Interesting Comparison

[Ambling Alp II]

Take a look at each pair of fighters:

Carnera-M. Baer
Jeffries-Foreman
Schmeling-Liston
Patterson-Dempsey
Burns-Frazier
Charles-Holyfield
Willard-Sharkey
Hart-Norton
Weaver-Witherspoon

Something interesting happens each time with each pair. Any guesses?

[gilgamesh]

Is it a size or height differential?

[Ambling Alp II]

Nope. The guy on the right each time is usually considered superior to the guy on the left. But the guy on the left has more title defenses than the guy on the right each time. The sheer amount of title defenses don't mean anything. At all. You can always find an easy guy to defend the title against.

[gilgamesh]

Pretty sure in each case the guy on the right is gonna come out ahead in a head to head comparison in just about any system of measurement.

[Ambling Alp II]

If the number title defenses is a huge factor, it can be a game changer. Just remember this formula for title defenses: Take the number of title defenses and multiply it by zero.

[gilgamesh]

It's 1 factor. Not a defining one in most cases. In almost every case you've listed here the guy with less title defenses is gonna come out ahead in the all time ranking. Charles would probably finish ahead of Holyfield in the P4P sense, but not as a Heavyweight I wouldn't think.

[Ambling Alp II]

The sheer number shouldn't count for anything. You can always find an easy opponent to beat. A title defense against Joe Frazier means a lot. A title defense over Schmeling means something. A title defense against Richard Dunn or Jean Pierre Coopman or Johnny Paycheck doesn't mean anything.

[gilgamesh]

The sheer number shouldn't count for anything. You can always find an easy opponent to beat. A title defense against Joe Frazier means a lot. A title defense over Schmeling means something. A title defense against Richard Dunn or Jean Pierre Coopman or Johnny Paycheck doesn't mean anything.

It doesn't count for much as it turns out. I just compiled the points for Jim Jeffries and Tommy Burns, and both men fall well short of the 2 men you have them in a side by side comparison with.

Jeffries ranks well behind Foreman by over 400 points, and Burns ranks well behind Frazier by over 200 points. So if you were trying to say with this thread that my system shouldn't have those guys ranked ahead of Foreman and Frazier respectively.

It doesn't.

[Ambling Alp II]

It is one many things in your system that should be thrown out completely.

[gilgamesh]

It is one many things in your system that should be thrown out completely.

Then why isn't Jeffries ranked ahead of Foreman. Or Burns ahead of Frazier.

Whatever point you were trying to make here cannot be made with the examples you gave. So what was your point?

[Ambling Alp II]

My point is that sometimes it can make a difference and should be thrown out of your beloved system.

We keep going around in circles.

You use title defenses as a point as to why a one guy is better. I point out that title defenses can be deceiving. You then say that you realize that. Then don't say it.
Same conversations with win/loss records. I then point out it's often deceiving. Then you say that you realize that. Then don't say it.
You bring up WBS titles to make a guy look good. I point out that WBS titles can deceiving. Then you say that you realize that. Then don't bring it up.

[gilgamesh]

My point is that sometimes it can make a difference and should be thrown out of your beloved system.

We keep going around in circles.

You use title defenses as a point as to why a one guy is better. I point out that title defenses can be deceiving. You then say that you realize that. Then don't say it.
Same conversations with win/loss records. I then point out it's often deceiving. Then you say that you realize that. Then don't say it.
You bring up WBS titles to make a guy look good. I point out that WBS titles can deceiving. Then you say that you realize that. Then don't bring it up.

If all else is even title defenses could be the difference. All is generally not even though among Boxers.

I bring up anything that factors into the score if asked how I arrived at it.

I gotta say it's funny that your point was sometimes it can make a difference and you gave a sh*t load of instances of where it didn't make a difference. You'd think you'd have got it right once here just by accident.

[gilgamesh]

Schmeling also rates below Liston and Patterson below Dempsey by the way.

So in almost every example you give here the man with more title defenses is rated lower.

Marvin Hart is the lowest rated Former Heavyweight Champion I've measured up to this point.

I have found one interesting anomaly when breaking these fighters down. I wound up having Schmeling and Carnera both with higher overall career scores than Max Baer even though he knocked them both out.

Even though he beat them both head to head, they did much better against similar competition for the most part.

[Ambling Alp II]

The point is that is a factor that will make a difference when it shouldn't.
I have Schmeling ahead of Baer, but not by a lot. Baer was better than Carnera. Not like the difference between Norton and Morrison. But Baer was better. We should not have to argue this.

[gilgamesh]

The point is that is a factor that will make a difference when it shouldn't.
I have Schmeling ahead of Baer, but not by a lot. Baer was better than Carnera. Not like the difference between Norton and Morrison. But Baer was better. We should not have to argue this.

Head to head he certainly came out better, and gave Carnera quite a shellacking in their bout, however Carnera has quite a few things to his credit in this argument.

For instance. Against common opponents: Ernie Schaaf, Tommy Loughran, Paolino Uzcudun.

Baer went 1-3 against those guys

Carnera went 4-0 against those guys including making a successful title defense against Loughran and Uzcudun respectively.

On top of that he also has more KO wins than Max Baer has wins so his extra amount of little victories add up a bit as well.

The difference in the scoring between Carnera and Baer is miniscule, and not particularly worth fussing about, but I think they're on about the same level of accomplishment overall.

[Ambling Alp II]

KO wins? Yet another problem. Carnera had a lot more fights and a lot more fights against weak competition. He should have a lot more KO wins. If you have to take into consideration that a fighter can always find an easy opponent to beat easily. Carnera did that a quite a bit. Thise wins should not count for anything.
Plus, in Carnera's case, many of his early fights were fixed. But your system is counting each these wins.

Baer also had a huge win over Schmeling. However, because there was only one title at the time, you won't rate it it as high as a WBS win in another era. It was a huge win at the time.

That you would have Carnera higher is silly.

[gilgamesh]

KO wins? Yet another problem. Carnera had a lot more fights and a lot more fights against weak competition. He should have a lot more KO wins. If you have to take into consideration that a fighter can always find an easy opponent to beat easily. Carnera did that a quite a bit. Thise wins should not count for anything.
Plus, in Carnera's case, many of his early fights were fixed. But your system is counting each these wins.

Baer also had a huge win over Schmeling. However, because there was only one title at the time, you won't rate it it as high as a WBS win in another era. It was a huge win at the time.

That you would have Carnera higher is silly.

First off Baer's victory over Schmeling is considered a Gold Star victory meaning that it does indeed score higher than a standard Title win in another era. It even scores higher than a title win over a weak opponent in his own era. So that complaint is just flat out wrong.

Carnera has several wins over people that Baer lost to. I know he lost to Baer head to head, but I'm rating them on their careers overall not on 1 outcome.

Baer losing to Tommy Loughran and Paolino Uzcudun while Carnera beat them in defense of the Heavyweight Championship is a big scoring factor in putting him ahead of Baer, but he also has victories over other people that defeated Baer like Ernie Schaaf and Les Kennedy.

In spite of your opinion that Carnera fought a bunch of stiffs, the fact is the guys he fought consistently had better Win-Loss records than the guys Baer fought on average. I know it's always been the thing to say that Carnera was a clumsy oaf who couldn't fight, and he certainly was quite limited, but he wasn't quite as bad as people make him out to be.

Your opinion that some fights aren't worth anything is not one I'll ever agree with. Unless it's a No Contest every fight has at least some value even it's only 1 point. People saw a fight, people were entertained, and somebody left the ring with some lumps on their face. Dismiss that if you wish, but I have a little more respect for the sport than that.

[Ambling Alp II]

If you are giving Carnera a point for beating a stiff, then Baer beating Schmeling for a prestigious "Gold Star " win should be about 100 points. And that's not an exaggeration.

What you don't get is how easy it is for a real fighter to beat a stiff. Me or you actually could have been a professional fighter, you do realize that, right?
It's not like that in other sports. You can't just be in the NFL, or NBA just because you want to.
Would you really give a guy a point for beating you? I'm guessing you would.

Tony Galento was actually the #1 challenger when Baer beat him. Pat Comiskey was a decent win.

I know I know, you factor everything in and somehow Carnera is better. Even though virtually everyone from that era thought Baer was clearly better.
And Carnera's wins when the other guy takes a dive counts. Got it. Great system.

[gilgamesh]

Baer's Gold Star win being Non Title makes it worth 30 points, still a higher scoring result than anything Carnera has. Carnera just has a little more overall on his resume than Baer does.

Again, the difference between them in my scoring is so minor that it's not worth arguing about.

Let's not pretend either of them were especially great Heavyweights.

[Ambling Alp II]

If Carnera gets one point for each of his wins, then 30 points is not nearly enough for Baer beating Schmeling.
Just rating real heavyweight champions, I would have Baer in the middle of the pack. He is in the Hall of Fame and should be. Never heard anyone question it. He had weakness and occasional disappointing performances. Certainly not as good as the top champions and clearly better than the bottom ones.
Carnera is underrated by some people. Would have him among the worst of the real champions., though certainly not the very worst. Baer was not light years better, but he was better.

[gilgamesh]

Head to head with Carnera he certainly was. By my measurements though in his career overall he was not. Bear in mind Carnera has about 20 something more wins than Baer and only 1 extra loss. He also had success against a lot of fighters Baer struggled with. The old styles make fights thing.

I suspect Charles will have a higher score than Holyfield P4P but not as a Heavyweight.

I haven't watched all of Weaver's available fights yet but with all his losses I'd think he'd wind up being one of the lower rated 1980's titlists. Though certainly he was one of the most if not THE most entertaining of them all. Weaver's career is pretty interesting. Lots of ups and downs.

[Ambling Alp II]

One of the problems is that you think it's important that Carnera had 20 more wins that Baer. It isn't. At all.
Baer should get more for his win over Schmeling than the total that Carnera should get for about 70 of his wins.
Read that again. Let it sink in. A lot more guys could have won those fights than could have beaten Schmeling.

What you don't get is that the vast majority of Carnera's wins are virtually automatic wins. (And I'm not even referring to the fixes).

Boxing is not anything like the NBA or the NFL. fighters make their own schedules. In the NBA, the Bulls can't play semi pro teams and count the wins on their record. The Seattle Seahawks can't do that in football.
In the NFL or NBA, the schedules are roughly even. If two teams in the NBA have the exact record, they are about even.
In boxing take two guys with 15-0 records, and one guy might be light years better than the other.

If you could stand up, you could have been a professional boxer. They will take virtually anyone. Currently, in North America alone, there over 550 heavyweights. You or I could have been one and been ko'd by much more experienced fighters. There are only roster spots for 320 NBA players and there are many times as many amateur basketball players as amateur boxers.

Most boxers never fought in the golden Gloves or anything like that.
Guys that are legally blind have been boxers.
A guy with a pacemaker was once a boxer.
A fighter that is over 100 pounds overweight can be a boxer.
And these guys are often the opponents for the guys that we talk about.

Obviously, there are going to be complete mismatches. You have to be smart enough to realize this and know that many fights are all but worth less. You are completely underestimating the difference between a fighter taking on a real opponent and taking on a total stiff.
You need to understand this. Otherwise, you are going to keep vastly overrating the guys with padded records. And underrating fighters who didn't have it easy coming and whose careers you fail to understand. i.e Mike Weaver, Jimmy Young, Jersey Joe Walcott etc.

[gilgamesh]

I realize all boxers are not created equal that's why I rate them from 0 to 5 depending on their status in the sport.

I realize Baer beat Schmeling, and yes it is better than any of Carnera's wins, it's not a Million Bazillion points better, but it's better.

There's no such thing as a worthless win in my opinion. If you think there are you're entitled to think that, but i do not. Plenty of fights are worth only 1 point, but none save for a No Contest or something are completely worthless, and even with a No Contest it depends on the circumstances.

Also how about the fact that Carnera beat Loughran and Uzcudun in World Title fights while Baer did not beat them at all. You keep skipping that, and no matter what you wanna say those wins certainly are not worthless.

One thing i think we can all agree on is that Carnera is undeniably the best ever Italian Heavyweight Champion (from Italy that is, I'm not putting him over Marciano obviously) and Max Baer is definitely the best ever Jewish Heavyweight Champion.

And otherwise than that. It's not worth arguing about the placement of 2 guys who don't crack the all time Top 30.

[Ambling Alp II]

It's not just that you give every win at least one point. It's that the difference between that and a great is not nearly enough.
I do think Carnera does deserve some credit for beating Loughran and Uzcudun, and others. It's just not enough. And you can make a very good case for Baer being in the Top 30. But yeah, this argument has run it's course.

[gilgamesh]

Boxrec has him in their Top 30, both of em in fact, but then again they also have Turkey Thompson and a bunch of other mediocre fringe guys from the past in the Top 50 so take it with a grain of salt.