IBRO alltime rankings?

tonyevs · Post by **tonyevs** » 07 Dec 2005, 15:19

The experts that do a good job of finding the `missing` fights put together this list
http://www.ibroresearch.com/All%20Time%20Rankings.htm

Once again these lists cause major confusion..
The heavyweight list I will not argue with...Joe Louis is 1st, and thats all that matters

But Lt-Heavy?? Moore before a guy that beat him...3times??

Middle

again 1st place is a big favourite of mine..but the rest

very confusing...how does Mickey Walker get ranked so high

Welter

thats even better

the Sugar ray`s deserve their high places but how come Henry Armstrong gets almost top billing?

The `experts` I expect better from....once again the celebrity gets the nod

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 07 Dec 2005, 16:03

im guessing these list are more on accomplishments than just head to head,

and remember moore as far as historical signifigance goes accomplished more at light-H than charles, but is moore the better light-H??? NO

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 07 Dec 2005, 16:38

That aint neccessarily so.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 07 Dec 2005, 17:28

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:im guessing these list are more on accomplishments than just head to head,

and remember moore as far as historical signifigance goes accomplished more at light-H than charles, but is moore the better light-H??? NO

Well Moore was only 35 yo when he lost the 3rd time against Charles, so he hadn't reached his peak yet. If they met at their respective peaks, Moore may have bested Charles.

tonyevs · Post by **tonyevs** » 07 Dec 2005, 17:38

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:im guessing these list are more on accomplishments than just head to head,

and remember moore as far as historical signifigance goes accomplished more at light-H than charles, but is moore the better light-H??? NO

If indeed the list was based on accomplishments in that weight class then why does Sam Langford get rated in a couple of the lists, when he didn`t get a shot at any of the titles he could have well won.

The list for me contradicts itself, it has boxers who should be rated in certain divisions(Sam Langford) who never got a title chance.

Then spoils it by rating the Great Henry Armstrong in a division he never did much in.

Lists always stir up different views, but this one is by what I`d call real boxing historians...they should know better

Randineous · Post by **Randineous** » 07 Dec 2005, 18:57

If I'm recalling correctly and from what I understood, the IBRO didn't have a uniform standard set when compiling these rankings. Therefore, there were a few of them who used a "one division rule", which hurt both Charles' and Tunney's (who recieved the most first place votes @ 175, I believe) overall ranking at Light Heavyweight (they were instead ranked only at Heavyweight by those members).

Would've turned out better had they all compiled their rankings under the same standard, but as a whole, I think the rankings turned out pretty damn good and have acknowledged plenty of great fighters of the past who have been largely forgotten by most.

barry · Post by **barry** » 08 Dec 2005, 10:30

Over half of the membership did not vote.

-KOKid- · Post by **-KOKid-** » 08 Dec 2005, 12:38

I prefer to rate fighters in one division only and rather place them higher in that division based on achievements outside it.
I also don't like to rate fighters in divisions that didn't exist at the time they fought, i.e. Gene Tunney at Cruiserweight or Bob Fitzsimons at Super-Middleweight.

-KOKid-

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 09 Dec 2005, 02:58

Decagon wrote:
The Great John L wrote:Well Moore was only 35 yo when he lost the 3rd time against Charles, so he hadn't reached his peak yet. If they met at their respective peaks, Moore may have bested Charles.
You know, the controversy surrounding Moore's actual birth year was cleared up about 10 years ago, when the 1920 Census was made public. Moore was indeed born in 1916, as he claimed, so he was 29 when he first fought Charles and 31 when he last fought Charles.

is it a proven fact?? then how come it is not on the databse in record books??

that would mean moore was 31 for 3rd charles fight and 38 for the marciano bout.

makes alot more sense considering how much reflexes he had for a "41 year old" man going on 25 when he fougth marciano!

-KOKid- · Post by **-KOKid-** » 09 Dec 2005, 03:38

The dispute about Moore's age is settled in Mike Fitzgerald's excellent biography on Moore. He is listed as born in 1916 in the 1920 cencus.
I don't know why some sources haven't updated their records yet.
What's more strange is that Moore's mother was off by three years as to when she gave birth to him

There are plenty of other fighters who's age is still in dispute. I don't think someone has nailed Sonny Liston's actual age. The last documentary I saw on him the placed his birth in 1927 or 1928. Liston's father would carve the birthdates of all his 25 children on a tree near their house, but one day the landowner chopped the tree down and all the birthdates were lost. Add to that, Liston's father was a drunk and habitually cruel towards his children and might not have given a shit when their exact date of birth was. The census that states Liston's birth year as 1932 could be well off.
Liston certainly always looked significally older than his given age.

Another fighter whose age was always in doubt was Dennis Andries. Supposedly he had no clue hao old he was and kept giving the same age for years. At one press conference a reporter confronted him with this fact and asked which year he was born. Andries paused a moment and replied "I'm 35 years old".

Joe "Old Bones" Brown, one of my favorites, is recorded with different birthdates all depending on which source you use.

There are probably many more.

-KOKid-