These ratings just dont seem right

JAHamilton77 · Post by **JAHamilton77** » 08 Aug 2007, 00:58

I am no boxing historian, not by any stretch of the imagination. But even with my only avergage (that might even be generous) knowledge of the past the ratings this guy makes seem to be a tad on the "odd" side. I mean this guy works with the research people at the IBHoF so he has to know alittle (or atleast have some incriminating pictures). Look at his rankings and tell me if I am too much of a shill for the conventional thinking in boxing history, or if this guy goes alittle to overboard in overthinking his list.

http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Lodg ... allis2.htm

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 08 Aug 2007, 07:30

I would say he is pretty generous to the older fighters.....and can't seem to place Tunney or Fitz in a single catagory. Perhaps a way to honor personal favorites? But wants us to know Marciano could indeed carry Holmes Jock. Cervantes and Sanchez not rated? It's an interesting mish mosh I guess. But just a curio shop wonder and nothing more.

bollox · Post by **bollox** » 08 Aug 2007, 07:44

Marvin Hagler not in the top 10 at middleweight but Roy Jones is in? errrr, oooooook

Reminds me of the Myth Busters guy's catchcry........."I reject your reality. And substitute my own"

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 08 Aug 2007, 08:00

He messes things up by not only including the "newer" weight classes, but sometimes ranking fighters in 3 different weight classes.

I say, even if they jumped a lot, just pick one weight class to rank them at.

IMO there should never be an all time "Cruiser" ranking that includes Heavyweights.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 08 Aug 2007, 08:34

These ratings are so bad it's mindboggling. You literally could draw the names out of champions out of a hat and come up with more realistic ratings.

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 08 Aug 2007, 08:46

The ratings are total bollox, ignore them