I have been trying to come up with a system for evaluating ATGs across eras so I can put together my top 50 and have something to stand on in arguments and discussions. I came up with the following criteria which I’m trying to determine how to weight (hence the poll)... I put my order of importance in parentheses: Legendary victories over ATGs (3) Quality wins or title defenses over top contenders (1) Overall record / consistency (6) (ranked lower to account for padded records) Titles, records, accolades (5) (ranked lower to account for alphabet belt ****ery) Eye test, skills, dominance, etc. (2) Mythical h2h matchup (4) Outside of the top 4 who have it all (Robinson, Armstrong, Ali, Greb), there are question marks about damn near every guy which makes them difficult to rank... Some examples: Willie Pep is #5 with a bullet for me... possibly the most skilled boxer ever and perhaps the best record ever, but relatively few wins over top 100 types (Wright, Saddler) which makes it hard to rank him higher as other have done Gene Tunney and Sugar Ray Leonard are matchup nightmares for anybody in their divisions and have got some of the best scalps in boxing history but didn’t fight often enough to notch the # of defenses of say Joe Louis Champions who fought in weak eras for their divisions like Louis, Monzon and Pep don’t have as many ATG wins but it’s hard to knock them because that was no fault of their own H2H is important but styles make fights... there are cases (Saddler-Pep, Mayweather-Pacquaio) where the guy with a less impressive resume would probably win 2/3 of the time, but how much of the other criteria should that trump? I’m leaning toward placing more importance on quality wins over top 500 type guys and eye test/dominance (which would benefit a Marvin Hagler, for example) but am in no way certain. What do you all think?
I went with legendary victories. I value beating the best boxers ever more than I value beating the best boxers or the day (although you have to give both credit). Résumé means everything in terms of greatness for me. I find it hard to rate somebody who was undefeated for years and years but basically fought a bunch of soft touches over somebody who got stuck in and fought the best, back to back. Losses don't really diminish a legacy, for me. The only downside to them is that you don't get the credit you would've done if you had won.
Comparatively speaking... obviously they were light years better than today’s equivalents but not as ridiculously hard as heavy in the late 60s/early 70s, LW in the 30s, or MW in the 50s. My point was that cats like Ali, Armstrong and SRR got to fight more legends because there were simply more legends around when they were around.
I'd say overall record, assuming that means taking into account, who you fought, the stage of their career, overall context etc. Really you need to take as much into account as possible to get a good rating. To me focusing on best wins gives too much credit to guys who fought a load of people and picked up some luckish wins. It's also just the nature of things that if you're the best guy out there, someone who beats you has a better win than you can ever have. Plus there's also the risk that you find out you're basing your rating off a wins where somone was injured. On the point of consistency, here's a fun fact, Joe Louis has 25 defences, give him a 95% chance of winning each, and that's only 27.74% chance of winning them all. The nature of the victory matters a lot too, and in terms of rating them and their opposition the eye test will always come into it (or the eye test of the reporters for pre-footage guys). Quality and legendary wins also count for a lot towards that, and titles tend to give a fair approxiamation, and since you're the one to beat I think that also matters too. I think there's a lot to be said for a consistent dominant champion. So really you have to take everything into account.
All of these things to some extent, but the one that seems to have the most influence on me is consistency. If a fighter keeps beating the best contenders of their era, then that gets my vote. It gets my vote even if the era was not particularly strong, or they didn't look particularly good doing it.
1.Consistent victories, good conduct as it goes along with being a great example to follow. 2.Displaying all of your skill and arsenal during a match. 3.Defeating all opposition that is put in front of you. 4.Being humble with your greatness, not being boastful. 5.Being a gentleman outside the ring. 6. Training hard for all opposition and being in condition. 7. Looking to improve, when improvement is needed, be yourself..8. Being obedient within the law. 8. As a champion, giving all deserving challengers a shot at your title. 9. Be a good sport before and after a bout. 10.Do not harm your body by taking illicit drugs or abusing alcohol.
Middleweight was ridiculously deep for over a half century prior to the 70s. That’s why there weren’t many dominant champions all the way from the post-Ketchell to pre-Monzon eras. So should Monzon, Hagler, and Hopkins really rate above all (or most) of the guys during that incredibly competitive expanse? They almost always are.
I really enjoyed your post, but thses fighters fought and beat the opposition that what was placed in front of them. It was not their fault that there was not the quality fighters like maybe in the era of Jake La Motta, Sugar Ray Robinson, and Tony Zale. Like I have always posted, you can only fight what is put in front of you. Promoters promote, and fighters fight.
Not trying to take anything away from them. Just pointing out that it goes both ways. I agree that we can’t really fault the more dominant (mostly modern era) champions for not fighting great fighters that weren’t there or wouldn’t fight. On the flip side, you can’t really fault the older guys for not remaining as consistent. That lack of consistency is precisely because they were fighting the great fighters that those modern champions didn’t get to nearly as often.
I do see your point and agree. But not everyone is Muhammad Ali, he promoted his matches by boasting, building up the gate, it is effective but to be a great champion, you have to be yourself not like somebody else, individualism.
I went with overall record and consistency because I believe it encompasses a lot of those other things listed. Wins over ATG’s is important but it’s not enough. Iran Barkley, Rubin Carter, Jim Flyn, buster Douglas and Oliver McCall had wins over all time greats... but their overall achievements are not spectacular
