Oh, my God! Chris Byrd at #31?!?! And his two-time tormentor Vlad Klitschko at #60?!?! That's not stupid, that's imbecile!Decagon wrote:Okay, I got lazy and stopped at 81 instead of a multiple of five. This list needs a LOT of work, so I'd appreciate your comments. Stuff like, "Oh, my God! Tiger Jack at #79?!?! That's stupid!" aren't really helpful. I'd rather talk about the placement of individual fighters in relation to other individual fighters, and please remember, this list will probably change.
- 1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Larry Holmes
4. Jack Johnson
5. Joe Frazier
6. Sonny Liston
7. George Foreman
8. Evander Holyfield
9. Rocky Marciano
10. Lennox Lewis
11. Jack Dempsey
12. Mike Tyson
13. Gene Tunney
14. Ezzard Charles
15. Jersey Joe Walcott
16. Sam Langford
17. Jim Jeffries
18. Riddick Bowe
19. Max Schmelling
20. Jack Sharkey
21. Archie Moore
22. Jimmy Young
23. Ken Norton
24. Michael Spinks
25. Floyd Patterson
26. Earnie Shavers
27. Joe Jeannette
28. Jerry Quarry
29. Harry Wills
30. Cleveland Williams
31. Chris Byrd
32. Max Baer
33. Elmer Ray
34. Ike Ibeabuchi
35. David Tua
36. Tim Witherspoon
37. John L. Sullivan
38. George Godfrey
39. Ron Lyle
40. Oscar Bonavena
41. Pinklon Thomas
42. Hasim Rahman
43. Ingemar Johanssen
44. Roland LaStarza
45. Sam McVey
46. John Ruiz
47. Joe Bugner
48. Gerry Cooney
49. Buster Douglas
50. Harry Greb
51. Harold Johnson
52. James Corbett
53. Michael Moorer
54. Vitali Klitschko
55. Zora Foley
56. Jimmy Ellis
57. Razor Ruddock
58. Tom Sharkey
59. Ernie Terrel
60. Wladimir Klitschko
61. Michael Dokes
62. Tommy Burns
63. Roy Jones
64. James Toney
65. Marvin Hart
66. John Tate
67. Tommy Loughran
68. Jimmy Bivins
69. James Braddock
70. Gerrie Coetzee
71. Tony Tucker
72. Mike Weaver
73. John Henry Lewis
74. Billy Conn
75. Greg Page
76. Rex Layne
77. Trevor Berbick
78. Bonecrusher Smith
79. Tiger Jack Fox
80. Buddy Baer
81. Bob Fitzsimmons
Top 81 Heavyweights of All Time/Horrible List/Please Ignore
-
pundit
- Heavyweight
Re: Top 81 Heavyweights of All Time/Horrible List/Please Ign
-
pundit
- Heavyweight
-
pundit
- Heavyweight
re
>>>I've seen Fitzsimmons-Corbet on tape, and I can't say that I'm too impressed.<<<
Well, that is why you need to supplement that four minutes of footage with tons of written word. Trying to judge the fighters on the crappy little film that exsists is no different than watching four minutes of Ali-Holmes, but first wear the tape out to where it is about to break to make it about the same quality of that which exsists for the old -timers, and judging Ali based on that, which based on that performance...he would not even be in any one's top 100, which the arguement would be, well that was Ali at the end...well alright...then take four minutes of Ali-Norton one and base a judgement of Ali's entire career on that four minutes...that is what you do with Fitzsimmons, Corbett and the old timers and it's just not nearly enough.
Well, that is why you need to supplement that four minutes of footage with tons of written word. Trying to judge the fighters on the crappy little film that exsists is no different than watching four minutes of Ali-Holmes, but first wear the tape out to where it is about to break to make it about the same quality of that which exsists for the old -timers, and judging Ali based on that, which based on that performance...he would not even be in any one's top 100, which the arguement would be, well that was Ali at the end...well alright...then take four minutes of Ali-Norton one and base a judgement of Ali's entire career on that four minutes...that is what you do with Fitzsimmons, Corbett and the old timers and it's just not nearly enough.
it's funny Barry how many people see these old films and 'rule-out' the fighters. I know better and I also can agree they look like shit...but I would be a fool to leave it at that!
It's true what you say Barry you MUST look at the reports, dozens and hundreds of them when available. And like you, I also know the value of the reports from the 'location' and local reporters from where the fight took place, are at times less bias or promoting of a certain fighter over the other. So with all these things in mind and remembering these were tough and not 'lazy/easy' times and these were Top men, who beat or competed with other proven top men, then of course they were very good & great fighters.
But I won't leave it at that either, as I've said before Film any of todays fighters, good, bad or otherwise with the same old cameras, exactly as it was done and see what you come out with- most would look shit & much less impressive!
Last and not at all least, some old film does exist either filmed properly and/or preserved well and it is great to show you just how good these boys were...I have film of Tony Canzoneri from 1934, it is absolutely PERFECT and so is Canzoneri and not just Tony but his opponent Frankie Klick - proving that these men could fight and I challenge any little men from any age to fight Canzoneri. Tony Canzoneri was the 'bizz' and that was from 70-80 years ago!
It's true what you say Barry you MUST look at the reports, dozens and hundreds of them when available. And like you, I also know the value of the reports from the 'location' and local reporters from where the fight took place, are at times less bias or promoting of a certain fighter over the other. So with all these things in mind and remembering these were tough and not 'lazy/easy' times and these were Top men, who beat or competed with other proven top men, then of course they were very good & great fighters.
But I won't leave it at that either, as I've said before Film any of todays fighters, good, bad or otherwise with the same old cameras, exactly as it was done and see what you come out with- most would look shit & much less impressive!
Last and not at all least, some old film does exist either filmed properly and/or preserved well and it is great to show you just how good these boys were...I have film of Tony Canzoneri from 1934, it is absolutely PERFECT and so is Canzoneri and not just Tony but his opponent Frankie Klick - proving that these men could fight and I challenge any little men from any age to fight Canzoneri. Tony Canzoneri was the 'bizz' and that was from 70-80 years ago!
Byrd actually beat a bunch of heavyweights without being knocked out by guys like Puritty, Sanders and Brewster. Norton beat Ali - really twice. Should he be ranked above Ali? Oh, and in case you weren't paying attention, Vitali Klitschko lost against him, because he quit.
I understand if you feel Byrd has the better resume and didn't lose to lesser opponents but You rank Byrd at 31 and Wladimir Klitschko at 59 for someone who Tortured them twice a 28 Spot difference is too much.. Considering Wlad Matches up better with the rest of the Field
Andrew Golota-Close fight that could of gone either way Byrd should get no credit for this win because Golota quit in other fights
Fres Oquendo-More than a few actually believe Fres won
David Tua-By then he was on the "1500 Calorie diet"
Wladimir Klitschko- In both fights he wasn't even in the fight
Ike Ibeabuchi- Left Uppercut "Ouch"
Maurice Harris-Did he ever beat a Decent HW?
Jameel McCline- Had a nice run from 01-to mid 02 Then Wtf did he do?
I understand if you feel Byrd has the better resume and didn't lose to lesser opponents but You rank Byrd at 31 and Wladimir Klitschko at 59 for someone who Tortured them twice a 28 Spot difference is too much.. Considering Wlad Matches up better with the rest of the Field
Andrew Golota-Close fight that could of gone either way Byrd should get no credit for this win because Golota quit in other fights
Fres Oquendo-More than a few actually believe Fres won
David Tua-By then he was on the "1500 Calorie diet"
Wladimir Klitschko- In both fights he wasn't even in the fight
Ike Ibeabuchi- Left Uppercut "Ouch"
Maurice Harris-Did he ever beat a Decent HW?
Jameel McCline- Had a nice run from 01-to mid 02 Then Wtf did he do?
-
dr_devious
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 5348
- Joined: 29 Dec 2005, 09:19
-
pundit
- Heavyweight
-
pundit
- Heavyweight
jimglen wrote:it's funny Barry how many people see these old films and 'rule-out' the fighters. I know better and I also can agree they look like shit...but I would be a fool to leave it at that!
One important source are contemporary commentators who had first-hand experience with nold-timers and more modern fighters. Gene Tunney e.g. said Corbett was the most skilled fighter he'd ever seen -- and Tunney followed heavyweight boxing for 60 years or so.
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
The top 20 is pretty good. I wouldn't have them exactly like that, but you aren't going to find two people that in total agreement. It seems pretty reasonable.
After that, there are some problems.
First Archie Moore- I like Archie but he simply wasn't a great heavyweight. He had two big fights at heavyweight and got knocked out by Marciano and Patterson. (Patterson is actually ranked behind Moore.)
He is nowhere remotely near the #21 heavyweight of all time.
Cleveland Williams at #30 is rated too high. He didn't do well when he fought good competition.
Godfrey at #38 is a bit too. Outside of a win over a green Larry Gains there really isn't much to his record.
LaStarza at #44 is a bit high. Outside of giving Marciano trouble there really is much to recommend him. He won a close decison over Rex Layne and lost some fights to ordinary fighters.
Several modern fighters are on this list that shouldn't be. Tua,Ruiz, Rahman, and Byrd were nothing special. Ibeabuchi was more of a case of what might have been. Jones had only one fight at heavyweight and Toney certainly didn't do enough at this weight.
McVey should be a bit higher than #44. He was very competitive with Langford, Wills, and Jeanette.
Corbett and Fitzsimmons should be higher. They shouldn't be that far behind Jefferies who is rated #17.
Eddie Machen should be in there somewhere. If Folley is #55, Machen certainly should be on this list.
Ray Mercer should be on the list as well. If you just watch his fights with Holmes and Ferguson then I can see why he isn't. However, if you watch his fights with Holyfield,Lewis, Morrison and some lesser opponents than you would have to put him in.
Don't understand why Quarry is #28 and Ellis is only #56.
Loughran and Harold Johnson were interesting picks (though a bit high). They actually were more impressive at heavyweight than Moore and Conn who more people put on heavyweight lists.
Where to rate Elmer Ray is difficult to say. At first glance it seems that he deserves to be pretty high becasue he beat Charles and Walcott. However, the win over charles was when Charles was still a 175 pound lightheavyweight. Chalres knocked him out in the rematch. His win over Walcott isn't that impressive when you consider that Walcott lost a lot of fights to guys who aren't on this list. He also lost to Walcott twice. The rest of Ray's competition was fairly weak. He didn't even fight many of the top black fighters of his era. One he did fight, TurkeyTthompson, knocked Ray out in the first round.
Ray deserves to be on this list but #33 seems too high.
Of course this is an exact science. There are always so many close calls. But it's fun. Not even going to discuss Tiger Jack Fox
After that, there are some problems.
First Archie Moore- I like Archie but he simply wasn't a great heavyweight. He had two big fights at heavyweight and got knocked out by Marciano and Patterson. (Patterson is actually ranked behind Moore.)
He is nowhere remotely near the #21 heavyweight of all time.
Cleveland Williams at #30 is rated too high. He didn't do well when he fought good competition.
Godfrey at #38 is a bit too. Outside of a win over a green Larry Gains there really isn't much to his record.
LaStarza at #44 is a bit high. Outside of giving Marciano trouble there really is much to recommend him. He won a close decison over Rex Layne and lost some fights to ordinary fighters.
Several modern fighters are on this list that shouldn't be. Tua,Ruiz, Rahman, and Byrd were nothing special. Ibeabuchi was more of a case of what might have been. Jones had only one fight at heavyweight and Toney certainly didn't do enough at this weight.
McVey should be a bit higher than #44. He was very competitive with Langford, Wills, and Jeanette.
Corbett and Fitzsimmons should be higher. They shouldn't be that far behind Jefferies who is rated #17.
Eddie Machen should be in there somewhere. If Folley is #55, Machen certainly should be on this list.
Ray Mercer should be on the list as well. If you just watch his fights with Holmes and Ferguson then I can see why he isn't. However, if you watch his fights with Holyfield,Lewis, Morrison and some lesser opponents than you would have to put him in.
Don't understand why Quarry is #28 and Ellis is only #56.
Loughran and Harold Johnson were interesting picks (though a bit high). They actually were more impressive at heavyweight than Moore and Conn who more people put on heavyweight lists.
Where to rate Elmer Ray is difficult to say. At first glance it seems that he deserves to be pretty high becasue he beat Charles and Walcott. However, the win over charles was when Charles was still a 175 pound lightheavyweight. Chalres knocked him out in the rematch. His win over Walcott isn't that impressive when you consider that Walcott lost a lot of fights to guys who aren't on this list. He also lost to Walcott twice. The rest of Ray's competition was fairly weak. He didn't even fight many of the top black fighters of his era. One he did fight, TurkeyTthompson, knocked Ray out in the first round.
Ray deserves to be on this list but #33 seems too high.
Of course this is an exact science. There are always so many close calls. But it's fun. Not even going to discuss Tiger Jack Fox
The first problem / question that always needs to be asked with these typs of lists, but is seldom either asked or answered, is :
What are the criteria?
Head to head in their prime?
If that is the case, then with very few exceptions, having a pre 1960's fighter anywhere near the top is an exercise in romanticized hindsight.
The fact is, many were cruiserweights and even borderline LHWs by today’s rules, and like it or not, size, strength and modern training methods have taken a quantum leap since the 30,40 and even the 50s.
Dominant HWs of those times would be challenged, even beaten, against even fringe contenders of today. When you talk about 19th century fighters, they would have not recognized the sport of today. Defensively, they would be inept and helpless.
Dominance in the ring during their era ?
Now that is a legitimate question, IF you stick to that standard throughout the list. Most people don’t. If they did, most lists, including yours, would look very different. By these criteria, to omit fighters like Dempsey, Tyson and Marciano from the top 5 is impossible to defend.
Courage, excitement, and contributions to boxing history?
Again a VERY different list, with fighters that were never champion, fighters with less then impressive records, and even fighters who's lagacy, were a part of OTHER fighters legacy, ( Schmelling, Dougles, Bradock, Chulvalo ) would have to be on top of the list.
The second problem with accounts of older fights and fighters:
Unlike Berry, I take these old news reports with a HUGE grain of salt.
Why ? Because I know how they were conceived. In the late 19th and early 20th century, even as late as the 20s and even the 30s, reporters, after a pre fight schmooze session with the fighters and or their handlers, would jot down notes on a note pad with a pencil, bring them to a copy boy who would form the gibberish into an readable story, which was passed on to an editor who would re write the story for the local paper, who would sent off to a wire service, that would re write the story yet again. It made for some classic sensationalized but biased journalism, but also made for some questionable accuracy.
The third problem is:
Anything past 10 or 15, is an exercise in nit picking, hair splitting and mental masturbation. Whenever I have asked the reasoning for rating, (Just examples) say a Roland LaStarza over a Jerry Quarry, or a Ken Norton over a Max Bear, or the reverse, I have yet to hear an answer that makes sense, or is anything other then some bizarre equation of 15 degrees of separation with fighter A beating fighter C, who had a draw with fighter D, who was robbed of a decision with fighter A, but ducked out of a fight with fighter B, etc etc etc. Judging a fighters history by one, or even two or three fights, is like judging the quality of your car, either on the day the battery died, or the day it got you to a gas station 4 miles away with the oil pressure light on, and survived.
In the end, these lists are fun, but are in most cases, pretty meaningless.
What are the criteria?
Head to head in their prime?
If that is the case, then with very few exceptions, having a pre 1960's fighter anywhere near the top is an exercise in romanticized hindsight.
The fact is, many were cruiserweights and even borderline LHWs by today’s rules, and like it or not, size, strength and modern training methods have taken a quantum leap since the 30,40 and even the 50s.
Dominant HWs of those times would be challenged, even beaten, against even fringe contenders of today. When you talk about 19th century fighters, they would have not recognized the sport of today. Defensively, they would be inept and helpless.
Dominance in the ring during their era ?
Now that is a legitimate question, IF you stick to that standard throughout the list. Most people don’t. If they did, most lists, including yours, would look very different. By these criteria, to omit fighters like Dempsey, Tyson and Marciano from the top 5 is impossible to defend.
Courage, excitement, and contributions to boxing history?
Again a VERY different list, with fighters that were never champion, fighters with less then impressive records, and even fighters who's lagacy, were a part of OTHER fighters legacy, ( Schmelling, Dougles, Bradock, Chulvalo ) would have to be on top of the list.
The second problem with accounts of older fights and fighters:
Unlike Berry, I take these old news reports with a HUGE grain of salt.
Why ? Because I know how they were conceived. In the late 19th and early 20th century, even as late as the 20s and even the 30s, reporters, after a pre fight schmooze session with the fighters and or their handlers, would jot down notes on a note pad with a pencil, bring them to a copy boy who would form the gibberish into an readable story, which was passed on to an editor who would re write the story for the local paper, who would sent off to a wire service, that would re write the story yet again. It made for some classic sensationalized but biased journalism, but also made for some questionable accuracy.
The third problem is:
Anything past 10 or 15, is an exercise in nit picking, hair splitting and mental masturbation. Whenever I have asked the reasoning for rating, (Just examples) say a Roland LaStarza over a Jerry Quarry, or a Ken Norton over a Max Bear, or the reverse, I have yet to hear an answer that makes sense, or is anything other then some bizarre equation of 15 degrees of separation with fighter A beating fighter C, who had a draw with fighter D, who was robbed of a decision with fighter A, but ducked out of a fight with fighter B, etc etc etc. Judging a fighters history by one, or even two or three fights, is like judging the quality of your car, either on the day the battery died, or the day it got you to a gas station 4 miles away with the oil pressure light on, and survived.
In the end, these lists are fun, but are in most cases, pretty meaningless.
I totally understand what you are saying, and I could totally understand a 26 to 50 or a 51 to 100 if it were prefaced with "in no particular order."Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 11:41 am Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cosand wrote:
The third problem is:
Anything past 10 or 15, is an exercise in nit picking, hair splitting and mental masturbation. Whenever I have asked the reasoning for rating, (Just examples) say a Roland LaStarza over a Jerry Quarry, or a Ken Norton over a Max Bear, or the reverse, I have yet to hear an answer that makes sense, or is anything other then some bizarre equation of 15 degrees of separation with fighter A beating fighter C, who had a draw with fighter D, who was robbed of a decision with fighter A, but ducked out of a fight with fighter B, etc etc etc. Judging a fighters history by one, or even two or three fights, is like judging the quality of your car, either on the day the battery died, or the day it got you to a gas station 4 miles away with the oil pressure light on, and survived.
In the end, these lists are fun, but are in most cases, pretty meaningless.
The purpose of ranking fighters from #26 to #50 is getting a good top 25. The purpose of ranking fighters from #51 to #100 is getting a good top 50. I usually keep a longer list than I post online, and I'm really only trying to get a good top 40. I posted #41 to #81 just because I'm looking for a little help, not because I want to brag about listing the 80 greatest heavyweights. I used to only keep a list into the 40s, but I recently put together a bunch of my old lists, like the top six for each decade, the top 30 never to win a title, the top fighters of the 1930s, etc...
By decade is the best and most logical. Otherwise, it is apples and oranges.
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
A few of those fighters were under the light heavyweight limit when Greb beat them, but all of them had some success at heavyweight. I mean, that list is incomplete, but it's still impressive.Decagon wrote:It's strange, but if one of the greatest lightweights or middleweights gets knocked out a few times, people give him a pass, but for some reason, everyone bitches about Lewis getting knocked out a couple of times. I guess that to be a top heavyweight, you need to have a pretty damn good chin.dr_devious wrote:I wouldnt have rated Holyfield and Marciano over Lewis and Dempsey.
It's simple:dr_devious wrote:Also, why is Harry Greb rated at 50 in the heavyweights?
- Gene Tunney
- Tommy Gibbons
- Quintin Rojas
- Jack Renault
- Soldier Jones
- Bob Roper
- Larry Williams
- Tommy Loughran
- Hugh Walker
- Joe Cox
- Kid Norfolk
- Bartley Madden
- Mickey Shannon
- Gunboat Smith
- Chuck Wiggins
- George "One Round" Davis
- Billy Miske
Moore was the #1 contender at heavyweight for years and years. He wasn't at his best when he fought Patterson, but he still won every round before being knocked out. Moore consistently took on top heavyweights and did well.Ambling Alp wrote:First Archie Moore- I like Archie but he simply wasn't a great heavyweight. He had two big fights at heavyweight and got knocked out by Marciano and Patterson. (Patterson is actually ranked behind Moore.)
He is nowhere remotely near the #21 heavyweight of all time.
He fought plenty of good competition, and the only time he lost in his prime was against Liston and Ali. Think of it this way: was Floyd Patterson's competition that much better than Williams's during the same era? Arguably, Williams beat better fighters, and they both lost to Liston and Ali.Ambling Alp wrote:Cleveland Williams at #30 is rated too high. He didn't do well when he fought good competition.
Actually, this was originally a top 82 list, and I didn't want everyone bitching about me giving too much credit to Mercer. [/quote]Ambling Alp wrote:Ray Mercer should be on the list as well. If you just watch his fights with Holmes and Ferguson then I can see why he isn't. However, if you watch his fights with Holyfield,Lewis, Morrison and some lesser opponents than you would have to put him in.
Good point.Ambling Alp wrote:Don't understand why Quarry is #28 and Ellis is only #56.
Moore was better at heavyweight than all three of them.Ambling Alp wrote:Loughran and Harold Johnson were interesting picks (though a bit high). They actually were more impressive at heavyweight than Moore and Conn who more people put on heavyweight lists.
The Thompson fight was right as Ray was starting to hit his stride as a heavyweight. He is high, though. I had him around #42, and he moved up in the shuffle.Ambling Alp wrote:Where to rate Elmer Ray is difficult to say. At first glance it seems that he deserves to be pretty high becasue he beat Charles and Walcott. However, the win over charles was when Charles was still a 175 pound lightheavyweight. Chalres knocked him out in the rematch. His win over Walcott isn't that impressive when you consider that Walcott lost a lot of fights to guys who aren't on this list. He also lost to Walcott twice. The rest of Ray's competition was fairly weak. He didn't even fight many of the top black fighters of his era. One he did fight, TurkeyTthompson, knocked Ray out in the first round.
Ray deserves to be on this list but #33 seems too high.
It was late/ I was tired.Ambling Alp wrote:Of course this is an exact science. There are always so many close calls. But it's fun. Not even going to discuss Tiger Jack Fox
[/quote]Archie Moore wasn't the #1 heavyweight contneder for years and years. He was considered the #1 contender in 1955, and perhaps by some people in 1956 until he lost to Patterson.
You give Moore credit because you think he won the first 4 rounds against Patterson before he got knocked out. However, in other posts, you say that you don't give fighters much credit in performances when they do well but lose.
With that logic, you shouldn't be giving Moore credit for getting knocked out in the 5th round against Patterson. The best heavyweight that Moore beat was probably Jimmy Bivins. That isn't as impressive as what Loughran and Johnson did at heavyweight.
Johnson actaully has an impressive record against heavyweights. He beat Machen who was better than that Moore ever beat at heavwyeight.
Loughran fought more of the good heavyweights of era than Moore did in his. A lot of the good heavyweights of era. He won some and lost some.
He did lose to Sharkey, Carnera, Farr and Neusel. He was 3-2 against Risko, 2-2 against Hamas, 2-1 against Levinsky, 2-2 against Schaaf, 1-1-1 against Godoy. He did beat Max Baer, Uzcudun and Griffiths. That seems more impressive what Moore did at heavyweight.
Moore fought some heavyweights after he lost to Patterson, but not the best guys. He didn't fight Liston,Johannson,Williams, Folley, or Machen. Yet he found the time to fight journeyman Howard King 5 times.
If you just look at what Moore did as a heavyweight, taking into account his wins and losses and looking at his competition at heavyweight, he simply doesn't deserve to be rated the #21 heavyweight of all time.
As for Cleveland Williams, there is a huge drop off in terms of quality wins after the Terrell win. He did get a draw with Machen who you didn't have rated at all. Thats just not enough to justify rating Williams #30.
I agree that Patterson's title defenses were against weak competition. However, Patterson did beat Machen,Chuvalo, and Bonavena later in his career.
-
dr_devious
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 5348
- Joined: 29 Dec 2005, 09:19
This list would put Greb high up on a light heavyweight list, not at number 50 on a heavyweight list - the best of these Tunney, Loughran and Norfolk were light heaviesDecagon wrote:It's simple:dr_devious wrote:Also, why is Harry Greb rated at 50 in the heavyweights?
- Gene Tunney
- Tommy Gibbons
- Quintin Rojas
- Jack Renault
- Soldier Jones
- Bob Roper
- Larry Williams
- Tommy Loughran
- Hugh Walker
- Joe Cox
- Kid Norfolk
- Bartley Madden
- Mickey Shannon
- Gunboat Smith
- Chuck Wiggins
- George "One Round" Davis
- Billy Miske
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
I don't understand your logic.Decagon wrote:I don't rank fighters based on a loss. I was explaining why Patterson's win over Moore doesn't mean as much to me. My comments were only meant in regards to Patterson.
You don't rank fighters based on a loss? (though you seem to count Vitaly Klitchko's loss to Byrd against him, which I do as well)
Are you saying that when rating fighters you don't look at their losses and who they were to? That is silly.
Patterson beat Moore. For Moore to deserve to be ranked higher he would have to be more impressive against other heavyweights than Patterson was against other heavyweights, which he clearly wasn't. Therefore Patterson should be rated much higher than Moore as a heavyweight.
There is no logic to be honest... this list has so many inconsistancies and out and out howlers that I dont know where to start and could be here all day!. To be fair I wouldnt argue too much over the first 4, though I think Johnson beats Louis, but from then on things get a bit like the twilight zone... I mean Byrd at 31 and Corbett at 50+???.... Moore over Patterson??? ....oh dear!! :x if you dont take notice of fighters losses then you might as well rate Liston and Foreman over Ali and Conn over Louis???? 8)Ambling Alp wrote:I don't understand your logic.Decagon wrote:I don't rank fighters based on a loss. I was explaining why Patterson's win over Moore doesn't mean as much to me. My comments were only meant in regards to Patterson.
You don't rank fighters based on a loss? (though you seem to count Vitaly Klitchko's loss to Byrd against him, which I do as well)
Are you saying that when rating fighters you don't look at their losses and who they were to? That is silly.
Patterson beat Moore. For Moore to deserve to be ranked higher he would have to be more impressive against other heavyweights than Patterson was against other heavyweights, which he clearly wasn't. Therefore Patterson should be rated much higher than Moore as a heavyweight.
-
pundit
- Heavyweight
Vitali "clearly lost" agasint Byrdie?Decagon wrote:No. If a fighter clearly loses a fight, I don't give him credit for it. Conn against Lous, Golota against Bowe, Ruddock against Tyson, Quitali against Byrd... We've gone over this 20 times. Are you really this dense, or are you just pretending to be stupid?
Golota "clearly lost" against Bowe??
This is not "stupid", this is incomprehensible blabberbabba. I know some homeless in downtown DC who talk like that after booze has blown their brains out.
-
The Great John L
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4351
- Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 19:37
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
Decagon- It doesn't sound like you usually count a loss as a negative either, which normally should be done. If you do, then Moore's loss to Patterson should count heavily against him.
It seems like you count Vitaly Klitchsko's loss to Byrd heavily against Klitschko (which I agree with) but you seem to be giving Moore a free pass for his loss to Patterson.
It seems like you count Vitaly Klitchsko's loss to Byrd heavily against Klitschko (which I agree with) but you seem to be giving Moore a free pass for his loss to Patterson.
I don't agree. When you're trying to weigh up a fighter's ability then you have to take every scrap evidence and consider it. Yes, first and foremost is the result but the performance also matters.Decagon wrote:No. If a fighter clearly loses a fight, I don't give him credit for it. Conn against Lous, Golota against Bowe, Ruddock against Tyson, Quitali against Byrd... We've gone over this 20 times. Are you really this dense, or are you just pretending to be stupid?
Isn't Duran's clear loss to Hagler worth something considering one was a peak MW and the other a past it LW? of course, it's not as good as if he'd have won but it still tells us something about the fighter.