Ambling Alp wrote:Sometimes the arguements that people make in regard to lists are indeed silly. Often this is because one or more of the people involved simply aren't that knowledgable. Other times they let biases get in their way. Some people don't like certain styles of fighters, or don't like a fighter's personality so they rate them lower than someone they rate them lower than their favorites.
The different ways that people evaluate fighter can make people come to very different conclusions. For example, one person may have seen a fighter fight once or twice and think that is how the guy always fought, when the footage they saw wasn't a typical performance. Meanwhile the other person saw the guy fight in one or two other fights and has reached a different conclusion.
Some people have an obsession with film to the point that if they haven't seen a particular fight they don't pay much attention to it. Therefore, they don't have much respect for fighters from long ago where is little or film of. It's as if they believe that as film gets better so do the fighters.
Still, others (although probably fewer in number) seem to take almost the opposite view. They have a hero worship for guys who fought before film and since we can't see their weaknesses exposed they seem to think the oldtime greats didn't have them.
Other people are rating fighters on what they consider to the fighter's prime. Often that prime (if it's a fighter they like) conviently ends right before an embarrassing loss that in reality there is no excuse for.
It's also interesting how some people will find every excuse in the book to dismiss all or most of their favorites losses but pay no attention to excuses for fighters that their favorites beat. ie a guy is say 50-9, and there is an excuse for every loss but every single win is legitimate.
So it's tough to rate fighters. You have to try not to be biased against fighters you don't like or overrate someone that you do like. You also have to get as much information as you can. This means books, newspapers, film, records etc.
You also have to listen to other peolpes opinions. Often you won't agree, but occasionally you hear something that you hadn't thought much about before.
On this forum often I will completely disagree with someone about one thing, but will be in complete agreement with that person about something else.
Still, making good lists is possible and is fun. It's also always a work in progress.
Agree with everything in you're post but would ad this. I think some people use the logic that if a fighter loses and loses badly that he would have had to have been past his prime or he would not have lost in such a manner.
One thing, too, that should be remembered about rating fighters is that, in reality, there are tons of forgotten fighters, guys who may have been contenders, but who history will never take that seriously, who on a given day could have beaten a guy on any all-time greatest list. Buster Douglas is an obvious example.
Lists sort of herald the fighters we put on them in terms of levels of invincibility, yet the margin between the greatness of a champion and the almost, but not quite, greatness of a high ranking contender who never made it to the top is often so razor thin. There are fighters I'm sure no one even thinks about anymore who could have beaten champions who still get talked about all the time. I say "could have" not to mean they absolutely "would have", but you can never rule out the possibility. No man was ever completely impossible to beat.
kick asner - I agree that the "past his prime excuse" is overrused. Sometimes a guy is obviously too old, or has been in too many "wars" etc.
However, often the only reasoning used explaining why fighter A lost to fighter B, is that A was past his prime because he perfomed poorly against B.
Well, often that is simply because fighter B was better and A wasn't as effective against B as he was against lesser fighters.
kingpawn - I agree with you that there are many forgotten fighters who were as good or close to as good as fighters who are well remember.
One good thing about making an extensive list on this forum (say top 50 or even top 100) is that instead of a short list (say top 10) someone often will have some suggestions about someone who has been overlooked. I have done top heavyweights list once and someone mentioned Joe Goddard, who I had barely heard of. On another list for welterweights someone mentioned Gypsy Joe Harris who I had never even heard of before.
Here is another way to put the past his prime argument into perspective. I am not trying to beat a dead horse but the argument of if a fighter was past his prime or not has been a long standing issue.
I will use an analogy of a different sport. Say you have a baseball pitcher. Lets say the famous closer Mariono Rivera of the NY Yankees. And just for the sake of discussion he has five great seasons in a row. Then say that in his sixth season he comes in to pitch in the ninth inning and starts getting hit hard. Say he starts losing games. And then things really start to fall apart and he gets lit up on a regular basis. Do you think Yankee fans would say no problem, he's just past his prime, after all he was good at one time and when he was in his prime he would have gotten those hitters out.
