How often to you overhaul your rankings?

barry · Post by **barry** » 07 Oct 2006, 05:45

I don't overhaul any of my complete rankings any more...unless a new fighter comes along who works his way into the list, but as far as old timers go...I'm pretty set in what I have, but there are a few divisions that have fighters whom I just do not know enough about yet so I just don't rate those divisions...yet.

>>>The weakest eras were the 1930s and the 1950s.<<<

The weakest era's were the 80s and now! 1934 had one of the best, if not the best set of rookie heavyweights to turn pro in boxing history and the 30s were loaded with top fighters!

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 07 Oct 2006, 08:48

The 80s were good up to about 83/85 when everything went into sharp decline.... the 90s were pretty awful and if anything its just got worse, certainly at heavyweight...

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 07 Oct 2006, 14:41

I think the 1980s was poor for HWs but we had two of the greatest US Olympic teams come to the fore in this decade. Overall I think it was a strong decade but the politics really started kicking in and the IBF's foothold had huge ramifications.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 07 Oct 2006, 18:30

The 80s were good up to about 83/85 when everything went into sharp decline

anything to hype up holmes and downgrade tyson. you make it look like guys like tubbs, spinx, thomas, spoon, bonecrusher, williams berbick all suddenly became shot in 1986 to take away from tysons dominanting victories over them.

tyson dominated the 1980s heavyweight scene better than holmes did and tysons tittle reign was much more dominating vs top ranked contenders than holmes was, and tyson was for more consistent in taking on top contneders than holmes was, and tyson unified the title unlike holmes did.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 07 Oct 2006, 18:51

tyson realistically made 8 since he won the WBC in 1986 vs trevor berbick and unified vs tony tucker in only one year.

spinx completley ducked mike tyson and tony tucker which is why it took so long for tyson to fight spinx.

tyson dominated the 1980s alpha champs far more than holmes did and tyson destroyed guys holmes wouldnt risk facing like tubbs and thomas

that said....i still rate holmes higher than tyson

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 07 Oct 2006, 19:22

Decagon wrote:If you're going to count fake titles, John Ruiz has made a bunch of defenses, too.

different circumstances. tyson unified the titles unlike ruiz. people dont realize how big a deal unifying the titles were. tyson cleaned up all the garbage in one year. what tyson did is equivalent to calvin brock beating wlad klitschko, defending that title vs the # 1 contender, and THEN winning the IBF and WBA title all in a gap of one year. cant see that happening can you??

spinx ducked tyson. tyson had to win one alpha belt, unify them, and have 3 title defenses of his unified belts before spinx took him on.

Irish · Post by **Irish** » 07 Oct 2006, 20:23

Williams would have a hard time finding Byrd. How many southpaws did Cleveland fight?

I am pretty set on my HW rankings, because that is the only division that I find myself very educated in all the eras(I need more 80's footage though). Light Heavyweight and Middleweight I am solid with, but with the lower divisions I am constantly reassessing my views, because getting good footage and mass amounts of footage, for the older fighters, especially the lower weights I find very difficult.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 07 Oct 2006, 21:28

Irish wrote:Williams would have a hard time finding Byrd. How many southpaws did Cleveland fight?

I am pretty set on my HW rankings, because that is the only division that I find myself very educated in all the eras(I need more 80's footage though). Light Heavyweight and Middleweight I am solid with, but with the lower divisions I am constantly reassessing my views, because getting good footage and mass amounts of footage, for the older fighters, especially the lower weights I find very difficult.

williams would kill bryd. williams had way too much firepower for bryd to handle. bryd had trouble with tall fighters with long reaches...williams 6'4 over 80" reach....and williams had the skills, jab, tiger like aggresion to go along with his punching skills.......hes just too much of a beast all around for bryd.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 07 Oct 2006, 22:06

silkov wrote:The 80s were good up to about 83/85 when everything went into sharp deline.... the 90s were pretty awful and if anything its just got worse, certainly at heavyweight...

Disagree on this one. Lewis, Holyfield, Tyson, Bowe -- this was a good decade. Only the 70s, 30s and 50s and perhaps 60s had more depth.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 07 Oct 2006, 22:08

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
Irish wrote:Williams would have a hard time finding Byrd. How many southpaws did Cleveland fight?

I am pretty set on my HW rankings, because that is the only division that I find myself very educated in all the eras(I need more 80's footage though). Light Heavyweight and Middleweight I am solid with, but with the lower divisions I am constantly reassessing my views, because getting good footage and mass amounts of footage, for the older fighters, especially the lower weights I find very difficult.

williams would kill bryd. williams had way too much firepower for bryd to handle. bryd had trouble with tall fighters with long reaches...williams 6'4 over 80" reach....and williams had the skills, jab, tiger like aggresion to go along with his punching skills.......hes just too much of a beast all around for bryd.

Same view here. Byrd wouldn't be competitve agasint Williams. A shootout.

Evander · Post by **Evander** » 09 Oct 2006, 18:47

Decagon wrote:I've been ranking fighters for about five years now, both current, and all-time. While how I rank current fighters has been a slow evolution over time, constantly refining criteria, sometimes I just have to rip everything apart with my all-time rankings. Throughout the past year, I've been trying to incorporate skill into my all-time rankings, more and more. Anyone can read Boxrec and kind of figure out that Joe Louis and Muhammad Ali are at the top of the heavyweight division, but how do we judge skill?

Take Chris Byrd in his prime. I haven't seen too many heavyweights with as much skill as he had. Coming up, he was almost untouchable, and no one wanted to fight him. In stepped the almost mythical Ike Ibeabuchi. Byrd completely outboxed the much, much larger Ibeabuchi until one shot ended the fight. Byrd was obviously concussed, as he couldn't even remember being knocked down. The fight should've been stopped then and there, and I kind of wonder why Ron Rall didn't stop the fight. It was almost as if he was letting the crowd see that one great shot that would end the fight.

http://ringsidereport.com/rsr/images/news/ike.jpg
Ibeabuchi: Fearsome

Then it didn't come. Suffering from a concussion and in no way fit to fight against a heavyweight such as Ibeabuchi, Byrd started boxing and moving again, frustrating Ibeabuchi. When Rall realized that the big knockout that everyone wanted wasn't going to come, he ended the fight. What would've happened if he hadn't? Would Byrd have recovered and won a decision? I'm glad we never found out. Sure, it would've killed the myth of Ike "The President" Ibeabuchi, but it would be putting Chris Byrd in more danger than he deserved.

http://j.b5z.net/i/u/2133790/i/byrd_thumb.jpg
Byrd: Slick

Byrd fought in the era of the super heavyweight, and he had four fights against super heavyweights, going 2-2. His win over Vitali Klitschko might not have been the most impressive of his career, but he showed the heart and determination that makes an all-time great. I sometimes wonder what would've happened if Vitali hadn't quit. Would Byrd have knocked him down? He needed two or three to get the decision. Could he force a stoppage? Vitali made a good business decision by quitting, some might argue. Who could ever forget him being helpless on the ropes, against a feather-fisted super middleweight?

http://images.tsn.ca/images/stories/200 ... _74455.jpg
Vitali Klitschko: Afraid?

Another fighter I might be accused of overranking is Roland LaStarza. His fight with Marciano doesn't exist on tape, but I wish I had a chance to see it. According to the officials, each man won five rounds (plus respective 5-4-1 scorecards), with Marciano getting the decision based on a knockdown. In that old system, a fighter could win four rounds out of ten, scoring four knockdowns while not getting knocked down himself, and still lose the fight. That was supplemental scoring.

http://www.josportsinc.com/item_images/1087154537.jpg
Roland LaStarza: Truly Brave

I try to avoid ranking fighters based on fights they obviously lost, but whether you're Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles or Roland LaStarza, winning 10 rounds against Rocky Marciano - even in two fights - is impressive. LaStarza had heart, too. That's what matters so much. His comeback against Gene Gosney rivaled Archie Moore's against Yvonne Durelle, and he needed surgery after the second Marciano bout. Before 1953, when he got injured in the Maricano fight, the only man LaStarza met that he couldn't beat was Marciano, himself.

http://www.phillyboxinghistory.com/post ... 0430po.jpg
Jimmy Young: An Odd Career

A heavyweight I'll admit to overranking is Jimmy Young. The last time I updated my rankings, I was hell-bent on skill, and somehow he ended up at #16. I put him ahead of a bunch of more deserving fighters, and justified it in my head with his close win over Foreman, and his close loss to Ali.

What a good piece

How often to you overhaul your rankings?

re

Re: How often to you overhaul your rankings?