Best heavyweights of the 1970s

[Boilermaker]

Similar to the 80s and other threads. I will start using solely the win loss records against quality of opponent.

1. Muhammed Ali W Foreman, Frazier, Norton and others
2. Holmes -W Shavers, Norton, Ocassio
3. Foreman - W Frazier, Norton, Shavers L young, Ali.
4. Frazier - W Ellis, Quarry L Ali, Foreman
5. Shavers -W Norton, young L Ali, Holmes, Lyle, Quarry
6. norton - W Quarry,Young L HOlmes, Ali, Foreman,Shavers
7. Occassio - W Young L Holmes
8. Michael Dokes - W Young
9. Young - W Foreman, Lyle L Ali, Nortron, Shavers, Occassio
10. Quarry L norton, Frazier, ali W Shavers, Lyle
11. Lyle - W Bugner, Shavers, Ellis L Young, foreman, ali, Quarry
12. Ellis - L Ali, Frazier, Lyle, Shavers W Chuvalo

I am sure this one will create some controversy. Quite a few people attacked Michael Spinks in the 80s thread and suggested that the controversial closeness of his fight with Holmes should count against him. I wonder if any of these same people will be brave enough to argue Ali's close encounters against rating in the top couple in the decade.

Occassio and Dokes and to a lesser extent Holmes were the big surprise performers for me. although obviously being young at the end of the decade helps. Leon spinks surprisingly didnt rate, despite drawing with Ali, not a single significant victory could be had and he had too many others losses. There are quite a few other good fighters whose best work was out of the decade, and who had some decent performances who did not rank and i am sure will cause a bit of a furore for some. Rather than name them, i will let others through them in for discussion and see whether or nto there are others that i have simply missed.

[Goodnight, Irene]

You're bordering on trolling at the moment.

Holmes ahead of Foreman and Frazier in the 70's!? Shavers ahead of Young, Quarry, Lyle!? Ocassio!? Are you fucken kidding me...

The system just does not work, man. It just doesnt have any worth.

[Controversial]

Similar to the 80s and other threads. I will start using solely the win loss records against quality of opponent.

1. Muhammed Ali W Foreman, Frazier, Norton and others
2. Holmes -W Shavers, Norton, Ocassio
3. Foreman - W Frazier, Norton, Shavers L young, Ali.
4. Frazier - W Ellis, Quarry L Ali, Foreman
5. Shavers -W Norton, young L Ali, Holmes, Lyle, Quarry
6. norton - W Quarry,Young L HOlmes, Ali, Foreman,Shavers
7. Occassio - W Young L Holmes
8. Michael Dokes - W Young
9. Young - W Foreman, Lyle L Ali, Nortron, Shavers, Occassio
10. Quarry L norton, Frazier, ali W Shavers, Lyle
11. Lyle - W Bugner, Shavers, Ellis L Young, foreman, ali, Quarry
12. Ellis - L Ali, Frazier, Lyle, Shavers W Chuvalo

How the hell can you have Ossie Ocasio as the 7th best heavyweight in the 70s? Sorry man but your method of rating fighters like that is totally floored.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

You're bordering on trolling at the moment.

Holmes ahead of Foreman and Frazier in the 70's!? Shavers ahead of Young, Quarry, Lyle!? Ocassio!? Are you fucken kidding me...

The system just does not work, man. It just doesnt have any worth.

No bordering about it, this guy is a mad man. This list might be more pathetic than his abomination of the 80's. Stop feeding him and let him continue to resurrect his trolling of Fitz thread. At least the virus is contained there.

[Ambling Alp]

Similar to the 80s and other threads. I will start using solely the win loss records against quality of opponent.

1. Muhammed Ali W Foreman, Frazier, Norton and others
2. Holmes -W Shavers, Norton, Ocassio
3. Foreman - W Frazier, Norton, Shavers L young, Ali.
4. Frazier - W Ellis, Quarry L Ali, Foreman
5. Shavers -W Norton, young L Ali, Holmes, Lyle, Quarry
6. norton - W Quarry,Young L HOlmes, Ali, Foreman,Shavers
7. Occassio - W Young L Holmes
8. Michael Dokes - W Young
9. Young - W Foreman, Lyle L Ali, Nortron, Shavers, Occassio
10. Quarry L norton, Frazier, ali W Shavers, Lyle
11. Lyle - W Bugner, Shavers, Ellis L Young, foreman, ali, Quarry
12. Ellis - L Ali, Frazier, Lyle, Shavers W Chuvalo

I am sure this one will create some controversy. Quite a few people attacked Michael Spinks in the 80s thread and suggested that the controversial closeness of his fight with Holmes should count against him. I wonder if any of these same people will be brave enough to argue Ali's close encounters against rating in the top couple in the decade.

Ocassio and Dokes and to a lesser extent Holmes were the big surprise performers for me. although obviously being young at the end of the decade helps. Leon spinks surprisingly didnt rate, despite drawing with Ali, not a single significant victory could be had and he had too many others losses. There are quite a few other good fighters whose best work was out of the decade, and who had some decent performances who did not rank and i am sure will cause a bit of a furore for some. Rather than name them, i will let others through them in for discussion and see whether or nto there are others that i have simply missed.

First, I noticed a couple of mistakes/oversights which may have made a difference. Foreman never beat Shavers; they never fought. You omitted Norton's win over Ali. Maybe you knew this and made typos?

The basic system of marking big wins and the losses is valid. The problem is that you overlooking two key factors:
1.The closeness of the fights. For example, Young oculd have easily got the decison over Norton, Ali and for that matter the first Ocasio fight. He did much better vs Norton than say Quarry did.
2. The stage of fighter's career. For example, Young was not the same fighter when he fought Ocasio as he was earlier. Ocasio is getting too much credit for his win.

[Boilermaker]

Similar to the 80s and other threads. I will start using solely the win loss records against quality of opponent.

1. Muhammed Ali W Foreman, Frazier, Norton and others
2. Holmes -W Shavers, Norton, Ocassio
3. Foreman - W Frazier, Norton, Shavers L young, Ali.
4. Frazier - W Ellis, Quarry L Ali, Foreman
5. Shavers -W Norton, young L Ali, Holmes, Lyle, Quarry
6. norton - W Quarry,Young L HOlmes, Ali, Foreman,Shavers
7. Occassio - W Young L Holmes
8. Michael Dokes - W Young
9. Young - W Foreman, Lyle L Ali, Nortron, Shavers, Occassio
10. Quarry L norton, Frazier, ali W Shavers, Lyle
11. Lyle - W Bugner, Shavers, Ellis L Young, foreman, ali, Quarry
12. Ellis - L Ali, Frazier, Lyle, Shavers W Chuvalo

How the hell can you have Ossie Ocasio as the 7th best heavyweight in the 70s? Sorry man but your method of rating fighters like that is totally floored.

He beat Jimmy Young, who was definitely a top 10 fighter under pretty much any system, twice. And he didnt lose to anybody who would suggest that he should be downgraded. Sure he lost to holmes but how many others from teh 70s who were ranked behind him would have lost to Holmes? Jimmy Young was coming off a win over Foreman, Lyle and a split decision loss to NOrton as well as a draw with Shavers. That is not a bad pedigree from the 70s. Occassio defeated him twice. Like you, i dont think that Occassio was as good a boxer or top 10, but how do you fairly downgrade somebody's position based on what you think might be the case, rather than what actually was the case. It would almost be like trying to say Chisora is a better fighter than Vitali in 2012.

The system may or may not work. It certainly has difficulties ranking out side the top 5 or so, for the obvious reasons that once you get outside the top 5, fighters often swap wins with each other, because they are not the standouts. And there is not usually the same class difference as between a top 5 fighter or the rest. There is also the problem that 10 yrs is a long time, and different fighters age or go in and out of form and/or focus, which is hardly adjusted.

The system generally seems to throw up the occassional fighters that no one really considers in the mix, who werent (or arent) heavyily hyped, but whose best wins are the same or similar to others who are heavily hyped. Ossie is a good example. I dont rate him over patterson for example and would definitely bet on him to lose to him, probably by ko, but his win over Jimmy Young was better than any win that Floyd Patterson had in the 70s. How can i put Paterson over Ossie without the wins to justify it. This system takes a lot of the bias out. The fact is that Ossie obviously was better in the decade than i ever thought. I doubt i would have rated him top 100 before yesterday.

For all the criticisms, the top 3 is nearly always correct or close to correct. Anyone mentioned in the top 10 is nearly always at least a top 20 fighter adn there is only ever one or two fighters who are undeservedly left out and that is usually only either by a few spots. Everyone is familiar with the 70s on, so it is easy to make Saad style criticisms saying a, b or c shouldnt be there, without offering a reason and people know what you mean. As the decades count down less often and we have less film, it will be interesting to see if any unknowns are thrown up.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Your top 3 isn't close to right. And the funniest thing in all of this nonsense is you don't even recognize the biggest fight in history in your data. These lists are ridiculous.

[klompton]

Similar to the 80s and other threads. I will start using solely the win loss records against quality of opponent.

1. Muhammed Ali W Foreman, Frazier, Norton and others
2. Holmes -W Shavers, Norton, Ocassio
3. Foreman - W Frazier, Norton, Shavers L young, Ali.
4. Frazier - W Ellis, Quarry L Ali, Foreman
5. Shavers -W Norton, young L Ali, Holmes, Lyle, Quarry
6. norton - W Quarry,Young L HOlmes, Ali, Foreman,Shavers
7. Occassio - W Young L Holmes
8. Michael Dokes - W Young
9. Young - W Foreman, Lyle L Ali, Nortron, Shavers, Occassio
10. Quarry L norton, Frazier, ali W Shavers, Lyle
11. Lyle - W Bugner, Shavers, Ellis L Young, foreman, ali, Quarry
12. Ellis - L Ali, Frazier, Lyle, Shavers W Chuvalo

I am sure this one will create some controversy. Quite a few people attacked Michael Spinks in the 80s thread and suggested that the controversial closeness of his fight with Holmes should count against him. I wonder if any of these same people will be brave enough to argue Ali's close encounters against rating in the top couple in the decade.

Occassio and Dokes and to a lesser extent Holmes were the big surprise performers for me. although obviously being young at the end of the decade helps. Leon spinks surprisingly didnt rate, despite drawing with Ali, not a single significant victory could be had and he had too many others losses. There are quite a few other good fighters whose best work was out of the decade, and who had some decent performances who did not rank and i am sure will cause a bit of a furore for some. Rather than name them, i will let others through them in for discussion and see whether or nto there are others that i have simply missed.

retarded

[Boilermaker]

Similar to the 80s and other threads. I will start using solely the win loss records against quality of opponent.

1. Muhammed Ali W Foreman, Frazier, Norton and others
2. Holmes -W Shavers, Norton, Ocassio
3. Foreman - W Frazier, Norton, Shavers L young, Ali.
4. Frazier - W Ellis, Quarry L Ali, Foreman
5. Shavers -W Norton, young L Ali, Holmes, Lyle, Quarry
6. norton - W Quarry,Young L HOlmes, Ali, Foreman,Shavers
7. Occassio - W Young L Holmes
8. Michael Dokes - W Young
9. Young - W Foreman, Lyle L Ali, Nortron, Shavers, Occassio
10. Quarry L norton, Frazier, ali W Shavers, Lyle
11. Lyle - W Bugner, Shavers, Ellis L Young, foreman, ali, Quarry
12. Ellis - L Ali, Frazier, Lyle, Shavers W Chuvalo

I am sure this one will create some controversy. Quite a few people attacked Michael Spinks in the 80s thread and suggested that the controversial closeness of his fight with Holmes should count against him. I wonder if any of these same people will be brave enough to argue Ali's close encounters against rating in the top couple in the decade.

Ocassio and Dokes and to a lesser extent Holmes were the big surprise performers for me. although obviously being young at the end of the decade helps. Leon spinks surprisingly didnt rate, despite drawing with Ali, not a single significant victory could be had and he had too many others losses. There are quite a few other good fighters whose best work was out of the decade, and who had some decent performances who did not rank and i am sure will cause a bit of a furore for some. Rather than name them, i will let others through them in for discussion and see whether or nto there are others that i have simply missed.

First, I noticed a couple of mistakes/oversights which may have made a difference. Foreman never beat Shavers; they never fought. You omitted Norton's win over Ali. Maybe you knew this and made typos?

Shavers was a typo. It should, of course, have read Lyle.

Regarding Norton and Ali, Norton lost the series to Ali. I have tried to be consistent with this across the decades. If you win, you win and if you lose, you lose and if you have one win a piece, you draw. That is after all the reality of the head to head situation between any two fighters.




The basic system of marking big wins and the losses is valid. The problem is that you overlooking two key factors:
1.The closeness of the fights. For example, Young oculd have easily got the decison over Norton, Ali and for that matter the first Ocasio fight. He did much better vs Norton than say Quarry did.

I have been going straight off of boxrec listed results. Starting with the champions and the obvious candidates to list their best wins, usually it will reveal a few losses or fights to other known guys, who will then rank lower (or higher depending on other results). I usually only list the wins or losses of guys who themself crop up on the top 10 lists, meaning other wins are pretty much meaningless against lower ranked fighters, but that is only fair since you would expect any top 10 fighter to beat fighters who are not top 10.

Regarding the closeness of fights, it is up to others to hold discussions and make these decisions. i am, from a starting point at least, trying to stick with official results, because that is how that you win or lose in any sport. Boxing is the only sport where the score does not matter to so many people who actually won the fight. I know there are reason for this sometimes, but results are results. It is like some people would watch the gymnastics at the olympics, and talk as if the bronze medal winner was the best at the meet because they are their favourite, dismissing anyone who thinks the gold medalists should win.

the other problem with looking at closeness of losses is that again you bring in the personal bias and how you think people did. At the end of the day a loss is a loss in any sport. You dont see Liverpool, or the Mets or Lakers or virtually any other sport giving 3 points for the win and 2 points for nearly winning. If a system was to do this in boxing i suppose you could have bonus points for the KO or not getting KOd but it opens up to too much bias.

2. The stage of fighter's career. For example, Young was not the same fighter when he fought Ocasio as he was earlier. Ocasio is getting too much credit for his win.

Well this is a good point, and there is the possibility that you are right on this one, and this is why have thrown it up for discussion and in some other decades i have even agreed to change the ratings as i may end up with this one. That is the idea of putting the lists up for discussion. I intend to run these threads until we do all the decades, i will then merge the lists and create much more dispute. I also intend to modify the lists and discussions (eventually) so that we get a consensus or close to consensus as is possible and merge, and also i will probably do a personal list and merge, just to see what it is like and maybe even compare the three.

On the particular issue of Jimmy Young though, I am not quite convinced this is necessarilly the case. Looking solely at boxrec for a starting point, Jimmy started slowly in the early 70s with mixed results up until the KO by Shavers. He then put a decent run togetehr in 1973 to 76 where he drew with Shavers, beat Lyle and then challenged Ali. It is clear that by the Ali fight, he was in the top of his form, and although losing to Ali (as is expected) he put up a pretty good performance. In 1976 and 1977, Young continued his good form and comparing the two Lyle results at least you would have to say that right through 77 he was at the top of his game. Even the Norton loss, showed that he could still compete with the very best fighters in the decade, since norton is an accepted top 5 or so fighter who himself at close fights with Ali the greatest ever. He must have still been competing at the very upper echelon even if he might not have been quite as good as he was a year or two earlier. It was his very next fight just 6 months later that Jimmy Young lost to Ossie Occassio. How is it then fair or possible to not give Ossie credit for this win? In fact, even if we credited close losses and the rest adn we said that Jimmy should have beaten Ossie, the fact is that Ossie just fought a top 10 guy real close. You have to give him credit for the young win, i would have thought. In fact, if it was Foreman and not Ossie who fought those fights, i am pretty sure that the consensus would be that the fights prove Foreman was better than young. Same with Norton or many others.

[Controversial]

3. Foreman - W Shavers (?)

6. norton - W Quarry,Young (win over Ali missing)

He beat Jimmy Young, who was definitely a top 10 fighter under pretty much any system, twice. And he didnt lose to anybody who would suggest that he should be downgraded. Sure he lost to holmes but how many others from teh 70s who were ranked behind him would have lost to Holmes? Jimmy Young was coming off a win over Foreman, Lyle and a split decision loss to NOrton as well as a draw with Shavers. That is not a bad pedigree from the 70s. Occassio defeated him twice.

The system may or may not work.

As someone else has pointed out Foreman never fought Shavers and Norton had a win over Ali.

The problem is Ocasio only fought Young and Holmes, all the other fighters he fought were nobodies. Also Ocasio was thought to be lucky to get the nod over Young in their first fight. The Young results look good but it must also be remembered that Young was a fairly inconsistent fighter. I doubt any boxing fan would even mention Ocasio's name when talking about 70s heavyweight boxing.

I can see what your trying to do but ultimately the system doesn't work, Ocasio being a prime example.

Also what about Joe Bugner? Surely he is comparable to Ocasio and fought much better opposition and wins over rated fighters.

Wins over Henry Cooper, Jimmy Ellis, Richard Dunn, Mac Foster and losses to Ali, Lyle, Frazier

[Giancarlo]

I assume you have only just started "following" boxing.

[Boilermaker]

Similar to the 80s and other threads. I will start using solely the win loss records against quality of opponent.

1. Muhammed Ali W Foreman, Frazier, Norton and others
2. Holmes -W Shavers, Norton, Ocassio
3. Foreman - W Frazier, Norton, Shavers L young, Ali.
4. Frazier - W Ellis, Quarry L Ali, Foreman
5. Shavers -W Norton, young L Ali, Holmes, Lyle, Quarry
6. norton - W Quarry,Young L HOlmes, Ali, Foreman,Shavers
7. Occassio - W Young L Holmes
8. Michael Dokes - W Young
9. Young - W Foreman, Lyle L Ali, Nortron, Shavers, Occassio
10. Quarry L norton, Frazier, ali W Shavers, Lyle
11. Lyle - W Bugner, Shavers, Ellis L Young, foreman, ali, Quarry
12. Ellis - L Ali, Frazier, Lyle, Shavers W Chuvalo

I am sure this one will create some controversy. Quite a few people attacked Michael Spinks in the 80s thread and suggested that the controversial closeness of his fight with Holmes should count against him. I wonder if any of these same people will be brave enough to argue Ali's close encounters against rating in the top couple in the decade.

Occassio and Dokes and to a lesser extent Holmes were the big surprise performers for me. although obviously being young at the end of the decade helps. Leon spinks surprisingly didnt rate, despite drawing with Ali, not a single significant victory could be had and he had too many others losses. There are quite a few other good fighters whose best work was out of the decade, and who had some decent performances who did not rank and i am sure will cause a bit of a furore for some. Rather than name them, i will let others through them in for discussion and see whether or nto there are others that i have simply missed.

retarded

You got a prime source to back that up?

Or are you relying on second hand rumours from people living thousands of miles away again.

[Boilermaker]

3. Foreman - W Shavers (?)

6. norton - W Quarry,Young (win over Ali missing)

He beat Jimmy Young, who was definitely a top 10 fighter under pretty much any system, twice. And he didnt lose to anybody who would suggest that he should be downgraded. Sure he lost to holmes but how many others from teh 70s who were ranked behind him would have lost to Holmes? Jimmy Young was coming off a win over Foreman, Lyle and a split decision loss to NOrton as well as a draw with Shavers. That is not a bad pedigree from the 70s. Occassio defeated him twice.

The system may or may not work.

As someone else has pointed out Foreman never fought Shavers and Norton had a win over Ali.

see above

The problem is Ocasio only fought Young and Holmes, all the other fighters he fought were nobodies. Also Ocasio was thought to be lucky to get the nod over Young in their first fight. The Young results look good but it must also be remembered that Young was a fairly inconsistent fighter. I doubt any boxing fan would even mention Ocasio's name when talking about 70s heavyweight boxing.

Agreed.

But can i ask this, if Malik Scott fights Vitali tomorrow and wins a close SD, then rematches him and wins again, where should he rank in the last 10 yrs?

I can see what your trying to do but ultimately the system doesn't work, Ocasio being a prime example.

Also what about Joe Bugner? Surely he is comparable to Ocasio and fought much better opposition and wins over rated fighters.

Wins over Henry Cooper, Jimmy Ellis, Richard Dunn, Mac Foster and losses to Ali, Lyle, Frazier

[/quote]

He certainly fought better fighters but he lost to Ali, Lyle and Frazier. The same Lyle who was beaten twice by Jimmy Young. I looked at all the names of his wins. None of them had listed wins over any top 10 fighters in the 70s which surprised me.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

What made Ocasio/Young more important than the Fight Of the century? That one slipped your mind? Not relevant enough to list or factor in?

You can start the proof for retarded with that.

[Boilermaker]

What made Ocasio/Young more important than the Fight Of the century? That one slipped your mind? Not relevant enough to list or factor in?

You can start the proof for retarded with that.

are you suggesting frazier should rate over ali?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

No, but he damn sure should get credit for beating him and he easily rates over Holmes. It was by far the biggest fight of the 70's and you didn't even list it. Surely even an ass clown of your magnitude has to admit that error?

[Thunder and Lightning]

Similar to the 80s and other threads. I will start using solely the win loss records against quality of opponent.

1. Muhammed Ali W Foreman, Frazier, Norton and others
2. Holmes -W Shavers, Norton, Ocassio
3. Foreman - W Frazier, Norton, Shavers L young, Ali.
4. Frazier - W Ellis, Quarry L Ali, Foreman
5. Shavers -W Norton, young L Ali, Holmes, Lyle, Quarry
6. norton - W Quarry,Young L HOlmes, Ali, Foreman,Shavers
7. Occassio - W Young L Holmes
8. Michael Dokes - W Young
9. Young - W Foreman, Lyle L Ali, Nortron, Shavers, Occassio
10. Quarry L norton, Frazier, ali W Shavers, Lyle
11. Lyle - W Bugner, Shavers, Ellis L Young, foreman, ali, Quarry
12. Ellis - L Ali, Frazier, Lyle, Shavers W Chuvalo

Okay I know others have commented on this thing with Holmes and Occassio but i just can´t help myself, I think you are doing the same thing here as you did with Marvis in the 80s you WAY overrate the wins against a single good fighter in that case Smith in this case Young, like Smith, Young was a very good fighter but lost his share of fights and ended the 70s with a record of 22-9-2 so just using your system I don´t get why he is such a big cheese.

In my opinion the 70s is probably the best decade in boxing history but your list doesn´t realy give it much credit i mean your #7 and 8 had 15 fights each in the decade and didn´t realy fight any of the big names except Holmes whom Occassio lost to.
By the way in your system shouldn´t Leon Spinks be rated quite high I mean he got a "draw" (1-1 matchups) with Ali a feat noone else can claim in your system that must atleast be better than wins against Young, not making a case for Spinks just making a point.

[Boilermaker]

Similar to the 80s and other threads. I will start using solely the win loss records against quality of opponent.

1. Muhammed Ali W Foreman, Frazier, Norton and others
2. Holmes -W Shavers, Norton, Ocassio
3. Foreman - W Frazier, Norton, Shavers L young, Ali.
4. Frazier - W Ellis, Quarry L Ali, Foreman
5. Shavers -W Norton, young L Ali, Holmes, Lyle, Quarry
6. norton - W Quarry,Young L HOlmes, Ali, Foreman,Shavers
7. Occassio - W Young L Holmes
8. Michael Dokes - W Young
9. Young - W Foreman, Lyle L Ali, Nortron, Shavers, Occassio
10. Quarry L norton, Frazier, ali W Shavers, Lyle
11. Lyle - W Bugner, Shavers, Ellis L Young, foreman, ali, Quarry
12. Ellis - L Ali, Frazier, Lyle, Shavers W Chuvalo

Okay I know others have commented on this thing with Holmes and Occassio but i just can´t help myself, I think you are doing the same thing here as you did with Marvis in the 80s you WAY overrate the wins against a single good fighter in that case Smith in this case Young, like Smith, Young was a very good fighter but lost his share of fights and ended the 70s with a record of 22-9-2 so just using your system I don´t get why he is such a big cheese.

In my opinion the 70s is probably the best decade in boxing history but your list doesn´t realy give it much credit i mean your #7 and 8 had 15 fights each in the decade and didn´t realy fight any of the big names except Holmes whom Occassio lost to.
By the way in your system shouldn´t Leon Spinks be rated quite high I mean he got a "draw" (1-1 matchups) with Ali a feat noone else can claim in your system that must atleast be better than wins against Young, not making a case for Spinks just making a point.

I think you are correct, and the timing definitely helps. If Ossie beat young 3 years earlier, i think that he would have had more big fights in the 70s and he would get found out by all on the list and quite a few off the list. Fact is though, that is not what happened. If you like, luck plays its role and a large role in the make up of the top 10.

Regarding number 7 & 8 it is true that each had limited fights. Actually, you coudl probably throw in the number 2 in that conversation also. This is one of the problems with any rating system. How do you compare a Muhammed Ali, for example who dominated for such a long time against such great fighters against a fighter like Joe Frazier whose style means he must have less fights but, who when both were at their very best (arguably) Frazier defeated Ali. Or a Rocky Marciano who didnt fight as long, but was never ever beaten in a fight. There is no correct answer. Same goes for other fighters. By beating a good fighter, Ossie has beaten a fighter the same quality or better than others who most think should rate over him. We cant fairly downgrade his career because we think he might have lost to fighters that others actually did lose to, can we?

Of Course the real argument here, is how good was the Young win. I rate young pretty highly, but it was pointed out that he was a little past his best and he was also a little inconsistent. The placing of Young does have a great effect on the ranking of Occassio because without it he isnt top 20 Where do you think Jimmy Young should fairly rank in the list.

Regarding Leon, I did look at him of course. He drew with Ali overall so that is not a win under the system. We all know Ali's condition, but even allowing for that, Spinks has the draw with LeDoux, who is not a ranked fighter and the loss to Coetzee who is also unranked. It is possible to use the Ali win to rank him near Ali, but those to results drag him down. Neitehr LeDoux or Coetzee had any wins to place them anywhere near the top 10 unless you consider Spinks. I can see why some might rank him higher under the system though.

[Controversial]

Agreed.

But can i ask this, if Malik Scott fights Vitali tomorrow and wins a close SD, then rematches him and wins again, where should he rank in the last 10 yrs?

He certainly fought better fighters but he lost to Ali, Lyle and Frazier. The same Lyle who was beaten twice by Jimmy Young. I looked at all the names of his wins. None of them had listed wins over any top 10 fighters in the 70s which surprised me.

Now your comparing a heavyweight champion, who has pretty much dominated the division, to a fighter who never won a title and was often inconsistent to justify your rankings. On his night Young was a very awkward defensive fighter and had some good wins under his belt, but he also had his fair share of losses and Ocasio happened to beat him twice, albeit one disputed win.

To then use those wins to propel Ocasio to the dizzy heights of the 7th best heavyweight of the 1970s, arguably the greatest era of heavyweight boxing, is stretching it a bit too far. Your also leaving out that Holmes destroyed Ocasio. It was a very one sided fight with Holmes dropping him 4 times in the 7th, once with a jab.

[Boilermaker]

Agreed.

But can i ask this, if Malik Scott fights Vitali tomorrow and wins a close SD, then rematches him and wins again, where should he rank in the last 10 yrs?

He certainly fought better fighters but he lost to Ali, Lyle and Frazier. The same Lyle who was beaten twice by Jimmy Young. I looked at all the names of his wins. None of them had listed wins over any top 10 fighters in the 70s which surprised me.

Now your comparing a heavyweight champion, who has pretty much dominated the division, to a fighter who never won a title and was often inconsistent to justify your rankings. On his night Young was a very awkward defensive fighter and had some good wins under his belt, but he also had his fair share of losses and Ocasio happened to beat him twice, albeit one disputed win.

Okay, how about if it was Russian Chagaev that he beat twice, Or maybe Valuev, Byrd or ruiz. Wouldnt that entitle him to rank over them?

To then use those wins to propel Ocasio to the dizzy heights of the 7th best heavyweight of the 1970s, arguably the greatest era of heavyweight boxing, is stretching it a bit too far. Your also leaving out that Holmes destroyed Ocasio. It was a very one sided fight with Holmes dropping him 4 times in the 7th, once with a jab.

Holmes was better than both, to be fair.

Regarding Young, where would you suggest that young be ranked. This greatly affects occassio. He has the Foreman win (with others) but he has some key losses as well. Maybe Young should be outside the top 10 there are some factors which suggest that foreman was not in the same form as the guy who obliterated Frazier and Norton? This would fix the Occassio/Dokes anormality wouldnt it? Do you think that YOung is placed fairly in relation to guys like Lyle, Ellis etc.

[Giancarlo]

Compared to this bloke, it could be argued that Irene and Nancy are knowledgeable posters.

[Controversial]

Holmes was better than both, to be fair.

Regarding Young, where would you suggest that young be ranked. This greatly affects occassio. He has the Foreman win (with others) but he has some key losses as well. Maybe Young should be outside the top 10 there are some factors which suggest that foreman was not in the same form as the guy who obliterated Frazier and Norton? This would fix the Occassio/Dokes anormality wouldnt it? Do you think that YOung is placed fairly in relation to guys like Lyle, Ellis etc.

Young was one of the better fighters in the 1970s, I don't think many people would have a problem with him being in a top 10 list of heavyweights from the 1970s. He was an awkward son of a gun, not very exciting and people weren't queuing up to fight him. However he was arguably on the slide when Ocasio fought him, it has been said he never got over the loss to Norton and his heart went from the game. Your ranking system doesn't take this into account.

Even on a purely head to head basis Ocasio wouldn't fare well against most of the fighters from the 1970s, I think the Young wins are clouding the issue.

John Tate was far more successful than Ocasio, Tate was an unbeaten 20-0 and world champion in the 1970s so that sort of shows how your ranking system is unbalanced.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Under this system, Roy Jones and Montell Griffin are equal because their series is, "1-1"

Im really wondering now if this isnt just an elaborate wind-up. The guy is very sincere in his explanations and is holding true to a system my 8-year-old nephew could work out is royally FUCKD.

Troll or moron, either way, hes headed for the Block List.

[Thunder and Lightning]

Similar to the 80s and other threads. I will start using solely the win loss records against quality of opponent.

1. Muhammed Ali W Foreman, Frazier, Norton and others
2. Holmes -W Shavers, Norton, Ocassio
3. Foreman - W Frazier, Norton, Shavers L young, Ali.
4. Frazier - W Ellis, Quarry L Ali, Foreman
5. Shavers -W Norton, young L Ali, Holmes, Lyle, Quarry
6. norton - W Quarry,Young L HOlmes, Ali, Foreman,Shavers
7. Occassio - W Young L Holmes
8. Michael Dokes - W Young
9. Young - W Foreman, Lyle L Ali, Nortron, Shavers, Occassio
10. Quarry L norton, Frazier, ali W Shavers, Lyle
11. Lyle - W Bugner, Shavers, Ellis L Young, foreman, ali, Quarry
12. Ellis - L Ali, Frazier, Lyle, Shavers W Chuvalo

Okay I know others have commented on this thing with Holmes and Occassio but i just can´t help myself, I think you are doing the same thing here as you did with Marvis in the 80s you WAY overrate the wins against a single good fighter in that case Smith in this case Young, like Smith, Young was a very good fighter but lost his share of fights and ended the 70s with a record of 22-9-2 so just using your system I don´t get why he is such a big cheese.

In my opinion the 70s is probably the best decade in boxing history but your list doesn´t realy give it much credit i mean your #7 and 8 had 15 fights each in the decade and didn´t realy fight any of the big names except Holmes whom Occassio lost to.
By the way in your system shouldn´t Leon Spinks be rated quite high I mean he got a "draw" (1-1 matchups) with Ali a feat noone else can claim in your system that must atleast be better than wins against Young, not making a case for Spinks just making a point.

I think you are correct, and the timing definitely helps. If Ossie beat young 3 years earlier, i think that he would have had more big fights in the 70s and he would get found out by all on the list and quite a few off the list. Fact is though, that is not what happened. If you like, luck plays its role and a large role in the make up of the top 10.

Regarding number 7 & 8 it is true that each had limited fights. Actually, you coudl probably throw in the number 2 in that conversation also. This is one of the problems with any rating system. How do you compare a Muhammed Ali, for example who dominated for such a long time against such great fighters against a fighter like Joe Frazier whose style means he must have less fights but, who when both were at their very best (arguably) Frazier defeated Ali. Or a Rocky Marciano who didnt fight as long, but was never ever beaten in a fight. There is no correct answer. Same goes for other fighters. By beating a good fighter, Ossie has beaten a fighter the same quality or better than others who most think should rate over him. We cant fairly downgrade his career because we think he might have lost to fighters that others actually did lose to, can we?

Of Course the real argument here, is how good was the Young win. I rate young pretty highly, but it was pointed out that he was a little past his best and he was also a little inconsistent. The placing of Young does have a great effect on the ranking of Occassio because without it he isnt top 20 Where do you think Jimmy Young should fairly rank in the list.

Regarding Leon, I did look at him of course. He drew with Ali overall so that is not a win under the system. We all know Ali's condition, but even allowing for that, Spinks has the draw with LeDoux, who is not a ranked fighter and the loss to Coetzee who is also unranked. It is possible to use the Ali win to rank him near Ali, but those to results drag him down. Neitehr LeDoux or Coetzee had any wins to place them anywhere near the top 10 unless you consider Spinks. I can see why some might rank him higher under the system though.

The thing is that because this is 2012 everybody knows were the careers of Ossie and Dokes went and most people take that into consideration when they make a list like this, even if you don´t though I think your system is faulty i mean it is like placing Marciano ahead of Louis because he beat him or Buster Douglas ahead of Tyson you can´t just rank based on a single win or loss there is alot of factores at play.

Young at his best is definetly a top ten fighter he was inconsistent but still very good when he did his best however your system seams to be based just on wins and losses therefore like i said simply going by your system I don't get how fighters like Young and Smith can be ranked so high when you lower other fighters for a single loss (i e Witherspoon), my question is do you mean where i think Young should rank in your system or by capability.

My point with Spinks is that 8 out of the 12 fighters on the list lost to Ali and Spinks got a "draw" getting that against the best fighter in the era arguably of alltime should then warrant a top position in your system, like i said some times a loss means alot and othertimes it's overlooked.

[Boilermaker]

Under this system, Roy Jones and Montell Griffin are equal because their series is, "1-1"

Im really wondering now if this isnt just an elaborate wind-up. The guy is very sincere in his explanations and is holding true to a system my 8-year-old nephew could work out is royally FUCKD.

Troll or moron, either way, hes headed for the Block List.

I havent looked into either career of these fighters, but i am willing to bet that Jones Jr beat more than a few other ranked fighters that entitle him to be ranked higher than Montel Griffin. Am i wrong?