BoxRec

raylawpc wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:People need to lighten up. Boilermaker himself has said this is just a starting point. Make comments, but there is no reason for people to be nasty.

This actually could be fun.

Boilermaker-I believe you are only counting fights from the 1960s, right? Ellis loss to Frazier should not count since it was in 1970. I would also list his win over Leotis Martin. Don't know if this is enough to move up his ranking or not.

Unless there was a year 0 AD, 1970 is the last year in the decade of the 60s.

Yes, that is one way to look at it, but the years 1960 through '69 do represent a full 10 years.

raylawpc wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:People need to lighten up. Boilermaker himself has said this is just a starting point. Make comments, but there is no reason for people to be nasty.

This actually could be fun.

Boilermaker-I believe you are only counting fights from the 1960s, right? Ellis loss to Frazier should not count since it was in 1970. I would also list his win over Leotis Martin. Don't know if this is enough to move up his ranking or not.

Unless there was a year 0 AD, 1970 is the last year in the decade of the 60s.

That is the ancient interpretation.

Obviously there is a modern one, for modern times.

You seem to credit a loss every now and then. You count it against Quarry when he went down to a prime Frazier but disregard the many losses Ramos had to an assortment of bums.

I just realised that this might be confusing some people.

Under no circumstances does a loss to Frazier count against Quarry (Except if ranking in relation to someone like Ali, or Foreman). In fact that is the whole point of the system. You dont lose rankings just because you lose to better fighters. And you dont gain credit because you beat lots of poorer fighters. You must beat the better ranked fighters to improve.

Regarding the losses of Ramos, you may be right about the many losses. From memory i discregarded the first three years of Ramos career, because it was his first three years, and i gave him the benefit of the doubt that they were a learning experience. The first notable win was Ernie Terrel in 1967. I had Ernie Terrell as a top 6 fighter which isnt too far wrong. but you are definitely correct about the other fighters. Actually when i take a look back at the list he was the 15th placed fighter essentially that means that i happened to look at him because of the terrell win and of course Machen who are both well rated, but because of his other losses he dropped right down the list. Ranking behind Chuvalo, Machen and Jones. Essentially he stayed on the list at 15 because it was better than typing the wins and losses and then deleting them. These are essentially top 10 lists, and then i leave guys on who end up dropping out of the top 10.

Essentially, i am glad he made the list. He was blasted out in two by Frazier, but he shows an interesting style in the fight. Shame he was caught so cleanly at the end of the first round.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKohDPo0 ... re=related

Quarry, i think has simply slipped through the net for whatever reason. He had losses to Chuvalo, Frazier and Ellis. He has wins over paterson, Mathis and London among others. The draws probably mean little. Realistically, he must rate somewhere between Paterson, who he beat (4th) and below Ellis 5 or below Chuvalo 6) Where do others say he should rank in relation to those three fighters?

You know ..it's kinda like when people complain about the boxrec ranking system. It would be quite hard to find an accurate system

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

raylawpc wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:People need to lighten up. Boilermaker himself has said this is just a starting point. Make comments, but there is no reason for people to be nasty.

This actually could be fun.

Boilermaker-I believe you are only counting fights from the 1960s, right? Ellis loss to Frazier should not count since it was in 1970. I would also list his win over Leotis Martin. Don't know if this is enough to move up his ranking or not.

Unless there was a year 0 AD, 1970 is the last year in the decade of the 60s.

That is the ancient interpretation.

Obviously there is a modern one, for modern times.

Well, not unless they change the rules of arithmetic for "modern times." 10 = 10. It's not a matter of interpretation.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:There is such a thing as good losses and I rate them far above meaningless wins. Luis Rodriguez fought Emile Griffith on even terms for four fights and he lost three decisions. That's a black mark on his record for you, it proves how great he was to those with a clue.

Great point.

Some posters of the granberry ilk seem to think Ali's loss to Frazier in FOTC is a massive negative for The Greatest and somehow vindicates their belief he was a fraud. I'd say, taking everything into consideration, there are plenty of pluses for Ali's legacy from that battle. Not as many as there are for Joe, of course, but plenty nonetheless.

raylawpc wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

raylawpc wrote: Unless there was a year 0 AD, 1970 is the last year in the decade of the 60s.

That is the ancient interpretation.

Obviously there is a modern one, for modern times.

Well, not unless they change the rules of arithmetic for "modern times." 10 = 10. It's not a matter of interpretation.

You really live by the notion, in your actual life? You going to tell someone born in 1980 they were a child of the 70's?

Giancarlo wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:There is such a thing as good losses and I rate them far above meaningless wins. Luis Rodriguez fought Emile Griffith on even terms for four fights and he lost three decisions. That's a black mark on his record for you, it proves how great he was to those with a clue.

Great point.

Some posters of the granberry ilk seem to think Ali's loss to Frazier in FOTC is a massive negative for The Greatest and somehow vindicates their belief he was a fraud. I'd say, taking everything into consideration, there are plenty of pluses for Ali's legacy from that battle. Not as many as there are for Joe, of course, but plenty nonetheless.

So at the end of that first fight, if you were rating Frazier and Ali, you would think it reasonable to rate Ali over Frazier on a results based rating?

Giancarlo wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:There is such a thing as good losses and I rate them far above meaningless wins. Luis Rodriguez fought Emile Griffith on even terms for four fights and he lost three decisions. That's a black mark on his record for you, it proves how great he was to those with a clue.

Great point.

Some posters of the granberry ilk seem to think Ali's loss to Frazier in FOTC is a massive negative for The Greatest and somehow vindicates their belief he was a fraud. I'd say, taking everything into consideration, there are plenty of pluses for Ali's legacy from that battle. Not as many as there are for Joe, of course, but plenty nonetheless.

It was an amazing performance from Ali against an absolute video game version of Frazier. What I find particularly annoying is how often I see Clay's drubbing of a literally shot Cleveland Williams as his best. The loss to Frazier was far more impressive.

Boilermaker wrote:

Giancarlo wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:There is such a thing as good losses and I rate them far above meaningless wins. Luis Rodriguez fought Emile Griffith on even terms for four fights and he lost three decisions. That's a black mark on his record for you, it proves how great he was to those with a clue.

Great point.

Some posters of the granberry ilk seem to think Ali's loss to Frazier in FOTC is a massive negative for The Greatest and somehow vindicates their belief he was a fraud. I'd say, taking everything into consideration, there are plenty of pluses for Ali's legacy from that battle. Not as many as there are for Joe, of course, but plenty nonetheless.

So at the end of that first fight, if you were rating Frazier and Ali, you would think it reasonable to rate Ali over Frazier on a results based rating?

A strong case could be made for either fighter at that point solely based on results and taking nothing else into account such as was Ali really ready for that fight.

But, at the end of the day, it's hard to look past the fact that Joe had won convincingly.

So, at that specific point in time, and had both of them never fought again, I would have no problem with Frazier being rated above Ali.

You?

Boilermaker wrote:

Giancarlo wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:There is such a thing as good losses and I rate them far above meaningless wins. Luis Rodriguez fought Emile Griffith on even terms for four fights and he lost three decisions. That's a black mark on his record for you, it proves how great he was to those with a clue.

Great point.

Some posters of the granberry ilk seem to think Ali's loss to Frazier in FOTC is a massive negative for The Greatest and somehow vindicates their belief he was a fraud. I'd say, taking everything into consideration, there are plenty of pluses for Ali's legacy from that battle. Not as many as there are for Joe, of course, but plenty nonetheless.

So at the end of that first fight, if you were rating Frazier and Ali, you would think it reasonable to rate Ali over Frazier on a results based rating?

Holmes rates over Frazier in your "system".

Ray, (and others)

What fighters do you think are not in the top 15 list that are not listed.

So Far we have Cleroux and Mathis (mentioned) and of Course Quarry, who i think must get a ranking.

Cleroux has wins over Besmanoff and Cleveland Williams (7th) and the lost series (close) with Chuvalo(12). He also lost to Foley(8) and DeJohn and JOiner with Joiner probably capable of being overlooked since it was his retirement fight. I think the 7 to 13 group is pretty close, and he is probably just below this on his results. Although i suppose he could go anywhere in there without two much argument. How much weight should be given to the DeJohn loss? How does he compare with the highly criticised Ramos. looking at wins only, Is a win over Terrell and Machan better than a win over Williams and Chuvalo (even counting the close lost series as a win)? Really it could go either way couldnt it?

Mathis Beat Chuvalo but lost to Quarry and Frazier. Now that we have agreed to elevate Quarry, his resume is much better. But here is the ironic thing. He has one win over a top 10 fighter (well actually top 12 and dropping on the list) but he didnt lose to fighters he should have beat like many of the others. This makes his record very similar to the Marvis Frazier/Occassio records. I think it is fair to say that he must rate below Quarry at best he should rate above Chuvalo. Actually one place above chuvalo, is probably the best place for him, isnt it?

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Holmes rates over Frazier in your "system".

I havent been here long enough to work out if you are someone's alter ego, if you just troll every post for a bit of fun, or if you really are trying your best and just a bit slow.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I will bite.

(Assuming we are going to try to rank all time on this system, how in the world to you figure that Holmes ranks over Ali. Obviously if the wins were side by side one day after the other i would agree with you but Ali was not a top 10 ranked fighter when he lost to Holmes and has the further condition that he had Parkinsons and was not in any credible condition. Holmes win over Ali at that stage, does not rank him above Fraziers win over Ellis, Quarry, Bonavena etc. However, Frazier's win over Shavers, Norton, Witherspoon and Smith may do. When the decade lists are finalised, it will be interesting to analyse these types of things and get overall rankings of many of the fighters, comparing how dominant they were in their own time with each other. I would say that Holmes probably ranks over Frazier under this system. When i do my rankings, i think that Holmes would usually rank over Frazier anyway. In reality it is close, and this system has them pretty close.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

raylawpc wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote: That is the ancient interpretation.

Obviously there is a modern one, for modern times.

Well, not unless they change the rules of arithmetic for "modern times." 10 = 10. It's not a matter of interpretation.

You really live by the notion, in your actual life? You going to tell someone born in 1980 they were a child of the 70's?

Yep! It's not a "notion." It's a fact. 10 = 10; 100 = 100; and 1,000 = 1,000. Always has; always will . . .

Boilermaker wrote:Ray, (and others)

What fighters do you think are not in the top 15 list that are not listed.

So Far we have Cleroux and Mathis (mentioned) and of Course Quarry, who i think must get a ranking.

Cleroux has wins over Besmanoff and Cleveland Williams (7th) and the lost series (close) with Chuvalo(12). He also lost to Foley(8) and DeJohn and JOiner with Joiner probably capable of being overlooked since it was his retirement fight. I think the 7 to 13 group is pretty close, and he is probably just below this on his results. Although i suppose he could go anywhere in there without two much argument. How much weight should be given to the DeJohn loss? How does he compare with the highly criticised Ramos. looking at wins only, Is a win over Terrell and Machan better than a win over Williams and Chuvalo (even counting the close lost series as a win)? Really it could go either way couldnt it?

Mathis Beat Chuvalo but lost to Quarry and Frazier. Now that we have agreed to elevate Quarry, his resume is much better. But here is the ironic thing. He has one win over a top 10 fighter (well actually top 12 and dropping on the list) but he didnt lose to fighters he should have beat like many of the others. This makes his record very similar to the Marvis Frazier/Occassio records. I think it is fair to say that he must rate below Quarry at best he should rate above Chuvalo. Actually one place above chuvalo, is probably the best place for him, isnt it?

Cleroux actually won the series with Chuvalo. With the exception of Quarry being left out I don't actually have any big issues with the 60's list, it's far better then your other lists.
The way you compile these lists I can understand that a guy like Ramos will be ranked ahead of Mathis but based on what I have seen of the two there is no doubt in my mind that Mathis was far the superior boxer.

Boilermaker wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Holmes rates over Frazier in your "system".

I havent been here long enough to work out if you are someone's alter ego, if you just troll every post for a bit of fun, or if you really are trying your best and just a bit slow.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I will bite.

(Assuming we are going to try to rank all time on this system, how in the world to you figure that Holmes ranks over Ali. Obviously if the wins were side by side one day after the other i would agree with you but Ali was not a top 10 ranked fighter when he lost to Holmes and has the further condition that he had Parkinsons and was not in any credible condition. Holmes win over Ali at that stage, does not rank him above Fraziers win over Ellis, Quarry, Bonavena etc. However, Frazier's win over Shavers, Norton, Witherspoon and Smith may do. When the decade lists are finalised, it will be interesting to analyse these types of things and get overall rankings of many of the fighters, comparing how dominant they were in their own time with each other. I would say that Holmes probably ranks over Frazier under this system. When i do my rankings, i think that Holmes would usually rank over Frazier anyway. In reality it is close, and this system has them pretty close.

You rated Holmes over Frazier in the 70's.

How do you get Holmes ranks over Frazier to mean Holmes ranks over Ali? It's your own pathetic rankings after all, how do you misquote me off of your own trash?

Not that it will matter for your pin the tail on the result system. But Frazier never fought Shavers, Norton, Witherspoon or Smith.

You rated Holmes over Frazier in the 70's.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Boilermaker wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Holmes rates over Frazier in your "system".

I havent been here long enough to work out if you are someone's alter ego, if you just troll every post for a bit of fun, or if you really are trying your best and just a bit slow.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I will bite.

(Assuming we are going to try to rank all time on this system, how in the world to you figure that Holmes ranks over Frazier. Obviously if the wins were side by side one day after the other i would agree with you but Ali was not a top 10 ranked fighter when he lost to Holmes and has the further condition that he had Parkinsons and was not in any credible condition. Holmes win over Ali at that stage, does not rank him above Fraziers win over Ellis, Quarry, Bonavena etc. However, Holmes's win over Shavers, Norton, Witherspoon and Smith may do. When the decade lists are finalised, it will be interesting to analyse these types of things and get overall rankings of many of the fighters, comparing how dominant they were in their own time with each other. I would say that Holmes probably ranks over Frazier under this system. When i do my rankings, i think that Holmes would usually rank over Frazier anyway. In reality it is close, and this system has them pretty close.

You rated Holmes over Frazier in the 70's.

How do you get Holmes ranks over Frazier to mean Holmes ranks over Ali? It's your own pathetic rankings after all, how do you misquote me off of your own trash?

Not that it will matter for your pin the tail on the result system. But Frazier never fought Shavers, Norton, Witherspoon or Smith.

You rated Holmes over Frazier in the 70's.[/quote]


That is because Frazier's best work was in the 60s not the 70s. A late 70s Holmes would start a clear favourite against a 70s Frazier and you would expect him to beat a a 70s Frazier much like he beat Norton whose ability seems to have been eerily similar to 70s Frazier. (close fights with Ali and blown out by Foreman). Youth nearly always wins out at the end of the day. 60s Frazier vs 80s Holmes is a different story as is overall prime for prime.

Boilermaker wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Boilermaker wrote: I havent been here long enough to work out if you are someone's alter ego, if you just troll every post for a bit of fun, or if you really are trying your best and just a bit slow.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I will bite.

(Assuming we are going to try to rank all time on this system, how in the world to you figure that Holmes ranks over Frazier. Obviously if the wins were side by side one day after the other i would agree with you but Ali was not a top 10 ranked fighter when he lost to Holmes and has the further condition that he had Parkinsons and was not in any credible condition. Holmes win over Ali at that stage, does not rank him above Fraziers win over Ellis, Quarry, Bonavena etc. However, Holmes's win over Shavers, Norton, Witherspoon and Smith may do. When the decade lists are finalised, it will be interesting to analyse these types of things and get overall rankings of many of the fighters, comparing how dominant they were in their own time with each other. I would say that Holmes probably ranks over Frazier under this system. When i do my rankings, i think that Holmes would usually rank over Frazier anyway. In reality it is close, and this system has them pretty close.

You rated Holmes over Frazier in the 70's.

How do you get Holmes ranks over Frazier to mean Holmes ranks over Ali? It's your own pathetic rankings after all, how do you misquote me off of your own trash?

Not that it will matter for your pin the tail on the result system. But Frazier never fought Shavers, Norton, Witherspoon or Smith.

You rated Holmes over Frazier in the 70's.

That is because Frazier's best work was in the 60s not the 70s. A late 70s Holmes would start a clear favourite against a 70s Frazier and you would expect him to beat a a 70s Frazier much like he beat Norton whose ability seems to have been eerily similar to 70s Frazier. (close fights with Ali and blown out by Foreman). Youth nearly always wins out at the end of the day. 60s Frazier vs 80s Holmes is a different story as is overall prime for prime.[/quote]


You're a buffoon.

I asked you twenty times in that train wreck of a thread why you didn't count the FOTC. But that was Frazier's best work.

Boilermaker wrote:Norton whose ability seems to have been eerily similar to 70s Frazier

You have got to be kidding, they were nothing alike, not at all. Have you even seen the fights?
And for the record, FOTC Frazier would have absolutely killed Norton.

hhaehre wrote:

Boilermaker wrote:Norton whose ability seems to have been eerily similar to 70s Frazier

You have got to be kidding, they were nothing alike, not at all. Have you even seen the fights?
And for the record, FOTC Frazier would have absolutely killed Norton.

How so? They were both blown out by foreman. They both fought Ali and lost 2-1 in close fights. Norton's loss was arguably more controversial and he came closer to winning the series, but Fraziers first win was much more emphatic and as you say a lot better. There results very, very similar the closeness to prime is a different story.

raylawpc wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

raylawpc wrote: Well, not unless they change the rules of arithmetic for "modern times." 10 = 10. It's not a matter of interpretation.

You really live by the notion, in your actual life? You going to tell someone born in 1980 they were a child of the 70's?

Yep! It's not a "notion." It's a fact. 10 = 10; 100 = 100; and 1,000 = 1,000. Always has; always will . . .

To remove doubt, I used 1960 to 1969 even though 1961 to 1970 is technically the decade (Although we didnt have Millenium celebrations in 2001). In essence it was easier to include the 1960 instead of 70 otherwise you would have had the first half of the thread explaining the technicalities as you just did. Plus, and more importantly it wouldnt have matched in with one of the earlier threads which actually listed the dates. From memory that was the first one on the 90s that wasnt started by me, but referred to Holyfield.

..there were this many heavyweights in the 60s?!?!?!?

Yes, there were a lot of good ones during this decade. Many are almost forgotton. Actually this era for all weight classes doesn't get a lot of attention.

Wanted to comment about losing fighters who fought a great fight. One in particular was Chuvalo vs Patterson. Chuvalo lost, but he fought a great fight. He should not be penalized for this. He would have beaten most fighters on this list that night.
It is fine to just use win/loss as a baseline like Boilermaker is doing. Then you have to factor in how competitive the fights were and make adjustments.

Ambling Alp wrote:Yes, there were a lot of good ones during this decade. Many are almost forgotton. Actually this era for all weight classes doesn't get a lot of attention.

Wanted to comment about losing fighters who fought a great fight. One in particular was Chuvalo vs Patterson. Chuvalo lost, but he fought a great fight. He should not be penalized for this. He would have beaten most fighters on this list that night.
It is fine to just use win/loss as a baseline like Boilermaker is doing. Then you have to factor in how competitive the fights were and make adjustments.

Well i think that Sonny Liston might have went okay against that Patterson, though. Patterson wasnt competitive in the slightest against Liston. I am certain that Chuvalo would have been more competitive, but that doesnt mean we can rate Chuvalo above Patterson. And Machen was much more competitive against Liston than Paterson was but we cant use that as a guide to rank Machen over Patterson.

Any credit Chuvalo gets from that fight should be surely very limited. ONe owould have thought that he would be good enough to stand on his wins alone, and the fighters he actually did beat.