Look... In the 60's they had a "computer" that was made in Alabama figuring out that Marciano would beat Ali... and would win an all-time Heavyweight tournament... They broadcast the fights on radio and had Marciano beating (who else) Jack Dempsey in the finals..BoxBuzz wrote:Kalan wrote:BuzzBox your goofy comments are getting more strained and thoughtless as you go... Moore was supposed to destroy the badly overmatched Morrow.. He got knocked stiff by a massive underdog.., It wasn't the only time Moore was beaten by a green swinger.. A guy 2-2 beat him in his 18th fight
You have to realize that Moore wasn't fighting undefeated killers when he fought so often... He was fighting guys he was supposed to polish off in a couple of rounds and he was padding up his record like crazy... He fought a guy making his pro debut when he had about 90 fights... He fought a number of guys making their pro debut when he was very experienced. He also fought some tough fighters on occasion, but Moore lost a substantial number of those fights.
I not criticizing Moore so much... I think it's remarkable that a few fighters like Moore stayed as busy as they did---but they suffered many losses, and many times to underdogs.. Moore is ranked the 2nd greatest fighter in Boxing History by this website right behind undefeated Floyd Mayweather.. I do find that interesting since Ezzard Charles beat Moore 3 times in 3 fights, including knocking him out. Now, unlike Robinson, Moore fought some good boxers from time to time. He was 0-5 against Burley, Charles, and Patterson... He didn't generally manage to beat good boxers but he beat Harold Johnson 4 out of 5... However, if any of the top boxers today lose a fight the critics will jump down their throat with both feet.
Other "ALL-TIME" rankings I find interesting... Patterson is ranked 9th best Heavyweight. Sonny liston---who Patterson ducked for years---is ranked 18th
Frazier is ranked 11th best Heavyweight... George Foreman, who crushed Frazier like a roach is ranked 19th
Antonio Tarver is ranked 14th best Heavyweight in the History of Boxing---well ahead of George Foreman, Sonny Liston, Jack Dempsey, and Jim Jeffries -- that's fun stuff -- especially since Jim Jeffries is ranked 139th, well behind Kid Riviera and Tuffy Griffith... I'm not sure how that's supposed to work, since Jeffries beat Jim Corbett, Bob Fitzsimmons, Bob Armstrong, Peter Jackson, Tom Sharkey, and Hank Griffin ... and fought during a period of 20 and 25-round fights.
Kalan, the rating system here is meant to be understood correctly before you assess it. You need to do some homework. It's not subjective, it's purely mathematical. So once you understand that the numbers need to be taken in a certain context, then it gets easier to digest. Your not meant to think of it as rankings, but as general ratings. And it has a logarithmic equation that sorts out it's own oddities. BUT....you need to read about how that works, and it's inherent bias, before you can take away any meaning from the order.
it's some work, but it can be done. They have tweeked around with it a few times for fun, and it comes out just as odd each time.
Mostly giving fighters like YOU PREFER much preference. the computer just does not know how to deal with the "undefeated record". And usually sorts those on top.....sort of how you look at things. At one time the Valeros, Marcianos and Calzaghe's ruled the ratings. Maybe they still do, I haven't checked lately. But it's sort of interesting when you get the rationale for the formula and then attempt to justify it with logic. Much like you, It has has moments when it makes sense.
A computer system can only work if you devise an ingenious formula... Which you really can't... They've got a very dumb formula... Say you decided to take a boxer's winning ratio and his KO ratio... his opponents' winning ratios and KO ratios... and his opponents' opponents' winning ratios and KO ratios -- add them all up and divide by the number of total ratios crunched. You would still get skewed results. Let's say you took a boxer's winning ratio... his winning ratio in World Title Fights... his KO ratio... and his KO ratio in World Title Fights... add them together and divide by 4... You would still get skewed results, because what if he never got a Title Shot like Charley Burley??? ... It's better to have a knowledgeable human look at a boxer and determine if his skills and power are poor, fair, good, excellent, or outstanding -- and rank him according to who he would beat and who he wouldn't beat. The rankings would make more sense.
How did Jim Jeffries wind up 139th best Heavyweight when Jeffries beat a good number of historically important fighters and lost only 1 fight to a peak ATG Jack Johnson, after a 6 year layoff??? ... My guess is they wanted to skew the results toward boxers who fought more fights... Therefore, since Jeffries fought only 22 fights they're knocking the Hell out of him and giving him a ranking that makes absolutely no sense... But then how can they rank Tarver 14th best Heavyweight when he's beaten very few Heavyweights, hasn't fought any World Champion Heavyweights, and hasn't fought any very good or historically important Heavyweights??? And besides, Tarver really hasn't had that many career fights and has a significant number of losses on his record ... So whatever they're doing it's completely screwed.. They need to scrap it and start over.
Oh, well played sir
