Where does Evander Holyfield rank among all time great Heavyweights?

[gilgamesh]

Let's just say I agree with you all and I drop Ruddock, Williams and Thomas all down to Fringe contender status. You know what difference that makes to Morrison's score? 3 goddamn points, and he's still ahead of Norton.

So all this arguing is much ado about nothing.

Even if I were to concede that Thomas, Ruddock and Williams were 2's instead of 3's when they fought Morrison. It makes a miniscule difference to his overall career. He'd just have a few less "Quality" wins. He'd still have the 1 win that's better than all but 1 of Norton's and He'd still have lost less fights, been knocked out less times, and won more frequently in exciting fashion. Morrison comes out ahead any which way you Slice it.

And I'm probably being generous to Norton by considering his victory over Quarry to be a Gold Star victory.

[keithmoonhangover]

Razor Ruddock

Dude, you could have a career in stand up.

Ruddock was 13 years into his career when he fought Morrison. He had lost 4 fights total. 3 of them against Hall of Famers. If you watch his fight with Morrison and you see a helpless, shot fighter. Then you need to get your eyes checked. He certainly looks like a man plenty capable of handling himself to me.

Ruddock had fought once in almost three years since getting demolished by Lennox Lewis. He was also twelve pounds heavier when he fought Morrison, than when he fought Lewis and most of it was fat. He wasn't in great shape for the Morrison fight and he sure as shit wasn't in his prime.

So I ask again, who was the best fighter Morrison beat in their prime?

[Controversial]

Let's just say I agree with you all and I drop Ruddock, Williams and Thomas all down to Fringe contender status. You know what difference that makes to Morrison's score? 3 goddamn points, and he's still ahead of Norton.

So all this arguing is much ado about nothing.

Even if I were to concede that Thomas, Ruddock and Williams were 2's instead of 3's when they fought Morrison. It makes a miniscule difference to his overall career. He'd just have a few less "Quality" wins. He'd still have the 1 win that's better than all but 1 of Norton's and He'd still have lost less fights, been knocked out less times, and won more frequently in exciting fashion. Morrison comes out ahead any which way you Slice it.

And I'm probably being generous to Norton by considering his victory over Quarry to be a Gold Star victory.

The problem with your scoring method is it's highly subjective and unique to you. Opinions vary on lots of things, judges often see fights very different. If you asked us all to come up with a way of ranking fighters we would all do it different. What tells you your system is floored is that no one agrees with you on this.

[gilgamesh]

Dude, you could have a career in stand up.

Ruddock was 13 years into his career when he fought Morrison. He had lost 4 fights total. 3 of them against Hall of Famers. If you watch his fight with Morrison and you see a helpless, shot fighter. Then you need to get your eyes checked. He certainly looks like a man plenty capable of handling himself to me.

Ruddock had fought once in almost three years since getting demolished by Lennox Lewis. He was also twelve pounds heavier when he fought Morrison, than when he fought Lewis and most of it was fat. He wasn't in great shape for the Morrison fight and he sure as shit wasn't in his prime.

So I ask again, who was the best fighter Morrison beat in their prime?

Is Daniel Dubois past his prime going into the Wardley fight?

[gilgamesh]

Let's just say I agree with you all and I drop Ruddock, Williams and Thomas all down to Fringe contender status. You know what difference that makes to Morrison's score? 3 goddamn points, and he's still ahead of Norton.

So all this arguing is much ado about nothing.

Even if I were to concede that Thomas, Ruddock and Williams were 2's instead of 3's when they fought Morrison. It makes a miniscule difference to his overall career. He'd just have a few less "Quality" wins. He'd still have the 1 win that's better than all but 1 of Norton's and He'd still have lost less fights, been knocked out less times, and won more frequently in exciting fashion. Morrison comes out ahead any which way you Slice it.

And I'm probably being generous to Norton by considering his victory over Quarry to be a Gold Star victory.

The problem with your scoring method is it's highly subjective and unique to you. Opinions vary on lots of things, judges often see fights very different. If you asked us all to come up with a way of ranking fighters we would all do it different. What tells you your system is floored is that no one agrees with you on this.

People don't agree yet have nothing beyond opinion and excuses as to why. I have a solid basis of criteria that doesn't change from fighter to fighter.

[keithmoonhangover]

Ruddock was 13 years into his career when he fought Morrison. He had lost 4 fights total. 3 of them against Hall of Famers. If you watch his fight with Morrison and you see a helpless, shot fighter. Then you need to get your eyes checked. He certainly looks like a man plenty capable of handling himself to me.

Ruddock had fought once in almost three years since getting demolished by Lennox Lewis. He was also twelve pounds heavier when he fought Morrison, than when he fought Lewis and most of it was fat. He wasn't in great shape for the Morrison fight and he sure as shit wasn't in his prime.

So I ask again, who was the best fighter Morrison beat in their prime?

Is Daniel Dubois past his prime going into the Wardley fight?

We're talking about Tommy Morrison. His career and Ruddock's for that matter are over. If DDD goes on a run of wins, cleans up the division, beats Usyk and Itauma, then no, he's not past his prime. We don't know yet, because it hasn't happened.

It's laughable that you rank Morrison and Usyk level in your rankings. Usyk's beaten AJ and Fury twice, which are better wins than Morrison's best wins and Usyk hasn't lost. How in the hell do you rank them as level. In this equation, Morrison sticks out like a belly dancer's cock.

[Controversial]

Let's just say I agree with you all and I drop Ruddock, Williams and Thomas all down to Fringe contender status. You know what difference that makes to Morrison's score? 3 goddamn points, and he's still ahead of Norton.

So all this arguing is much ado about nothing.

Even if I were to concede that Thomas, Ruddock and Williams were 2's instead of 3's when they fought Morrison. It makes a miniscule difference to his overall career. He'd just have a few less "Quality" wins. He'd still have the 1 win that's better than all but 1 of Norton's and He'd still have lost less fights, been knocked out less times, and won more frequently in exciting fashion. Morrison comes out ahead any which way you Slice it.

And I'm probably being generous to Norton by considering his victory over Quarry to be a Gold Star victory.

The problem with your scoring method is it's highly subjective and unique to you. Opinions vary on lots of things, judges often see fights very different. If you asked us all to come up with a way of ranking fighters we would all do it different. What tells you your system is floored is that no one agrees with you on this.

People don't agree yet have nothing beyond opinion and excuses as to why. I have a solid basis of criteria that doesn't change from fighter to fighter.

Post your scoring on Morrison and Norton so we can see how you come to these scores

[Cojimar 1946]

Morrison being tied for 15 seems ridiculous

Post Ali I would have all the following ahead of him among others
Witherspoon
Holmes
Thomas
Berbick
Tucker
Weaver
Tubbs
Coetzee
Bruno
Smith
Mercer
Bowe
Moorer
McCall
Akinwande
Holyfield
Lewis
Rahman
Grant
Ruiz
Tua
Byrd
Wlad
Vitali
Povetkin
Fury
Wilder
Joshua
Usyk
Etc

[gilgamesh]

Morrison being tied for 15 seems ridiculous

Post Ali I would have all the following ahead of him among others
Witherspoon
Holmes
Tucker
Weaver
Tubbs
Coetzee
Bruno
Smith
Mercer
Bowe
Moorer
McCall
Akinwande
Holyfield
Lewis
Rahman
Grant
Ruiz
Tua
Byrd
Wlad
Vitali
Povetkin
Fury
Wilder
Joshua
Usyk
Etc

Yes I see a bunch of names. What i don't see is a basis for why all those names are better than Morrison.

[gilgamesh]

The problem with your scoring method is it's highly subjective and unique to you. Opinions vary on lots of things, judges often see fights very different. If you asked us all to come up with a way of ranking fighters we would all do it different. What tells you your system is floored is that no one agrees with you on this.

People don't agree yet have nothing beyond opinion and excuses as to why. I have a solid basis of criteria that doesn't change from fighter to fighter.

Post your scoring on Morrison and Norton so we can see how you come to these scores

I'll point out the 10 best wins along with the Losses of each of them, and that'll pretty much cover it. Not that it matters.

All I'll get it is....but but but but Norton lost to Holmes so impressively!

[Controversial]

People don't agree yet have nothing beyond opinion and excuses as to why. I have a solid basis of criteria that doesn't change from fighter to fighter.

Post your scoring on Morrison and Norton so we can see how you come to these scores

I'll point out the 10 best wins along with the Losses of each of them, and that'll pretty much cover it. Not that it matters.

All I'll get it is....but but but but Norton lost to Holmes so impressively!

Well of course it matters, you are making up the rules and deciding what to score each fight, chances are others won’t think the same

[Cojimar 1946]

My reason for rating Riddick Bowe ahead of Morrison is as follows

Better top win
Fewer losses
Champ while Morrison was not

Now that that's settled should we move on to the next guy or does anyone disagree?

[gilgamesh]

My reason for rating Riddick Bowe ahead of Morrison is as follows

Better top win
Fewer losses
Champ while Morrison was not

Now that that's settled should we move on to the next guy or does anyone disagree?

Bowe is well ahead of Morrison

[Cojimar 1946]

Anyway next is Wilder

I would have him above Morrison based on better form during his prime. He also held a belt and made numerous title defenses even though they were not very good.

I don't think the past prime losses are enough to tip the balance for Morrison given he didn't fight past 27.

[gilgamesh]

Anyway next is Wilder

I would have him above Morrison based on better form during his prime. He also held a belt and made numerous title defenses even though they were not very good.

I don't think the past prime losses are enough to tip the balance for Morrison given he didn't fight past 27.

I got Morrison ahead of Wilder by a slight margin, however whether or not it stays that way is still in Wilder's hands and he is within striking distance of changing that.

[gilgamesh]

Ruddock had fought once in almost three years since getting demolished by Lennox Lewis. He was also twelve pounds heavier when he fought Morrison, than when he fought Lewis and most of it was fat. He wasn't in great shape for the Morrison fight and he sure as shit wasn't in his prime.

So I ask again, who was the best fighter Morrison beat in their prime?

Is Daniel Dubois past his prime going into the Wardley fight?

We're talking about Tommy Morrison. His career and Ruddock's for that matter are over. If DDD goes on a run of wins, cleans up the division, beats Usyk and Itauma, then no, he's not past his prime. We don't know yet, because it hasn't happened.

It's laughable that you rank Morrison and Usyk level in your rankings. Usyk's beaten AJ and Fury twice, which are better wins than Morrison's best wins and Usyk hasn't lost. How in the hell do you rank them as level. In this equation, Morrison sticks out like a belly dancer's cock.

They're even right now based purely on the fact that Usyk has only 8 Heavyweight fights. The fact he ranks as highly as he does with less than 10 Heavyweight fights is astonishing.

And unless Rico Verhoeven absolutely shocks the world here in a little under a month, Usyk is about to break that tie and make it a moot point.

Also. Just as a reminder Ruddock after losing to Tommy Morrison didn't lose another Boxing match for over 20 years

Can you name another Past his prime fighter who went 20 years without taking another loss?

[Controversial]

Post your scoring on Morrison and Norton so we can see how you come to these scores

I'll point out the 10 best wins along with the Losses of each of them, and that'll pretty much cover it. Not that it matters.

All I'll get it is....but but but but Norton lost to Holmes so impressively!

Well of course it matters, you are making up the rules and deciding what to score each fight, chances are others won’t think the same

Are you going to post them? Also are you scoring every single fight they had and if so what are you basing the scores on in cases where there is no footage of the fight? Also if one fighter has over 100 fights like Charles and someone else has less than 30 like Usyk how can you fairly add points up when there’s a big difference in numbers?

[gilgamesh]

I'll point out the 10 best wins along with the Losses of each of them, and that'll pretty much cover it. Not that it matters.

All I'll get it is....but but but but Norton lost to Holmes so impressively!

Well of course it matters, you are making up the rules and deciding what to score each fight, chances are others won’t think the same

Are you going to post them? Also are you scoring every single fight they had and if so what are you basing the scores on in cases where there is no footage of the fight? Also if one fighter has over 100 fights like Charles and someone else has less than 30 like Usyk how can you fairly add points up when there’s a big difference in numbers?

Here's all of Ken Norton's wins that were on video, and the points that accompanied them.

1. Muhammad Ali - 70 points (An All Time Great Non Title win, and the highest possible score for a Non Title victory)
2. Jerry Quarry - 39 points (A Non Title Gold Star win)
3. Jimmy Young - 7 points
4. Ron Stander - 7 points
5. Randall "Tex" Cobb - 7 points
6. Lorenzo Zanon - 7 points
7. Duane Bobick - 7 points
8. Jose Luis Garcia 2 - 7 points
9. Henry Clark - 6 points
10. Randy Stephens - 6 points
11. Pedro Lovell - 5 points
12. Larry Middleton - 5 points
13. Scott LeDoux - 5 points (A Draw, but a particularly Entertaining one)

As for Ken Norton's losses they receive the following score
Larry Holmes +5
Muhammad Ali 2 +5
Muhammad Ali 3 +10
George Foreman -30
Gerry Cooney -30
Earnie Shavers -30
Jose Luis Garcia -20


Now for Tommy Morrison's 13 best wins
1. George Foreman - 59 points (A Gold Star victory)
2. Tim Tomashek - 11 points
3. Razor Ruddock - 8 points
4. Carl Williams - 7 points
5. Pinklon Thomas - 7 points
6. James "Quick" Tillis - 7 points
7. Yuri Vaulin - 7 points
8. Joe Hipp - 6 points
9. Jerry Halstead - 6 points
10. Dave Jaco - 6 points
11. Ladislao Mijango - 6 points
12. Dan Murphy - 6 points
13. Harry Terrell - 6 points

A few other lopsided KO wins got him 6 as well, and then it drops off from there.

As for Tommy's losses

Lennox Lewis -20
Ray Mercer -20
Michael Bentt -30

[gilgamesh]

I'll point out the 10 best wins along with the Losses of each of them, and that'll pretty much cover it. Not that it matters.

All I'll get it is....but but but but Norton lost to Holmes so impressively!

Well of course it matters, you are making up the rules and deciding what to score each fight, chances are others won’t think the same

Are you going to post them? Also are you scoring every single fight they had and if so what are you basing the scores on in cases where there is no footage of the fight? Also if one fighter has over 100 fights like Charles and someone else has less than 30 like Usyk how can you fairly add points up when there’s a big difference in numbers?

This is a good question and a dilemma I had to find a solution to because as you'd expect the further back in time you go with these fighters the less available footage there is of them.

For the purposes of Simplification I consider any Non Video win over any relatively unknown fighter to be a win over a Bum, so I only need focus on the result.

1 point = Any win over a Fighter with a losing or .500 record (I refer to this in my mind as the Tijuana Taxi Driver rule. At first I only gave 2 and 3 points for No video wins respectively, but when going over the record of Chavez, and the ridiculous amount of Debutees or Losing fighters he faced, I had to make an amendment)

2 points = Any Decision win over a Fighter with a Winning record
3 points = Any KO win over a Fighter with a winning record

In cases where there's no video of a fight involving a Big name fighter, I will factor the opponents Level in with the score. I haven't yet come across what would be considered a Gold Star win or an All Time Great win that there's no video footage of the bout, but I know I will inevitably come across this when I start diving deeper into the past. I suppose I will reward them the same Gold Star and All Time bonuses that I award to fights that I am able to watch.

Thankfully for us Fight nerds, most Big fights from about 1950 onward still exist in some form or another.

As for your following question. If one fighter has 100 fights and 1 has 30 how do I fairly add points when there's a big difference in numbers. The answer to that is very simple. I give more points to the fighter that fought and won more fights. He did more, He earned more. No need to complicate the matter on that one.

[Controversial]

Well of course it matters, you are making up the rules and deciding what to score each fight, chances are others won’t think the same

Are you going to post them? Also are you scoring every single fight they had and if so what are you basing the scores on in cases where there is no footage of the fight? Also if one fighter has over 100 fights like Charles and someone else has less than 30 like Usyk how can you fairly add points up when there’s a big difference in numbers?

Here's all of Ken Norton's wins that were on video, and the points that accompanied them.

1. Muhammad Ali - 70 points (An All Time Great Non Title win, and the highest possible score for a Non Title victory)
2. Jerry Quarry - 39 points (A Non Title Gold Star win)
3. Jimmy Young - 7 points
4. Ron Stander - 7 points
5. Randall "Tex" Cobb - 7 points
6. Lorenzo Zanon - 7 points
7. Duane Bobick - 7 points
8. Jose Luis Garcia 2 - 7 points
9. Henry Clark - 6 points
10. Randy Stephens - 6 points
11. Pedro Lovell - 5 points
12. Larry Middleton - 5 points
13. Scott LeDoux - 5 points (A Draw, but a particularly Entertaining one)

As for Ken Norton's losses they receive the following score
Larry Holmes +5
Muhammad Ali 2 +5
Muhammad Ali 3 +10
George Foreman -30
Gerry Cooney -30
Earnie Shavers -30
Jose Luis Garcia -20


Now for Tommy Morrison's 13 best wins
1. George Foreman - 59 points (A Gold Star victory)
2. Tim Tomashek - 11 points
3. Razor Ruddock - 8 points
4. Carl Williams - 7 points
5. Pinklon Thomas - 7 points
6. James "Quick" Tillis - 7 points
7. Yuri Vaulin - 7 points
8. Joe Hipp - 6 points
9. Jerry Halstead - 6 points
10. Dave Jaco - 6 points
11. Ladislao Mijango - 6 points
12. Dan Murphy - 6 points
13. Harry Terrell - 6 points

A few other lopsided KO wins got him 6 as well, and then it drops off from there.

As for Tommy's losses

Lennox Lewis -20
Ray Mercer -20
Michael Bentt -30

How the hell is Tim Tomashek his second best win? He was a journeyman and last minute replacement literally plucked out the crowd an hour before as Mike Williams refused to leave his dressing room. How they were allowed to call that a title fight I don't know.

[Controversial]

Well of course it matters, you are making up the rules and deciding what to score each fight, chances are others won’t think the same

Are you going to post them? Also are you scoring every single fight they had and if so what are you basing the scores on in cases where there is no footage of the fight? Also if one fighter has over 100 fights like Charles and someone else has less than 30 like Usyk how can you fairly add points up when there’s a big difference in numbers?

This is a good question and a dilemma I had to find a solution to because as you'd expect the further back in time you go with these fighters the less available footage there is of them.

For the purposes of Simplification I consider any Non Video win over any relatively unknown fighter to be a win over a Bum, so I only need focus on the result.

1 point = Any win over a Fighter with a losing or .500 record (I refer to this in my mind as the Tijuana Taxi Driver rule. At first I only gave 2 and 3 points for No video wins respectively, but when going over the record of Chavez, and the ridiculous amount of Debutees or Losing fighters he faced, I had to make an amendment)

2 points = Any Decision win over a Fighter with a Winning record
3 points = Any KO win over a Fighter with a winning record

In cases where there's no video of a fight involving a Big name fighter, I will factor the opponents Level in with the score. I haven't yet come across what would be considered a Gold Star win or an All Time Great win that there's no video footage of the bout, but I know I will inevitably come across this when I start diving deeper into the past. I suppose I will reward them the same Gold Star and All Time bonuses that I award to fights that I am able to watch.

Thankfully for us Fight nerds, most Big fights from about 1950 onward still exist in some form or another.

As for your following question. If one fighter has 100 fights and 1 has 30 how do I fairly add points when there's a big difference in numbers. The answer to that is very simple. I give more points to the fighter that fought and won more fights. He did more, He earned more. No need to complicate the matter on that one.

This seems a floored system to me, you are applying the same criteria across the board. There are so many variables in boxing. Do you give points for every year they are in the top 10 rankings, if not why not as this is surely another indicator of where they stood at the moment of time. Again it isn't perfect but surely that has to count.

[gilgamesh]

Tim Tomashek isn't necessary his 2nd best win, but it earned him the 2nd most points due to it being a title defense. As far as the level of opponent goes I'd agree with you that Tomashek isn't as good as many of Tommy's other opponents.

And before you start your "but but but but the WBO Title wasn't even important"

Yeah I f*cking know that. I even agree with it, but like I said I recognize the 4 major sanctioning bodies equally. I didn't decide they were the 4 major sanctioning bodies. The Boxing public did. Whether I think a Title was particularly meaningful or not, I don't let my or anyone else's OPINION affect the way I'm gonna score it. I have the system set it stone, and the only way it can applied fairly is if it's applied evenly for each and every fight that ever held it. Otherwise what am I to do, decide that the WBO Title was only important on such and such date, and therefore none of the other guys before that counted? What made it special all of a sudden?

If it were up to me there'd be no WBO, WBA, IBF or WBC. There'd be 1 Champion. Just 1.

But it's not up to me. All I can do is watch and observe, and take it for what it is.

That being said, I am not ever gonna start recognizing WBA Regular Champions or WBC Silver Champions or IBO Champions or any of that horesh*t. You gotta draw the line somewhere.

It's a pain in the ass now to have to try and differentiate between when exactly a guy is WBA Regular Champion or when he's just actually The Real WBA Champion. Hell I barely can explain it, and I watch the living sh*t out of Boxing so I wouldn't even attempt to try to make sense of it to a casual fan

[Controversial]

[
George Foreman -30


Now for Tommy Morrison's 13 best wins

Michael Bentt -30

So they both lose 30 points for losing even though one lost to a prime Foreman and the other lost to Bentt who retired with a 11-2 record and didn't even deserve a title shot in the first place? I'm sorry bud but this is laughable.

[Controversial]

Tim Tomashek isn't necessary his 2nd best win, but it earned him the 2nd most points due to it being a title defense. As far as the level of opponent goes I'd agree with you that Tomashek isn't as good as many of Tommy's other opponents.

And before you start your "but but but but the WBO Title wasn't even important"

Yeah I f*cking know that. I even agree with it, but like I said I recognize the 4 major sanctioning bodies equally. I didn't decide they were the 4 major sanctioning bodies. The Boxing public did. Whether I think a Title was particularly meaningful or not, I don't let my or anyone else's OPINION affect the way I'm gonna score it. I have the system set it stone, and the only way it can applied fairly is if it's applied evenly for each and every fight that ever held it. Otherwise what am I to do, decide that the WBO Title was only important on such and such date, and therefore none of the other guys before that counted? What made it special all of a sudden?

If it were up to me there'd be no WBO, WBA, IBF or WBC. There'd be 1 Champion. Just 1.

But it's not up to me. All I can do is watch and observe, and take it for what it is.

That being said, I am not ever gonna start recognizing WBA Regular Champions or WBC Silver Champions or IBO Champions or any of that horesh*t. You gotta draw the line somewhere.

It's a pain in the ass now to have to try and differentiate between when exactly a guy is WBA Regular Champion or when he's just actually The Real WBA Champion. Hell I barely can explain it, and I watch the living sh*t out of Boxing so I wouldn't even attempt to try to make sense of it to a casual fan

But you and the one deciding on these scores and you don't even agree with them lol. It's irrelevant if it were a title shot, he didn't deserve one and it shouldn't have ever been classed as one. On your "system" he's the second best win, that's absolute nonsense.

[gilgamesh]

Are you going to post them? Also are you scoring every single fight they had and if so what are you basing the scores on in cases where there is no footage of the fight? Also if one fighter has over 100 fights like Charles and someone else has less than 30 like Usyk how can you fairly add points up when there’s a big difference in numbers?

This is a good question and a dilemma I had to find a solution to because as you'd expect the further back in time you go with these fighters the less available footage there is of them.

For the purposes of Simplification I consider any Non Video win over any relatively unknown fighter to be a win over a Bum, so I only need focus on the result.

1 point = Any win over a Fighter with a losing or .500 record (I refer to this in my mind as the Tijuana Taxi Driver rule. At first I only gave 2 and 3 points for No video wins respectively, but when going over the record of Chavez, and the ridiculous amount of Debutees or Losing fighters he faced, I had to make an amendment)

2 points = Any Decision win over a Fighter with a Winning record
3 points = Any KO win over a Fighter with a winning record

In cases where there's no video of a fight involving a Big name fighter, I will factor the opponents Level in with the score. I haven't yet come across what would be considered a Gold Star win or an All Time Great win that there's no video footage of the bout, but I know I will inevitably come across this when I start diving deeper into the past. I suppose I will reward them the same Gold Star and All Time bonuses that I award to fights that I am able to watch.

Thankfully for us Fight nerds, most Big fights from about 1950 onward still exist in some form or another.

As for your following question. If one fighter has 100 fights and 1 has 30 how do I fairly add points when there's a big difference in numbers. The answer to that is very simple. I give more points to the fighter that fought and won more fights. He did more, He earned more. No need to complicate the matter on that one.

This seems a floored system to me, you are applying the same criteria across the board. There are so many variables in boxing. Do you give points for every year they are in the top 10 rankings, if not why not as this is surely another indicator of where they stood at the moment of time. Again it isn't perfect but surely that has to count.

I think my system is very ceilinged.

By all means come up with a better one. Apply it to Dozens of Fighters, and then post the results even if they surprise you, and be prepared to handle backlash for the system you've come up with. That's when your opinion on this matter will hold enough weight to me for me to reconsider my system. Then and only then.

Yes there are a never-ending amount of variables and nuances to consider, but how do you factor all of that in? I factored in everything as best I could without getting bogged down in the weeds.