason and be balanced.
Once again you've proven that your equation doesn't know sh*t about boxing, Rummy! I was a big "Prince" Charles and "Quicksilver" fan back in the day, but neither belongs in that top 10 imo. Also I wonder how close Michael "MM" Moorer came to making the top20 list, with that equation? Very good vid though. Next up... the Middleweights?
Rummy, I agree with most of what you say. I personally think the formula is ****. Hill at 2? Ffs, he got outboxed by Tommy, pounded by Michelszewski and stopped by a Jones body shot. Hopkins at 8? He was beaten by Joe Calzaghe, Chad Dawson and Sergei Kovalev. Prince Charles Williams anywhere near the top 10? He was stopped by James Toney there. I wouldn't have have Darius or Gus Lesnevich in the top 10 either. I also believe Jones is too high. No Ezzard Charles near the list is ****ing ridiculous. I'd have him at least in the top 3. No Spinks in the top 10 is ridiculous as well. I also would have Qawi and Saad near the top 10 if not in it as well if I thought about it long enough. The equation doesn't take the quality of the division while the boxers were performing there.
Really interesting videos Rummy. Regarding the formula just so I have it straight, GSB and T3 mean that Ring rankings are essentially counted twice and you may as well award 2/4/6 points for being ranked 3/2/1 respectively? (Rather than 1+1/3+1/5+1 ?) Maybe some points for wins against other ranked opponents would be useful?
I might have put Eddie Mustafa Muhammed in at about 15 , I think he'd have cut up Victor Galindez. Might have Qawi a little higher. Everyone who knows anything about boxing knows who should disappear from that list
My equation sucks, but it still does better than I do. And in actuality, I think (hope!) the results here were a bit of an aberration. I'm guessing other divisions will pan out more favorably with reality. As for Michael Moorer, I wrote this to @drenlou in the other thread: "The reason Michael Moorer didn't fare well stems from the fact that he was only ranked as a top 3 light heavyweight by ring twice - in 1989 and 1990 - and he was ranked 3rd both years, giving him 4 points for 2 showings. With 9 title defenses, that gave Moorer a grand total of 13 points, which landed him in a 4-way tie with Jose Torres, Paul Berlenbach, and Glen Johnson. I tend to agree with what you're saying. I'd have him ahead of Tarver and a few other guys as well." And super-middles next!
Agreed with everything you wrote here. But as I said in my previous post, I'm hopeful that the results here were a bit of an aberration. But time will tell.
Yes, effectively it boils down to 6/4/2. I am separating the two, though, as I think it's important to know how many times one ranked in the top 3, which the GSB doesn't accurately specify on its own. What I'm interested in (in the bigger picture) is seeing how many boxers in history were ever ranked as a top 3 in any division 10 or more times.
Good job, Rummy. You covered all the flaws I saw in your own analysis of the list. I got nothing to add. I also like the Rumified list.
