Ten Commandments for Rating Boxers

[Ambling Alp II]

A major reason why we disagree on things is because we factor in different things when rating fighters.
Thought this would be fun. In no particular order, here is a list of the 10 Commandments of rating fighters.

1. Win/loss records. Look at it to get an initial clue of how good someone is. However, the difference in competition is so vast that you should not use it as evidence that someone is great or better than someone else. A fighter can always find an easy opponent to beat.
2. Title defenses. The sheer number don’t mean anything. At all. Zero. Ziltz. One guy can have a lot of title defenses against weak opponents and might not be that good at all. Another guy might have very few (if any) because he lost to a great opponent.
3. Do consider quality wins. The best opponent than fighter beat almost always says a lot about a fighter. The more quality wins, the better.
4. Losses-Factor in the quality of the opponent that a fighter lost to. To a lesser extent factor in how competitive the fight was. A close loss to a great fighter is a lot different than a convincing loss to a normal fighter.
5. Film/Video- Certainly consider it. However, be careful if you have only seen a guy a little. You might overrate him if you only see one of best performances or underrate him if you have only seen one of his worst.
6. You can rate a fighter in different weight classes. Just look at what he did in the weight class you are rating at the time.
7. Reputation – Most of the time a fighter’s reputation is ballpark, but not always. Keep an open mind.
8. Stages. -Take into consideration the stage of a fighter’s career when considering a particular fight. Age/wear and tear have to be factored in. ie- Trevor Berbik beating Ali in 1981 is not the same as Ken Norton doing it in 1973.
9. Excuses-Make sure they are legit. Don’t overuse them for your favorites. i.e. Your favorite fighter (in his mid-20s) loses and you claim it was because he was not motivated.
10. The sport didn’t start the day you became interested. Chances are, there are many fighters that that fought before you were born who you barely heard of who were better than fighters that you are familiar with and think are really good.

Feel free to add your own.

[elmersalsa]

Every person rates fighters differently.

[Seamus]

Title defenses can be overrated. Sometimes they can be pretty pathetic, and that's long before the days of alphabet titles. Biggest criteria is who a guy beat and what kinda form he was in at the time.

[BoxBuzz]

Those are good suggestions....not a one of them is zany.

I choose to pick a weight class and the fighter I'm rating is doomed to be eliminated in all others. It's arbitrary.

I don't disagree with #6. But by wording it the way you did...you include the option of "NOT". Which suits me.

Also......on another arbitrary and superfluous note, our database seems to choose the same path. I see no fighters appearing in more than one weight class.

It's not a religion...so I assume I won't be excommunicated.

[Keko]

Unfortunately not hold many criteria that are important to the rankings and how the man was on top. Title and defense are very important but also depends against who they were.
It is true that every person has his own criterion.

[scartissue]

This criteria is excellent. However, one that will always slip in to rock the boat a bit is that we are all fans of boxing. And by that I mean the era we grew up in watching the fights and the region we grew up in and maybe our preference to a certain style will always cloud our judgement a bit. Take me for instance. I - like probably all of us here - have made lists of the best of the best. Mine is very diverse and represents many ages - not that I'm going with diversity because I choose who impresses me - however, I must admit that I do have an inordinate amount of fighters from the 60s-70s, which was the era I first became a boxing nut. We all have our heroes I guess, but we can only satisfy ourselves here. If we're looking to satisfy others, then we are only rating a fighter whom we are 'supposed' to pick and not one whom we truly believe is best of the best. I'm droning on a bit, but I think you as fans know what I mean. Again, great criteria here.

[Kalan]

A major reason why we disagree on things is because we factor in different things when rating fighters.
Thought this would be fun. In no particular order, here is a list of the 10 Commandments of rating fighters.

1. Win/loss records. Look at it to get an initial clue of how good someone is. However, the difference in competition is so vast that you should not use it as evidence that someone is great or better than someone else. A fighter can always find an easy opponent to beat.
2. Title defenses. The sheer number don’t mean anything. At all. Zero. Ziltz. One guy can have a lot of title defenses against weak opponents and might not be that good at all. Another guy might have very few (if any) because he lost to a great opponent.
3. Do consider quality wins. The best opponent than fighter beat almost always says a lot about a fighter. The more quality wins, the better.
4. Losses-Factor in the quality of the opponent that a fighter lost to. To a lesser extent factor in how competitive the fight was. A close loss to a great fighter is a lot different than a convincing loss to a normal fighter.
5. Film/Video- Certainly consider it. However, be careful if you have only seen a guy a little. You might overrate him if you only see one of best performances or underrate him if you have only seen one of his worst.
6. You can rate a fighter in different weight classes. Just look at what he did in the weight class you are rating at the time.
7. Reputation – Most of the time a fighter’s reputation is ballpark, but not always. Keep an open mind.
8. Stages. -Take into consideration the stage of a fighter’s career when considering a particular fight. Age/wear and tear have to be factored in. ie- Trevor Berbik beating Ali in 1981 is not the same as Ken Norton doing it in 1973.
9. Excuses-Make sure they are legit. Don’t overuse them for your favorites. i.e. Your favorite fighter (in his mid-20s) loses and you claim it was because he was not motivated.
10. The sport didn’t start the day you became interested. Chances are, there are many fighters that that fought before you were born who you barely heard of who were better than fighters that you are familiar with and think are really good.

Feel free to add your own.

1.... W/L record??? Yory Boy Campas won his first 56 fights in a row...then got plowed by Felix Trinidad... Any good fighter can beat a 150 marshmallows

2... Title Defenses IS the Gold Standard... Anybody can rack up a zillion non-title wins against 3rd and 4th raters who you cannot fight in Title Defenses.

4... Low quality of winning opponents are excused by many... There's many excuses why Robinson lost to crude swingers like LaMotta, Fullmer, Basilio, etc.

5... You have to know what to look for.. How balanced, athletic, smooth, efficient, explosive, evasive, tireless, and consistent is he??? Be honest.

6... Correct!!! If you're rating Middleweights, rate him as a Middleweight... Don't tell me how great a Welterweight he was.

7... This is precisely what most old timers do not keep in mind -- when the subject matter is hyped up legends of yesteryear and their invincibility.

8... They'll just say Ali was past his prime in 1973 or Tyson was past his prime in 1990... ages 31 and 23 are way past prime ... for prime excuse makers.

9... Lack of motivation is just one of their excuses... Cocaine, weight, conditioning, poor corner work, time off, marital problems, coaching problems, poor management, busy scheduling, and illness are just a few problems that only their favorite old timers are allowed to have.

10... More likely they don't go back that far, and never saw these old timers perform in real time... They're relying on overblown myths and legends.

[littlepug]

interesting topic on which probably no one will ever agree but its good for a bit of debating, a good example for this topic is trying to sort out the top man between Benn, Eubank, froch and calzaghe, now most are gonna put carl and joe as 1 and 2 based on carls quality of opposition and joes unbeaten run, but others will argue that benns win over mclellenn and his title winning efforts in Italy and U.S rank above that, and eubank of course has marquee wins over Benn and Watson. Depending on what you like and how you rate fighters theres an argument for each of them being no1 (or 2, 3 or 4), don't pick the bones off my examples because I actually don't know which order I would actually put them in without a bit of thought ( not about that anyway)

[Ambling Alp II]

I was just using commonsense things that people need to taken into consideration. Probably the biggest mistake I see nowadays (you almost never saw this years a go) is people bringing up the number title defenses a fighter has.
It's hard to even know where to start when explaining why this is so silly. Here a few reasons:
-A fighter can win a title against a weak "champion" who really is not that good. He defend the title against challengers that aren't really that good. Even the mandatory defense are sometimes a joke. The #1 contender propped by some WBS organization. Also have to remember that the number challenger can't be the champion of another organization.

-You have to think about there now being four so-called "champions". Even if a champion wanted to take on the best challenger available, he might be able to since that challenger is taking on one of the other "champions" instead. So his mandatory defense might be against 8th best opponent in the division even if the rankings are legit.

-You also have to realize that at any given time sometimes a given weight division is strong with a lot of depth, a few years earlier or later it might be quite weak.

-And of course people seem to pick and choose very selectively when the number of title defenses should be used. Tommy Burns had more title defenses than George Foreman, Joe Frazier, Rocky Marciano, Sonny Liston etc. Nobody ranks Burns higher than these guys because it's obvious that his competition was not as good. Yet other fighters somehow were great because they had a bunch of meaningless title defenses.

[Bodyshot3]

All sensible stuff Ambling

[Keko]

Win/loss record is joke more than title defenses because everyone can shove a record against no name or worse competition. I guess you have to look only victory over the competition and mates will be at the defense titles.
In fact there is no clear rules or only victory over top competition are important were those for the title or not. Of course, if the belt that's even better and that's important.

[elmersalsa]

Win/loss record is joke more than title defenses because everyone can shove a record against no name or worse competition. I guess you have to look only victory over the competition and mates will be at the defense titles.
In fact there is no clear rules or only victory over top competition are important were those for the title or not. Of course, if the belt that's even better and that's important.

I agree with you, Kalan

[Keko]

It does not matter who he thinks but that is exactly so.

Too much of this burden discussions with him.


When Charles watch before safely victory over Walcott or defeat of Marciano for the title of victory over Harper or defeat of Zuany Relevant victories and defeats are the most important.

[Ambling Alp II]

Win/loss record is joke more than title defenses because everyone can shove a record against no name or worse competition. I guess you have to look only victory over the competition and mates will be at the defense titles.
In fact there is no clear rules or only victory over top competition are important were those for the title or not. Of course, if the belt that's even better and that's important.

I am trying to figure out what you are saying because it doesn't make very much grammatical sense at all.

I agree that win/loss can be more of a joke because the competition can be weaker.
If you are saying that title defense against a weak opponent is more impressive than a win over a clearly better opponent when there is no title on the line; I strongly disagree.

Particularly (but not always) in recent times with 3 and 4 "champions", the title defenses that a so-called champion has, can be a joke.
This is why you have to look at the quality of the opponent.
Let's say fighter A wins the title against a quality champion, beats a quality challenger in his first title defense, then loses the title in his second defense to a great fighter.
Let's say Fighter B beats a paper champion, then makes 10 title defenses against relatively weak competition.

Who was the better champion? Even though he only had one title defenses and Fighter B has 10 , Fighter A was the better champion.

[Counter-puncher]

I only have two criteria, wins/losses over ranked opponents, and the eye-test. I automatically discount post-peak losses or wins over post-peak opponents, EG De la Hoya > Chavez.

[elmersalsa]

So, that means that the great Joe Louis 25 title defenses don't matter? He held it for 12 years. That is one of the criterias of his overall greatness. A super champion that beat all challengers.

[Tomasino]

So, that means that the great Joe Louis 25 title defenses don't matter? He held it for 12 years. That is one of the criterias of his overall greatness. A super champion that beat all challengers.

It means a lot more than either Chris John or Omar Narvaez record. Defending the one World Title like Louis did means more than Alphabet soup defences

[Keko]

Win/loss record is joke more than title defenses because everyone can shove a record against no name or worse competition. I guess you have to look only victory over the competition and mates will be at the defense titles.
In fact there is no clear rules or only victory over top competition are important were those for the title or not. Of course, if the belt that's even better and that's important.

I am trying to figure out what you are saying because it doesn't make very much grammatical sense at all.

I agree that win/loss can be more of a joke because the competition can be weaker.
If you are saying that title defense against a weak opponent is more impressive than a win over a clearly better opponent when there is no title on the line; I strongly disagree.

Particularly (but not always) in recent times with 3 and 4 "champions", the title defenses that a so-called champion has, can be a joke.
This is why you have to look at the quality of the opponent.
Let's say fighter A wins the title against a quality champion, beats a quality challenger in his first title defense, then loses the title in his second defense to a great fighter.
Let's say Fighter B beats a paper champion, then makes 10 title defenses against relatively weak competition.

Who was the better champion? Even though he only had one title defenses and Fighter B has 10 , Fighter A was the better champion.

Nothing is good only to watch but we should not ignore the title and defend his title and especially against real competition.
It can only be an advantage to such a list.

[elmersalsa]

So, that means that the great Joe Louis 25 title defenses don't matter? He held it for 12 years. That is one of the criterias of his overall greatness. A super champion that beat all challengers.

It means a lot more than either Chris John or Omar Narvaez record. Defending the one World Title like Louis did means more than Alphabet soup defences

Then again, it comes down to the circumstances of the title defenses. The Brown Bomber had the "Bum of the Month" stretch. We all know that today's boxing scene is watered down. It's not pure like 40 or 50 years ago.

[Tomasino]

So, that means that the great Joe Louis 25 title defenses don't matter? He held it for 12 years. That is one of the criterias of his overall greatness. A super champion that beat all challengers.

It means a lot more than either Chris John or Omar Narvaez record. Defending the one World Title like Louis did means more than Alphabet soup defences

Then again, it comes down to the circumstances of the title defenses. The Brown Bomber had the "Bum of the Month" stretch. We all know that today's boxing scene is watered down. It's not pure like 40 or 50 years ago.

I agree. I think 'bum if the month' was mostly because Joe Louis was so good, nobody was expected to beat him.

[Ambling Alp II]

Joe Louis was great; well because he was great. It's not because of the 25 title defenses.
Some of the title defense were against quality competition; some of was not.
If he never fought Tony Musto, Johnny Paycheck, Jack Roper, Red Burman, and Gus Dorazio, he would have 20 title defenses. So did Larry Holmes. Louis would still be clearly better. Those kind of title defenses don't mean anything. His win over Schmeling is more important than those all combined.

[Kalan]

Joe Louis was great; well because he was great. It's not because of the 25 title defenses.
Some of the title defense were against quality competition; some of was not.
If he never fought Tony Musto, Johnny Paycheck, Jack Roper, Red Burman, and Gus Dorazio, he would have 20 title defenses. So did Larry Holmes. Louis would still be clearly better. Those kind of title defenses don't mean anything. His win over Schmeling is more important than those all combined.

Schmeling was screwed in the Louis rematch...After knocking Louis cold, Schmeling was supposed to get the next Title Fight with JImmy Braddock, but they kept Max on the hook for a Title Fight for 18 months to keep him inactive.. He was also shut out of fights with contenders.. After Schmeling knocked Louis out, Louis went on a tear fighting one fight after another.. Louis then got the Title Fight Schmeling was supposed to get.. Braddock hadn't fought in 2 years when he finally defended his title against Louis -- with his inactivity It's doubtful he would have beaten Schmeling if Max got a timely title shot right after he knocked Louis out.. After Louis won the title Schmeling was forced to wait again so Max finally started to take other fights.. Louis defended the title 4 times before he finally faced Schmeling which was his 12th fight in the 2 years since his KO loss,. One defense was versus Harry Thomas who Schmeling had recently knocked out.

After the KO by Louis, Schmeling fought only 1 round in the next 9 years... Conscription, the war, and reconstruction in Germany kept him inactive.

[BAD INTENTIONS]

A major reason why we disagree on things is because we factor in different things when rating fighters.
Thought this would be fun. In no particular order, here is a list of the 10 Commandments of rating fighters.

1. Win/loss records. Look at it to get an initial clue of how good someone is. However, the difference in competition is so vast that you should not use it as evidence that someone is great or better than someone else. A fighter can always find an easy opponent to beat.
2. Title defenses. The sheer number don’t mean anything. At all. Zero. Ziltz. One guy can have a lot of title defenses against weak opponents and might not be that good at all. Another guy might have very few (if any) because he lost to a great opponent.
3. Do consider quality wins. The best opponent than fighter beat almost always says a lot about a fighter. The more quality wins, the better.
4. Losses-Factor in the quality of the opponent that a fighter lost to. To a lesser extent factor in how competitive the fight was. A close loss to a great fighter is a lot different than a convincing loss to a normal fighter.
5. Film/Video- Certainly consider it. However, be careful if you have only seen a guy a little. You might overrate him if you only see one of best performances or underrate him if you have only seen one of his worst.
6. You can rate a fighter in different weight classes. Just look at what he did in the weight class you are rating at the time.
7. Reputation – Most of the time a fighter’s reputation is ballpark, but not always. Keep an open mind.
8. Stages. -Take into consideration the stage of a fighter’s career when considering a particular fight. Age/wear and tear have to be factored in. ie- Trevor Berbik beating Ali in 1981 is not the same as Ken Norton doing it in 1973.
9. Excuses-Make sure they are legit. Don’t overuse them for your favorites. i.e. Your favorite fighter (in his mid-20s) loses and you claim it was because he was not motivated.
10. The sport didn’t start the day you became interested. Chances are, there are many fighters that that fought before you were born who you barely heard of who were better than fighters that you are familiar with and think are really good.

Feel free to add your own.

Better than the original ten.

[Kalan]

So, that means that the great Joe Louis 25 title defenses don't matter? He held it for 12 years. That is one of the criterias of his overall greatness. A super champion that beat all challengers.

It means a lot more than either Chris John or Omar Narvaez record. Defending the one World Title like Louis did means more than Alphabet soup defences

Then again, it comes down to the circumstances of the title defenses. The Brown Bomber had the "Bum of the Month" stretch. We all know that today's boxing scene is watered down. It's not pure like 40 or 50 years ago.

What I would say is that even 40 or 50 years the competition was already much better than it was during the 1940's and 1950's... During Joe Louis's day a lot of guys fought to put food on the table and were terrible athletes... so guys who were good athletes could pad their records like crazy.. If you wanted to play professional football or basketball you needed to play well in high school and college and make the draft.. Nobody wants a bad player on their team..

But in contrast to that, if you wanted to be a boxer you could go to a local gym.. and after a few months---or even before then, and even if you're a pretty bad and unskilled fighter---you could get a license and a professional fight.. They pay so much for a 4-rounder or a 6-rounder...and a lot of guys would want to fight you because you're a likely win on their record.. They would often match 2 terrible boxers to fill out a card, and these could be entertaining matchups for a lot of fans.. It's like watching 2 swingers in a Tough Man contest, flinging and getting hit, and that's the only way some of those guys got wins.. However Boxing started to be much more regulated in the '60's, and more so today, than it ever was back in the 40's and 50's.. You don't see as many pot-bellied or ridiculous looking fighters like Tony Galento or Don Cockell in World Title Fights.

[elmersalsa]

It means a lot more than either Chris John or Omar Narvaez record. Defending the one World Title like Louis did means more than Alphabet soup defences

Then again, it comes down to the circumstances of the title defenses. The Brown Bomber had the "Bum of the Month" stretch. We all know that today's boxing scene is watered down. It's not pure like 40 or 50 years ago.

What I would say is that even 40 or 50 years the competition was already much better than it was during the 1940's and 1950's... During Joe Louis's day a lot of guys fought to put food on the table and were terrible athletes... so guys who were good athletes could pad their records like crazy.. If you wanted to play professional football or basketball you needed to play well in high school and college and make the draft.. Nobody wants a bad player on their team..

But in contrast to that, if you wanted to be a boxer you could go to a local gym.. and after a few months---or even before then, and even if you're a pretty bad and unskilled fighter---you could get a license and a professional fight.. They pay so much for a 4-rounder or a 6-rounder...and a lot of guys would want to fight you because you're a likely win on their record.. They would often match 2 terrible boxers to fill out a card, and these could be entertaining matchups for a lot of fans.. It's like watching 2 swingers in a Tough Man contest, flinging and getting hit, and that's the only way some of those guys got wins.. However Boxing started to be much more regulated in the '60's, and more so today, than it ever was back in the 40's and 50's.. You don't see as many pot-bellied or ridiculous looking fighters like Tony Galento or Don Cockell in World Title Fights.

I believe that you are an advocate for today's boxing. Are you saying that today's boxers are better than yesterday's, Kalan?