What is ur HW top 10?

Ah right. Well, in that case, I have a couple of questions: How far do you take this "uniqueness" business? I mean, does Benitez leapfrog up the rankings for being the youngest champion ever? Does Bernard Hopkins get extra credit for being uniquely Bernard Hopkins? Why is Liston's unique achievement better than Foreman's unique achievement of winning the title in his forties? And also, it seems like you're referencing dominance again as a legitimate criterion for greatness where you've often dismissed it.

 

Nothing. What I'm saying is that Foreman beat a lesser number of opponents of high ability than Liston. For starters he only beat one world class boxer/technician in four attempts and that was a KO after being thorougly outboxed. In his prime he didn't manage to beat even one really good boxer, has actually gone on record as to say he avoided one of the better counter punchers around at the time (Quarry).

Liston beat three of the four world class boxers he met, two of them very convincingly. He also looked more convincing against the most dangerous puncher he faced than Foreman did against the most dangerous he met.

 

I wasn't talking about Foreman vs. Liston. I was commenting on this post:

This content is protected

"I do not factor in some speculative H2H, but I have Liston ahead of Foreman. For me, Liston's impressive wins over a wide variety of solid opposition trumps Foreman's high end wins and achievements."

 

Yeah, I know. And I elaborated in case my meaning didn't come across.

 

In your response you made numerous references to "world class boxers", "technicians", "really good boxer", "better counterpunchers" etc. I'm just wondering how you ascertain whether these guys are indeed "world class" without having to make some sort of judgement about their ability, which you dismissed as being "speculative" earlier on.

 

I didn't say judging ability was speculative (even if it hardly is a hard science). I said that speculating about how fighters of different eras would do against each other is speculative.

 

Ok. Do you include "ability" (just plain "ability" as opposed to "H2H ability") as a criterion when ranking fighters?

 

No. I only look at how well they did against what manner of opposition.

For example, the reason I have Ali and Louis at the top is because they both beat top opposition of all styles over some 15 years - racked up about 35 wins each over ranked opposition. And they very often did it in dominant fashion.

That's the factors I use. As to who would have won if they had met, it can make for some entertaining guesswork, but in the end who the **** knows?

 

Fair enough, although I'd make the point that there isn't much difference between assessing a fighter's ability and assessing how two fighters would match-up. If we're comparing Bob Fitzsimmons to Bernard Hopkins it may be an issue, but if it's Ray Robinson and Carlos Monzon instead, I don't see that as overly speculative.

 

Lay off Mcgrain, Pete and Irty. He is one of the best posters I have ever come across. He is a complete asset to this forum, and we are lucky to have him.

Why not?

Liston defeated a wider variety of styles than foreman did. Foreman lost to Jimmy Young. Liston defeated his slick defensive boxers in Folley and Machen. Liston pretty much proved himself against every different style out there...while foreman did not.

 

That's how I see it as well. Just look at how bad we are predicting how currently active fighters well do against each other. If one, a while ago, would have said that Pac would demolish DLH, Hatton and Cotto and that Mayweather would make Mosley look like a plucky amateur, he would literally have been laughed out of the forum. But...

 

I disagree. It's worth remembering that a fighter's ability is almost always judged relative to opponents, first of all. We don't judge how fast Mayweather is by watching him hit the pads at full speed, and we don't judge Foreman's power by watching him smash the heavy bag (or, at least, we shouldn't). We judge those abilities by what they do in the ring. If Ali slips Liston's jab, we can assume things about whether he'll slip Holmes' jab. If we get it wrong, it's most likely because we didn't watch the film closely enough. Given all the information about two fighters we could want, the outcome of a fantasy match-up should be perfectly decideable.

Now wait for someone to bring up Quantum Theory...