What are your criteria for an all-time ranking list?

Cheers mate, glad you like it. Feel free to apply it if you think it has merit to your list-making :good

 

Do you think dominance should be a bigger factor than the quality of opponents beaten? How would you split you categories up, by what kind of ratios? Eg.g 60% dominance, 20% longevity etc.

 

What are your criteria for an all-time ranking list?

I think its best to have a legacy list which includes accomplishments in a fighter era. Accomplishments in an era can mean many things. Title defenses, top fighters beaten, ring record, notable performances ( best nights ) KO%, notable come backs, fighting well into the late 30's and beyond, etc...

I also prefer to have a head to head list.

 

Yeah but Vitali's is immense

 

Nar not imo, not directly anyway. Wins count.

 

Yeah it's probably wise to split em.

 

As we know there are three ways to win in boxing. Via KO/TKO, via decision, or via DQ/forfeit.

If the knockout is the best way to win in boxing, then winning a high percentage of your bouts by knockout means something. It depends on your own criteria, but some fighters just aren't likely to out box others, and in a head to head or legacy sense, needed the KO to win.

 

Oh I see the angle your going for. :hi:

Do any of these facts count for a legacy?

Best KO% among ranked heavyweights
Best ratio of rounds lost to rounds one among heavyweights
Never floored by a punch
Come back after nearly 4 years off at age 37+ with no warm up fights to win back his title.

Not so bad

In the future, perhaps we can add only champ to make a string of title defenses form his late 30's to age 40 and beyond.

 

Nope, these do not.

Definitly! That was great.