BoxRec

Ocasio would be hard pressed to earn a top 30 ranking in this decade. I'm still waiting on an answer why Frazier doesn't get credit for beating Ali.

I appreciate the The Boiler is playing with a system. But the biggest fault in this system is shown by Frazier losing 2-1 in a series to Ali and therefore it going down as a loss. Quite clearly losing a series 1-2 is far better than losing it 0-1, 0-2, 0-3 and not as good as losing it 2-3.

So Frazier gets no more credit for beating Ali than Bugner gets for losing to him twice.

He doesn't give Frazier any credit for beating Ali. Ellis & Quarry were Joe's only wins of note.

This particular "system" is so full of flaws that it can not be taken at all seriously.

For me (and I don't mean this to sound as disrespectful as it's about to sound) It's like sopping a brush with paint from a bucket, tossing that paint toward a list of fighters, and then claiming that the fighters names with the most paint splattered upon them were the best, and those with less paint were the worst.

The random nature (for me) is almost that close. Ok...maybe a bit more accurate than "my system"....but just marginally.


Of course the fact that I rate Archie Moore on nearly an even keel with Ezzard Charles would be severely shot to hell by the system boilerplate has produced. But that has no connnection as to why I'm disagreeing with him so vehemently. lol

Giancarlo wrote:Compared to this bloke, it could be argued that Irene and Nancy are knowledgeable posters.

Compared to this bloke, you are still a pathetic dwarf, stuck in Mum's musty old basement, jerking off endlessly to your tattered Ali poster.

yancey wrote:

Giancarlo wrote:Compared to this bloke, it could be argued that Irene and Nancy are knowledgeable posters.

Compared to this bloke, you are still a pathetic dwarf, stuck in Mum's musty old basement, jerking off endlessly to your tattered Ali poster.

For a 60 year old man, you have a very immature way about you.

Please, for God's sake, tell me you don't have access to any young minds to corrupt.

You are by far the sickest poster in this forum.

I mean that, sincerely.

ah...I see "sincerity" has been brought up.

I'm going to suggest that we "sincerely" offer up some courtesy and tolerance...and drop the personal barbs.

Opinions are what they are.......some think Carnera was one of the greats.....some don't.......I quietly smile at one of these notions. The other is an opinion I subscribe to.

Alp....no offense if you happen upon this statement.

Ezzard wrote:I appreciate the The Boiler is playing with a system. But the biggest fault in this system is shown by Frazier losing 2-1 in a series to Ali and therefore it going down as a loss. Quite clearly losing a series 1-2 is far better than losing it 0-1, 0-2, 0-3 and not as good as losing it 2-3.

So Frazier gets no more credit for beating Ali than Bugner gets for losing to him twice.

It is up to the individual how much credit you give wins in a losing series. Certainly they shouldnt be given more credit than the guy who won 2 of the 3. See for example all the moaning when Bowe is rated over Holyfield. It is tough on guys who are good enough to win one out of 3, but that is the way it is. Otherwise, how far do you go with this. Marty Servo beat Sugar Ray Robinson on at least one of the 3 judges scorecards and the majority of the crowd, should we credit him with a win? Norton had one judge having him win in 2 of 3 fights against Ali, does that mean he won?

One would hope, that if you are good enough to make the top 10 of the decade, you would have actually proved that you were better than more than one fighter of quality. Frazier has. It is strange that so many are spewing because Frazier should be ranked higher due to getting more credit for one win against a fighter who proved he was better than him, yet they attack occassio, because he is given too much credit for just one win.

The obvious trade up is to make judgment calls in which case everyone would have Joe higher and Ossie lower, but that is judging fighters on what you think of them which isnt what they did. A win is a win, and a loss is a loss. Billy Conn went within an inch of beating Joe Louis but he didnt, and it would be silly to rate him as no 2 of his time because of his win, without considering other results. By Contrast, if he had actually beaten Joe Louis at his best, then unless there were circumstances, such as Joe totally shot or losing a rematch, or other losses, then I think it fair to say that he should rate highly based on that win.

Boilermaker wrote:

Ezzard wrote:I appreciate the The Boiler is playing with a system. But the biggest fault in this system is shown by Frazier losing 2-1 in a series to Ali and therefore it going down as a loss. Quite clearly losing a series 1-2 is far better than losing it 0-1, 0-2, 0-3 and not as good as losing it 2-3.

So Frazier gets no more credit for beating Ali than Bugner gets for losing to him twice.

It is up to the individual how much credit you give wins in a losing series. Certainly they shouldnt be given more credit than the guy who won 2 of the 3. See for example all the moaning when Bowe is rated over Holyfield. It is tough on guys who are good enough to win one out of 3, but that is the way it is. Otherwise, how far do you go with this. Marty Servo beat Sugar Ray Robinson on at least one of the 3 judges scorecards and the majority of the crowd, should we credit him with a win? Norton had one judge having him win in 2 of 3 fights against Ali, does that mean he won?

One would hope, that if you are good enough to make the top 10 of the decade, you would have actually proved that you were better than more than one fighter of quality. Frazier has. It is strange that so many are spewing because Frazier should be ranked higher due to getting more credit for one win against a fighter who proved he was better than him, yet they attack occassio, because he is given too much credit for just one win.

The obvious trade up is to make judgment calls in which case everyone would have Joe higher and Ossie lower, but that is judging fighters on what you think of them which isnt what they did. A win is a win, and a loss is a loss. Billy Conn went within an inch of beating Joe Louis but he didnt, and it would be silly to rate him as no 2 of his time because of his win, without considering other results. By Contrast, if he had actually beaten Joe Louis at his best, then unless there were circumstances, such as Joe totally shot or losing a rematch, or other losses, then I think it fair to say that he should rate highly based on that win.

I, too, appreciate your experimentation with a system. The problem is that these ranking are invariably subjective. There's simply no way you can do it with some thing of mathematical formula.

Giancarlo wrote:

yancey wrote:

Giancarlo wrote:Compared to this bloke, it could be argued that Irene and Nancy are knowledgeable posters.

Compared to this bloke, you are still a pathetic dwarf, stuck in Mum's musty old basement, jerking off endlessly to your tattered Ali poster.

For a 60 year old man, you have a very immature way about you.

Please, for God's sake, tell me you don't have access to any young minds to corrupt.

You are by far the sickest poster in this forum.

I mean that, sincerely.

Immature?

This coming from someone who at least twice has gone in and altered the wording of my posts + wants to meet up with another poster over a difference in opinion?

You know nothing about me.

p.s. Sorry BB, but he started it, as usual.

raylawpc wrote:

Boilermaker wrote:

Ezzard wrote:I appreciate the The Boiler is playing with a system. But the biggest fault in this system is shown by Frazier losing 2-1 in a series to Ali and therefore it going down as a loss. Quite clearly losing a series 1-2 is far better than losing it 0-1, 0-2, 0-3 and not as good as losing it 2-3.

So Frazier gets no more credit for beating Ali than Bugner gets for losing to him twice.

It is up to the individual how much credit you give wins in a losing series. Certainly they shouldnt be given more credit than the guy who won 2 of the 3. See for example all the moaning when Bowe is rated over Holyfield. It is tough on guys who are good enough to win one out of 3, but that is the way it is. Otherwise, how far do you go with this. Marty Servo beat Sugar Ray Robinson on at least one of the 3 judges scorecards and the majority of the crowd, should we credit him with a win? Norton had one judge having him win in 2 of 3 fights against Ali, does that mean he won?

One would hope, that if you are good enough to make the top 10 of the decade, you would have actually proved that you were better than more than one fighter of quality. Frazier has. It is strange that so many are spewing because Frazier should be ranked higher due to getting more credit for one win against a fighter who proved he was better than him, yet they attack occassio, because he is given too much credit for just one win.

The obvious trade up is to make judgment calls in which case everyone would have Joe higher and Ossie lower, but that is judging fighters on what you think of them which isnt what they did. A win is a win, and a loss is a loss. Billy Conn went within an inch of beating Joe Louis but he didnt, and it would be silly to rate him as no 2 of his time because of his win, without considering other results. By Contrast, if he had actually beaten Joe Louis at his best, then unless there were circumstances, such as Joe totally shot or losing a rematch, or other losses, then I think it fair to say that he should rate highly based on that win.

I, too, appreciate your experimentation with a system. The problem is that these ranking are invariably subjective. There's simply no way you can do it with some thing of mathematical formula.

Ray, you are right.

Eventually, over time these lists will mould and develop, and i think we will get consensus as to how most of them should be. The reason i am sticking with this mathematical type formula, is because it gives a good starting point on fighters to consider in these discussions. This is not so important in the recent decades, as everyone on the board knows most of the guys that should or shouldnt be there. As we go down to the earlier decades such as the Teens or the 1880s, there is a bigger chance for fighters to slip through the net. This is why i will stick with the system. AS i said in the other threads, others are welcome to discuss varying criteria or fighters that should or shouldnt be in the rankings. This is a long term series of posts, so there will be plenty of time to mull consider and respond for all, and i am sure i will bump the different decades over the course of the next year or so.

Boilermaker wrote:
Eventually, over time these lists will mould and develop, and i think we will get consensus as to how most of them should be. The reason i am sticking with this mathematical type formula, is because it gives a good starting point on fighters to consider in these discussions

What I'm not getting is why you are leaving out other top ranked fighters. Going back to John Tate, he was 20-0 and world champ yet Ocasio is getting ranked higher based on his two wins over a fading Young.

I'm not sure exactly how you actually worked these out but wouldn't adding further criteria to make it more accurate? For example a points system based on where the various opponents were ranked in the top 10 rankings at the time of the fight.

So if someone beats a world champion and wins the title give them a +5, if they beat a top 5 ranked fighter give them +3, if they beat a 6-10 ranked fighter give them +1 and any opponents outside the top 10 give them a 0 score. If they lose given them -1. Maybe you could also give someone a +1 score if they draw or lost by SD or MD to give them some credit for losing a controversial decision.

You would need to include all the other fighters in the 70s as well, but at least that would be a fairer system as it would be across the board. Surely better than only picking certain fighters to start with and ignoring those like Tate or Bugner.

Boilermaker wrote:

raylawpc wrote:

Boilermaker wrote: It is up to the individual how much credit you give wins in a losing series. Certainly they shouldnt be given more credit than the guy who won 2 of the 3. See for example all the moaning when Bowe is rated over Holyfield. It is tough on guys who are good enough to win one out of 3, but that is the way it is. Otherwise, how far do you go with this. Marty Servo beat Sugar Ray Robinson on at least one of the 3 judges scorecards and the majority of the crowd, should we credit him with a win? Norton had one judge having him win in 2 of 3 fights against Ali, does that mean he won?

One would hope, that if you are good enough to make the top 10 of the decade, you would have actually proved that you were better than more than one fighter of quality. Frazier has. It is strange that so many are spewing because Frazier should be ranked higher due to getting more credit for one win against a fighter who proved he was better than him, yet they attack occassio, because he is given too much credit for just one win.

The obvious trade up is to make judgment calls in which case everyone would have Joe higher and Ossie lower, but that is judging fighters on what you think of them which isnt what they did. A win is a win, and a loss is a loss. Billy Conn went within an inch of beating Joe Louis but he didnt, and it would be silly to rate him as no 2 of his time because of his win, without considering other results. By Contrast, if he had actually beaten Joe Louis at his best, then unless there were circumstances, such as Joe totally shot or losing a rematch, or other losses, then I think it fair to say that he should rate highly based on that win.

I, too, appreciate your experimentation with a system. The problem is that these ranking are invariably subjective. There's simply no way you can do it with some thing of mathematical formula.

Ray, you are right.

Eventually, over time these lists will mould and develop, and i think we will get consensus as to how most of them should be. The reason i am sticking with this mathematical type formula, is because it gives a good starting point on fighters to consider in these discussions. This is not so important in the recent decades, as everyone on the board knows most of the guys that should or shouldnt be there. As we go down to the earlier decades such as the Teens or the 1880s, there is a bigger chance for fighters to slip through the net. This is why i will stick with the system. AS i said in the other threads, others are welcome to discuss varying criteria or fighters that should or shouldnt be in the rankings. This is a long term series of posts, so there will be plenty of time to mull consider and respond for all, and i am sure i will bump the different decades over the course of the next year or so.

Well, of course, I'm right; I already knew that. There are a lot of criteria that should be involved in these questions, such as the fighter's technical excellence (or lack thereof), talent (or lack thereof), dedication and heart (or lack thereof), how well the fighter performed (not just whether or not he lost), the fighter's historic impact (especially true for heavyweights). Most of these are subjective. What you have devised should be (perhaps) the very first step, but it cannot be the final analysis. It is maybe 1/10th of the analysis, if that. And nobody is going to agree on a final list.

Jaws Occasio should be ranked number one on that list.
He war robbed vs Holmes. Everyone knows he won that fight.

Even I knows he does not belong nowhere close to top ten in the heavyweights division.

yancey wrote:Sorry BB, but he started it, as usual.

I rest my case.

I will answer Saads question on the other thread here, so as to allow him to put some sensible comment or argument where it belongs.

Frazier does not get credit for beating Ali in fight of the century when considering the whole decade, because what that series told us is that Ali and Frazier fought 3 times in the decade and Ali proved he was the better fighter than Frazier. If Norton (for example) had an identical resume to Frazier (fight for fight, result for result) with the exception that he had fought Ali once as in his first fight and won a close decision, then Norton would have to rate ahead of Frazier, because he beat Ali whereas Frazier lost the series.

This is particularly so, when i do the first drafts that are put up, as otherwise it would take years to go through the decades fights by fights and there would be little interest in any of the comments and contributions made by others. The ratings can be adjusted according to contributions and opinions and special circumstances. But at first instance the official results are what we need to go by. There pretty much needs to be a consensus to change from that opinion (or at least a valid determination by whoever is making the lists in this case me).

Now, you want to give credit to FOTC. Well it is not impossible under the system. Now since you are so keen to credit FOTC I will help you because it seems too a little hard for you to do it yourself. You could create an argument that Frazier fought his best in 1970 and that is the only fight that was relevant since he was out of shape at that point. But if you do that, you have two problems. Firstly, You must pretty much rate Frazier over Ali since they both fought at their best and Frazier proved he was the better fighter by winning the fight. Essentially then, you would want the best fighter of the decade to be declared teh best fighter of the decade, even though he was only the best for such a short period of time. Very hard to believe, considering the critcisms you have previously made of Michael Dokes or Marvis Frazier getting to much credit for just one win. Not impossible thought.

The second problem you have with this reasoning is that you are really attacking Holmes for not having enough wins or fighting enough quality fighters in the decade(i presume this is the reason) but in reality Frazier would still have similar problems. It also means that with Frazier no longer being at his best then you need to downgrade the resume of Ali and Foreman. I think it really is difficult to justify placing Frazier above these two guys for the decade, when both beat him.

So, if you are serious in your criticisms, how about telling us where Frazier should rank in comparison to Ali and Foreman. Holmes, arriving so late in the decade is always going to be hard to place. But how do you see 70s Holmes going against 70s Frazier. Other than FOTC, you would have to start Holmes the favourite, and even FOTC Frazier would probably start underdog also (not that i am saying he wouldnt have my money).

The joke is on you guys for feeding the troll.

Although I did get a chuckle out of reading late-70's Holmes starts a favourite against early-70's Frazier

Boilermaker wrote:I will answer Saads question on the other thread here, so as to allow him to put some sensible comment or argument where it belongs.

Frazier does not get credit for beating Ali in fight of the century when considering the whole decade, because what that series told us is that Ali and Frazier fought 3 times in the decade and Ali proved he was the better fighter than Frazier. If Norton (for example) had an identical resume to Frazier (fight for fight, result for result) with the exception that he had fought Ali once as in his first fight and won a close decision, then Norton would have to rate ahead of Frazier, because he beat Ali whereas Frazier lost the series.

This is particularly so, when i do the first drafts that are put up, as otherwise it would take years to go through the decades fights by fights and there would be little interest in any of the comments and contributions made by others. The ratings can be adjusted according to contributions and opinions and special circumstances. But at first instance the official results are what we need to go by. There pretty much needs to be a consensus to change from that opinion (or at least a valid determination by whoever is making the lists in this case me).

Now, you want to give credit to FOTC. Well it is not impossible under the system. Now since you are so keen to credit FOTC I will help you because it seems too a little hard for you to do it yourself. You could create an argument that Frazier fought his best in 1970 and that is the only fight that was relevant since he was out of shape at that point. But if you do that, you have two problems. Firstly, You must pretty much rate Frazier over Ali since they both fought at their best and Frazier proved he was the better fighter by winning the fight. Essentially then, you would want the best fighter of the decade to be declared teh best fighter of the decade, even though he was only the best for such a short period of time. Very hard to believe, considering the critcisms you have previously made of Michael Dokes or Marvis Frazier getting to much credit for just one win. Not impossible thought.

The second problem you have with this reasoning is that you are really attacking Holmes for not having enough wins or fighting enough quality fighters in the decade(i presume this is the reason) but in reality Frazier would still have similar problems. It also means that with Frazier no longer being at his best then you need to downgrade the resume of Ali and Foreman. I think it really is difficult to justify placing Frazier above these two guys for the decade, when both beat him.

So, if you are serious in your criticisms, how about telling us where Frazier should rank in comparison to Ali and Foreman. Holmes, arriving so late in the decade is always going to be hard to place. But how do you see 70s Holmes going against 70s Frazier. Other than FOTC, you would have to start Holmes the favourite, and even FOTC Frazier would probably start underdog also (not that i am saying he wouldnt have my money).

Of course I'm serious in my criticisms of your nonsense. This is one of your worst posts yet. Though the competition is fierce, you've yet to write a thing worth reading.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Boilermaker wrote:I will answer Saads question on the other thread here, so as to allow him to put some sensible comment or argument where it belongs.

Frazier does not get credit for beating Ali in fight of the century when considering the whole decade, because what that series told us is that Ali and Frazier fought 3 times in the decade and Ali proved he was the better fighter than Frazier. If Norton (for example) had an identical resume to Frazier (fight for fight, result for result) with the exception that he had fought Ali once as in his first fight and won a close decision, then Norton would have to rate ahead of Frazier, because he beat Ali whereas Frazier lost the series.

This is particularly so, when i do the first drafts that are put up, as otherwise it would take years to go through the decades fights by fights and there would be little interest in any of the comments and contributions made by others. The ratings can be adjusted according to contributions and opinions and special circumstances. But at first instance the official results are what we need to go by. There pretty much needs to be a consensus to change from that opinion (or at least a valid determination by whoever is making the lists in this case me).

Now, you want to give credit to FOTC. Well it is not impossible under the system. Now since you are so keen to credit FOTC I will help you because it seems too a little hard for you to do it yourself. You could create an argument that Frazier fought his best in 1970 and that is the only fight that was relevant since he was out of shape at that point. But if you do that, you have two problems. Firstly, You must pretty much rate Frazier over Ali since they both fought at their best and Frazier proved he was the better fighter by winning the fight. Essentially then, you would want the best fighter of the decade to be declared teh best fighter of the decade, even though he was only the best for such a short period of time. Very hard to believe, considering the critcisms you have previously made of Michael Dokes or Marvis Frazier getting to much credit for just one win. Not impossible thought.

The second problem you have with this reasoning is that you are really attacking Holmes for not having enough wins or fighting enough quality fighters in the decade(i presume this is the reason) but in reality Frazier would still have similar problems. It also means that with Frazier no longer being at his best then you need to downgrade the resume of Ali and Foreman. I think it really is difficult to justify placing Frazier above these two guys for the decade, when both beat him.

So, if you are serious in your criticisms, how about telling us where Frazier should rank in comparison to Ali and Foreman. Holmes, arriving so late in the decade is always going to be hard to place. But how do you see 70s Holmes going against 70s Frazier. Other than FOTC, you would have to start Holmes the favourite, and even FOTC Frazier would probably start underdog also (not that i am saying he wouldnt have my money).

Of course I'm serious in my criticisms of your nonsense. This is one of your worst posts yet. Though the competition is fierce, you've yet to write a thing worth reading.

So do you rate Frazier above Ali? or not?

Boilermaker wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Boilermaker wrote:I will answer Saads question on the other thread here, so as to allow him to put some sensible comment or argument where it belongs.

Frazier does not get credit for beating Ali in fight of the century when considering the whole decade, because what that series told us is that Ali and Frazier fought 3 times in the decade and Ali proved he was the better fighter than Frazier. If Norton (for example) had an identical resume to Frazier (fight for fight, result for result) with the exception that he had fought Ali once as in his first fight and won a close decision, then Norton would have to rate ahead of Frazier, because he beat Ali whereas Frazier lost the series.

This is particularly so, when i do the first drafts that are put up, as otherwise it would take years to go through the decades fights by fights and there would be little interest in any of the comments and contributions made by others. The ratings can be adjusted according to contributions and opinions and special circumstances. But at first instance the official results are what we need to go by. There pretty much needs to be a consensus to change from that opinion (or at least a valid determination by whoever is making the lists in this case me).

Now, you want to give credit to FOTC. Well it is not impossible under the system. Now since you are so keen to credit FOTC I will help you because it seems too a little hard for you to do it yourself. You could create an argument that Frazier fought his best in 1970 and that is the only fight that was relevant since he was out of shape at that point. But if you do that, you have two problems. Firstly, You must pretty much rate Frazier over Ali since they both fought at their best and Frazier proved he was the better fighter by winning the fight. Essentially then, you would want the best fighter of the decade to be declared teh best fighter of the decade, even though he was only the best for such a short period of time. Very hard to believe, considering the critcisms you have previously made of Michael Dokes or Marvis Frazier getting to much credit for just one win. Not impossible thought.

The second problem you have with this reasoning is that you are really attacking Holmes for not having enough wins or fighting enough quality fighters in the decade(i presume this is the reason) but in reality Frazier would still have similar problems. It also means that with Frazier no longer being at his best then you need to downgrade the resume of Ali and Foreman. I think it really is difficult to justify placing Frazier above these two guys for the decade, when both beat him.

So, if you are serious in your criticisms, how about telling us where Frazier should rank in comparison to Ali and Foreman. Holmes, arriving so late in the decade is always going to be hard to place. But how do you see 70s Holmes going against 70s Frazier. Other than FOTC, you would have to start Holmes the favourite, and even FOTC Frazier would probably start underdog also (not that i am saying he wouldnt have my money).

Of course I'm serious in my criticisms of your nonsense. This is one of your worst posts yet. Though the competition is fierce, you've yet to write a thing worth reading.

So do you rate Frazier above Ali? or not?

Nope, but he damn sure rates over Holmes in the 70's. Not even up for debate.

Would you believe it how time flies as it's 41 years ago today - 8th March 1971 - since/when Frazier beat Ali in their 1st of 3 great fights....

I know it's irrelevant and off topic but I was just reminiscing and thought I'd give it a mention...

So RIP Smokin Joe and happy 70th birthday Ali thanks for the memories..

PS...BTW it's my 1st post so a big hello to all of you.

Cheers
Jonty