Where does Evander Holyfield rank among all time great Heavyweights?

[gilgamesh]

[
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.

I don't differentiate between a devastating KO loss. There's no way you can get knocked out within 2 rounds that it's not an embarrassing defeat. Doesn't matter who it came against.

It would be ridiculous to start saying sh*t like "This 1st round knockout wasn't as bad as that 1st round knockout" wouldn't it? So I'm not even gonna start that nonsense.

[Controversial]

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.

Exactly my point earlier. We can all come up with different ways of scoring and all end up with different lists so it's a pointless exercise. A good barometer is how it stands up to scrutiny. Fans will never agree on fighters, rankings etc but it's clear your rankings make no sense to everyone on here so that speaks volumes. If you are happy with it that's all that matters but it's massively floored.

[gilgamesh]

It's extremely ceilinged

[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.

I don't differentiate between a devastating KO loss. There's no way you can get knocked out within 2 rounds that it's not an embarrassing defeat. Doesn't matter who it came against.

It would be ridiculous to start saying sh*t like "This 1st round knockout wasn't as bad as that 1st round knockout" wouldn't it? So I'm not even gonna start that nonsense.

Of course it matters!! So getting knocked out by an ATG but someone else getting knocked out by a very average fighter or journeyman means the same thing, what planet are you on.

[gilgamesh]

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.

I don't differentiate between a devastating KO loss. There's no way you can get knocked out within 2 rounds that it's not an embarrassing defeat. Doesn't matter who it came against.

It would be ridiculous to start saying sh*t like "This 1st round knockout wasn't as bad as that 1st round knockout" wouldn't it? So I'm not even gonna start that nonsense.

Of course it matters!! So getting knocked out by an ATG but someone else getting knocked out by a very average fighter or journeyman means the same thing, what planet are you on.

This one. Where I've explained myself quite thoroughly.

[gilgamesh]

And by the way do you notice what's happening here. You're all getting so pissed at me, and wanting to bite my head off because I won't back down and give in to your opinion. And all the while I'm calm as can be, and I have all the answers because of MY SYSTEM.

You could come back at me if you'd take the time to come up with something better. Frankly I don't see why any of you guys would want to dedicate the staggering amount of time I've dedicated to this. I do it simply because I have no life and nothing better to do

That being said. My heart was in the right place with all of this, and I know my intent was pure. I wasn't trying to big up this guy. Or cut down that guy. I was just trying to come up with something that covered everything as best as possible. That's all guys.

The System goes on until someone tops it. Otherwise. Disagree with me. Tell me I'm wrong. Tell me my system is floored. I hear you. I accept your criticism, but I will continue to make sense of it all in this manner until you give me something better, but you won't, because you can't.

[Controversial]

I don't differentiate between a devastating KO loss. There's no way you can get knocked out within 2 rounds that it's not an embarrassing defeat. Doesn't matter who it came against.

It would be ridiculous to start saying sh*t like "This 1st round knockout wasn't as bad as that 1st round knockout" wouldn't it? So I'm not even gonna start that nonsense.

Of course it matters!! So getting knocked out by an ATG but someone else getting knocked out by a very average fighter or journeyman means the same thing, what planet are you on.

This one. Where I've explained myself quite thoroughly.

Actually I think you're right. I've applied the same criteria to my own sporting achievements, I lost the 100m dash when I was 9 to Kevin from Class 2 which in retrospect is comparable to Usain Bolt losing to Gatlin in the World Championships. Maybe I was better than I thought

[gilgamesh]

By the way. Genuine question here. Does anyone know what the Boxrec Rankings Algorithm is based on? Like how do they come up with their All time rankings? Anybody know? Because I'm sure they would've tried their best to try to factor in everything as well, even though sometimes the conclusions they come up with can also be head scratching.

[gilgamesh]

Of course it matters!! So getting knocked out by an ATG but someone else getting knocked out by a very average fighter or journeyman means the same thing, what planet are you on.

This one. Where I've explained myself quite thoroughly.

Actually I think you're right. I've applied the same criteria to my own sporting achievements, I lost the 100m dash when I was 9 to Kevin from Class 2 which in retrospect is comparable to Usain Bolt losing to Gatlin in the World Championships. Maybe I was better than I thought

Now see in that situation you're not factoring in all the times that he won compared to you. Which is Hundreds if not Thousands (I don't really know how the racing world works)

As for me personally. I'd have a -10 score as an amateur boxer

[Controversial]

This one. Where I've explained myself quite thoroughly.

Actually I think you're right. I've applied the same criteria to my own sporting achievements, I lost the 100m dash when I was 9 to Kevin from Class 2 which in retrospect is comparable to Usain Bolt losing to Gatlin in the World Championships. Maybe I was better than I thought

Now see in that situation you're not factoring in all the times that he won compared to you. Which is Hundreds if not Thousands (I don't really know how the racing world works)

As for me personally. I'd have a -10 score as an amateur boxer

It's ok I've worked it out, I only lost that one race and won hundreds so I'm now officially the greatest sprinter in history. I thank you.

[Jaywheel]

You had more meaningful and important races too.

[Cojimar 1946]

Povetkin would be ahead of Morrison based on far fewer prime losses and more wins over ranked opponents.

With Witherspoon I would have him ahead based on being a two time champion and a much deeper resume.

The only thing Morrison has in his favor is the lack of past prime losses due to retiring young but I don't think it's enough here

[gilgamesh]

I haven't done Povetkin yet so I can't give a definitive answer there. I have Morrison ahead of Witherspoon.

[Cojimar 1946]

I'm curious about the argument for Morrison here.

Witherspoon beat Snipes, Page, Smith, Tubbs, and Bruno. That's a deep resume. His prime losses are also not as bad.

And he was a major title holder on two occasions whereas the WBO wasn't recognized as a major title in the 90s. That seems like a lot to overcome

[gilgamesh]

I'm curious about the argument for Morrison here.

Witherspoon beat Snipes, Page, Smith, Tubbs, and Bruno. That's a deep resume. His prime losses are also not as bad.

And he was a major title holder on two occasions whereas the WBO wasn't recognized as a major title in the 90s. That seems like a lot to overcome

The double digit amount of losses ain't doing Spoon no favors. He has good wins for sure. He also has a lot of middle of the road mediocre performances where he meanders his way to a decision loss or not particularly convincing decision win.

Like I always say. I don't only watch the fights everyone wants to praise. I watch them all.

[Ambling Alp II]

I acknowledge that you think Frazier is better than Morrison. Not exactly a close call.
Chavez ahead of Tzysu? OK. fine. Whatever.

Yes Norton's wins are more impressive. it's the gap that you don't get. It's not remotely close. It's gigantic.

Actually Norton's losses are not worse.

The loss to Garcia is embarrassing. That should count against Norton.
The losses to Ali and Holmes are more impressive than win that Morrison ever had.
The loss to Foreman was devastating. But Foreman did that to almost everyone in his prime.

The Shavers' loss was devastating as well. However, you certainly can argue that Norton was past his best by then. He had the brutal fight with Holmes. He was 35. Morrison packed in way before that age. (For the love of God, please don't bring up the two comeback fights against tomato cans)

Norton got ko's in the first round by Cooney. He was 38 by then. One of those fights that don't mean anything, but you never get that and think it was a big deal.

Morrison got brutally beaten by Michael Bentt. A complete unknown who never did anything else.
Against Mercer? Got destroyed.
Again Lewis, one-sided beatdown.

In a nutshell, Morrison was a fringe contender, who won a paper title that no one at the time thought meant anything. Morrison was never one of the top heavyweights. Ever.
Norton was a serious contender for several years in the best era in the history of hw boxing.
Which is why everyone thinks you are insane about this.

Norton was 38 and he was shot. Usyk is 40 right now and he's Heavyweight Champion.

Excuses. Excuses is all you guys want or have to give.

All fights mean something. If Norton had beaten Cooney he probably would've gotten another shot at the title, but he didn't and he didn't.

Thats what you got from all this?

Norton was 38 and this was his 50th fight. He had taken a lot of punishment in his career. Usyk has had a whopping 24 fights in his career. And has not been taking punishment from guys like Foreman, Shavers, Holmes etc. That's nothing like a pillow fight against Joshua.

Let's how good Usyk he is when he is in his 50th fight.

I saw you had another comment where you said Ruddock was in his prime against Morrison. The had not been ranked in three years. Looked awful against Lewis three years previously and had won 1 fight since against a tomato can. Anybody could see he was way past his best. but somehow you can't. Unbelievable.


You don't understand prime at all, which is yet another one of your problems.

[gilgamesh]

The fact that you guys still think I can't grasp the concept of Prime is cute. Like you all think you're teaching me something about Boxing.

It's like an Elementary school teacher trying to explain Math to Einstein, and acting like he's not getting it.

You guys fixate on 1 element. I take in everything.

[gilgamesh]

I acknowledge that you think Frazier is better than Morrison. Not exactly a close call.
Chavez ahead of Tzysu? OK. fine. Whatever.

Yes Norton's wins are more impressive. it's the gap that you don't get. It's not remotely close. It's gigantic.

Actually Norton's losses are not worse.

The loss to Garcia is embarrassing. That should count against Norton.
The losses to Ali and Holmes are more impressive than win that Morrison ever had.
The loss to Foreman was devastating. But Foreman did that to almost everyone in his prime.

The Shavers' loss was devastating as well. However, you certainly can argue that Norton was past his best by then. He had the brutal fight with Holmes. He was 35. Morrison packed in way before that age. (For the love of God, please don't bring up the two comeback fights against tomato cans)

Norton got ko's in the first round by Cooney. He was 38 by then. One of those fights that don't mean anything, but you never get that and think it was a big deal.

Morrison got brutally beaten by Michael Bentt. A complete unknown who never did anything else.
Against Mercer? Got destroyed.
Again Lewis, one-sided beatdown.

In a nutshell, Morrison was a fringe contender, who won a paper title that no one at the time thought meant anything. Morrison was never one of the top heavyweights. Ever.
Norton was a serious contender for several years in the best era in the history of hw boxing.
Which is why everyone thinks you are insane about this.

Norton was 38 and he was shot. Usyk is 40 right now and he's Heavyweight Champion.

Excuses. Excuses is all you guys want or have to give.

All fights mean something. If Norton had beaten Cooney he probably would've gotten another shot at the title, but he didn't and he didn't.

Thats what you got from all this?

Norton was 38 and this was his 50th fight. He had taken a lot of punishment in his career. Usyk has had a whopping 24 fights in his career. And has not been taking punishment from guys like Foreman, Shavers, Holmes etc. That's nothing like a pillow fight against Joshua.

Let's how good Usyk he is when he is in his 50th fight.

I saw you had another comment where you said Ruddock was in his prime against Morrison. The had not been ranked in three years. Looked awful against Lewis three years previously and had won 1 fight since against a tomato can. Anybody could see he was way past his best. but somehow you can't. Unbelievable.


You don't understand prime at all, which is yet another one of your problems.

Whether Ruddock was "prime" or not is debatable. He certainly didn't look like a washed up fighter against Morrison, and didn't lose another fight for 20 years so he couldn't have been that goddamn washed up could he? Maybe he wasn't at his absolute best, but he hadn't been reduced to just being a walkover neither.

It's all or nothing with you guys. There's a lot of Middle ground that you all just ignore because going to extremes is easier.

[Ambling Alp II]

The fact that you guys still think I can't grasp the concept of Prime is cute. Like you all think you're teaching me something about Boxing.

It's like an Elementary school teacher trying to explain Math to Einstein, and acting like he's not getting it.

You guys fixate on 1 element. I take in everything.

Wow. I mean wow. Are you really that full of yourself? Get a grip.

[gilgamesh]

I'm not full of myself, but I'll be damned if I'll let somebody tell me i don't know Boxing. I study it and pay attention to every little detail as much as any person alive today. I guarantee it.

Anytime I make a comment that shows I'm well aware of fighters aging you guys just move past it as if I've said nothing. I said Ali's win over Foreman got a higher score than Morrison's win over Foreman and what'd I get? *crickets*

You guys never respond if I say something that doesn't fit your narrative. You just keep coming with the same sh*t looking for a "Gotcha" to try to discredit me.

I've dedicated enough of my life to the understanding of this sport that it's the one thing I have a right to be confident in my knowledge of above anything else. If that offends you, well then stop trying to talk to me as if I don't know Boxing because THAT offends me.

[Cojimar 1946]

Witherspoon has 3 losses prior to the age of 35. When he was young he wasn't losing much and those losses were to Holmes, Smith and Thomas so not terrible losses.

Most of his decision wins when he was young were against guys that were hard to stop so I wouldn't think not stopping them would be such a big deal. You have to consider how hard it is to knock someone out.

Overall it just seems like this puts too much emphasis on old age defeats.
.

[gilgamesh]

It doesn't put emphasis on old age defeats any more than it does young age defeats.

A loss is a loss.

Fighters always have excuses when they lose. Age is just another one. Some Fighters can continue to get big wins even long past their glory days. Some can't. It's things like that that separate good from great and great from Legendary.

[gilgamesh]

Answer me this. Is Roy Jones Jr. The greatest Light Heavyweight of all time?

Could Roy Jones beat a puncher like Bob Foster in his prime?

You may still believe the answer to these questions is Yes, but there's doubt isn't there? Doubt that wouldn't have been there if Roy hadn't been knocked out so much past his prime. Losses matter.

[Jaywheel]

The fact that you guys still think I can't grasp the concept of Prime is cute. Like you all think you're teaching me something about Boxing.

It's like an Elementary school teacher trying to explain Math to Einstein, and acting like he's not getting it.

You guys fixate on 1 element. I take in everything.

Wow. I mean wow. Are you really that full of yourself? Get a grip.

Unreal

[Jaywheel]

Answer me this. Is Roy Jones Jr. The greatest Light Heavyweight of all time?

Could Roy Jones beat a puncher like Bob Foster in his prime?

You may still believe the answer to these questions is Yes, but there's doubt isn't there? Doubt that wouldn't have been there if Roy hadn't been knocked out so much past his prime. Losses matter.

No it didn't take Tarver for some people to doubt that Jones might not have the whiskers to withstand Foster's power. Being KO'ed by Enzo and Lebedev changes nothing to what I think would have happened between prime RJJ and Foster.