BoxRec

Crease wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:1. SRR
2 SRL
3 Emile Griffith
4 Henry Armstrong
5 Tommy Hearns
6 Jose Napoles
7 Barney Ross
8 Pernel Whitaker
9 Jimmy Mclarnin
10 Jose Napoles
To be thoughtfully populated when I've properly reflected.

You've got Napoles in there twice Buzzster. I realize you might be a fan of the Cuban, but placing him twice?

Sloppy on my part.....I have to rate Floyd somewhere....so he gets in at WW.

Keko wrote:

tiny_acres wrote:

Keko wrote: I have 1.Robinson 2.Armstrong
i honestly think there is no question.

3 through 10 is hard. I honestly have about 20 guys I could list that have a claim to those spots.
One of tge best divisions in history

For me the best divisions in History

To me, it's the lightweights!

1.Sugar Ray Robinson
2.Sugar Ray Leonard
3.Jack Britton
4.Henry Armstrong
5.Thomas Hearns
6.Jose Napoles
7.Barney Ross
8.Jimmy McLarnin
9.Ted Kid Lewis
10.Felix Trinidad

I'm a little surprised that Napoles and Hearns seem a bit far down the list.

Seamus wrote:I'm a little surprised that Napoles and Hearns seem a bit far down the list.

Talkin' about your own list?

elmersalsa wrote:

Keko wrote:

tiny_acres wrote:
3 through 10 is hard. I honestly have about 20 guys I could list that have a claim to those spots.
One of tge best divisions in history

For me the best divisions in History

To me, it's the lightweights!

Great division and also a lot of great boxers.

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Sugar Ray Leonard
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Jose Napoles
5. Emile Griffith
6. Kid Gavilan
7. Carmen Basilio
8. Jimmy McLarlin
9. Barney Ross
10. Tommy Hearns

So hard to make a list without finding room for some of: Walker, TK Lewis, Britton, Rodriguez, Corbett III, BJ Walcott, Mayweather or Ryan. MIddleweight and Lightweight have more competition for #1 but maybe there is a little more pure depth here.

BoxBuzz wrote:Sloppy on my part.....I have to rate Floyd somewhere....so he gets in at WW.

Mayweather at 10th then? You got it.

I will update the list tomorrow & also draw up my own.
Though if I'm being honest, I think it may be the usual suspects with those already been mentioned.

1. Ray Robinson
2. Ray Leonard
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Barney Ross
5. Kid Gavilan
6. Jose Napoles
7. Thomas Hearns
8. Emile Griffith
9. Jimmy McLarnin
10. Jack Britton

Ray Robinson
Henry Armstrong
Barbados Joe Walcott
Jack Britton
Ray Leonard
Thomas Hearns
Jose Napoles
Emile Griffith
Luis Rodriguez
Micky Walker

APerno wrote:1. Barney Ross
2. Jimmy McLarnin
3. Sugar Ray Leonard
4. Sugar Ray Robinson
5. Kid Gavilan
6. Jose Napoles
7. Emile Griffith
8. Thomas Hearns
9. Carmen Basilio
10. Freddie Zivic
11. Henry Armstrong
12. Wilfred Benitez
13. Marty Servo

My criteria: head to head, best night

Is there a rule or everyone can have a criterion that desire?


It would be good if we all stick some rules about the criteria, because otherwise the topic itself has no meaning.

I always say head to head is guessing that does not like to do either see it otherwise make sense for such a topic.

This is just my opinion and not personally against this list.
I think there should be rules about the topic.

:I think it does not make sense that someone does list the criteria for success and the results of a one head to head on the same topic

Keko wrote:

APerno wrote:1. Barney Ross
2. Jimmy McLarnin
3. Sugar Ray Leonard
4. Sugar Ray Robinson
5. Kid Gavilan
6. Jose Napoles
7. Emile Griffith
8. Thomas Hearns
9. Carmen Basilio
10. Freddie Zivic
11. Henry Armstrong
12. Wilfred Benitez
13. Marty Servo

My criteria: head to head, best night

Is there a rule or everyone can have a criterion that desire?


It would be good if we all stick some rules about the criteria, because otherwise the topic itself has no meaning.

I always say head to head is guessing that does not like to do either see it otherwise make sense for such a topic.

This is just my opinion and not personally against this list.
I think there should be rules about the topic.

:I think it does not make sense that someone does list the criteria for success and the results of a one head to head on the same topic

Why establish rules and limit personal expression for a list that in the end will mean nothing except for the pleasure it brought its participants? - Besides it is all guessing regardless of approach. - - Third sentence got lost in translation.

APerno wrote:

Keko wrote:

APerno wrote:1. Barney Ross
2. Jimmy McLarnin
3. Sugar Ray Leonard
4. Sugar Ray Robinson
5. Kid Gavilan
6. Jose Napoles
7. Emile Griffith
8. Thomas Hearns
9. Carmen Basilio
10. Freddie Zivic
11. Henry Armstrong
12. Wilfred Benitez
13. Marty Servo

My criteria: head to head, best night

Is there a rule or everyone can have a criterion that desire?


It would be good if we all stick some rules about the criteria, because otherwise the topic itself has no meaning.

I always say head to head is guessing that does not like to do either see it otherwise make sense for such a topic.

This is just my opinion and not personally against this list.
I think there should be rules about the topic.

:I think it does not make sense that someone does list the criteria for success and the results of a one head to head on the same topic

Why establish rules and limit personal expression for a list that in the end will mean nothing except for the pleasure it brought its participants? - Besides it is all guessing regardless of approach. - - Third sentence got lost in translation.

I just think it makes no sense if you do not have criteria by which we do list.
And my list head to head is different but I do not see the point of it is put here because here should be a list of the results and fighting in the category. So the actual results rather than our imagination. Sorry about the language.

But wouldn't that make it more likely that people were consistent and rated fighters fairly, regardless of how much they liked a particular fighter?

The way we do it now, people can just pick and choose criteria which helps the fighters that they like. Then they can ignore this criteria and use something else to downgrade someone they don't.

For example, isn't is great that you can like a particular lightweight, and rate him highly in part because he beat a fighter who was an NABF champion? Then ignore titles when rating someone that you don't like who won world titles?

(I'm really in a mood today)

Ambling Alp II wrote:But wouldn't that make it more likely that people were consistent and rated fighters fairly, regardless of how much they liked a particular fighter?

The way we do it now, people can just pick and choose criteria which helps the fighters that they like. Then they can ignore this criteria and use something else to downgrade someone they don't.

For example, isn't is great that you can like a particular lightweight, and rate him highly in part because he beat a fighter who was an NABF champion? Then ignore titles when rating someone that you don't like who won world titles?

(I'm really in a mood today)

TO: Ambling Alp & Keko (no problem on the language, best I can do is curse in another language - you are light years ahead of me.)

If people like a particular fighter they will BS themselves into believing whatever is necessary regardless of the rules; in reference to this problem I give myself one slot for a pure heart choice and then try to put away my bias. (In my MDW list it was Nino; this time it was Hearns. I can make a better argument for Hearns than Nino.)

But what I think we have here is the classic: 'What defines greatness?' question - we should have a discussion about that before we try to set criteria for listing. (I would like to have that discussion anyway, list or no list.)

There seems to be two basic schools of thought: head to head & longevity - both with their advantages and qualifications - I go with head to head because I think about it from a gamblers POV

Taking the head to head in its purist form I ran into a problem Rocky Garziano (back in the MDW) - I believed that there was an 18 month period where Garziano (on one of his good nights) could have taken half the guys on my list, but I couldn't bring myself to put him on my list, because 18 months doesn't denote a great career. And there you go, suddenly I am back to longevity, where I claimed I wasn't going. LOL - I go round and round with these stupid lists.

I can't put my finger on what greatness' is suppose to be.

No problem.
I'm just thinking that the results of the categories should be the sole criterion for the list.
Do we see only what they are really made and who they really won in the category.
When we rule the same criterion theme only makes sense.
Ok this is nice to see how people are thinking. Greeting.

I like the post from APerno who said 'free expression'. The criteria should be yours. I have done lists so many times over the years and everyone has their own views. I once did a list on a site and 10 others contributed and I conducted it the same way this one is. With 10 points for a number one and 1 point to a number 10 and likewise in between. I found some very diverse picks. One guy was just picking on success rate. He actually picked Tom 'Boom-Boom' Johnson in his top 10 feathers because he had made about 8 defenses. I differ from that because the depth of talent wasn't there and the success rate was against guys who wouldn't be getting title shots in a different era. Even Nat Fleisher had his criteria. We all notice 95% of his picks were turn of the century fighters, but he wouldn't pick a fighter twice, just one weight class. I feel this penalizes a fighter for being good. Why would you marginalize the talents of Armstrong, Arguello, Azumah Nelson, etc.? Again, we all have our criteria. If we're looking to rate a championship reign, well then just go by the numbers and call it a day. Again, I think that's a disservice to a fighter. Not everyone had a lengthy prime. Some burned out rather quick. But it is that prime I look at because in the end I look at it as if they were in a mythical tournament I would be placing them in their 3-fight prime (i.e. Joe Frazier prime - Ellis, Foster Ali). Again guys, criteria is yours and remember, opinions are like arse-holes, we all have one.

Realistically the only criteria are the results of the career of a fighter
Everything else is imagination.

Keko wrote:Realistically the only criteria are the results of the career of a fighter
Everything else is imagination.

Not all results mean accuracy, though.

elmersalsa wrote:

Keko wrote:Realistically the only criteria are the results of the career of a fighter
Everything else is imagination.

Not all results mean accuracy, though.

Important are just facts.

APerno wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:But wouldn't that make it more likely that people were consistent and rated fighters fairly, regardless of how much they liked a particular fighter?

The way we do it now, people can just pick and choose criteria which helps the fighters that they like. Then they can ignore this criteria and use something else to downgrade someone they don't.

For example, isn't is great that you can like a particular lightweight, and rate him highly in part because he beat a fighter who was an NABF champion? Then ignore titles when rating someone that you don't like who won world titles?

(I'm really in a mood today)

TO: Ambling Alp & Keko (no problem on the language, best I can do is curse in another language - you are light years ahead of me.)

If people like a particular fighter they will BS themselves into believing whatever is necessary regardless of the rules; in reference to this problem I give myself one slot for a pure heart choice and then try to put away my bias. (In my MDW list it was Nino; this time it was Hearns. I can make a better argument for Hearns than Nino.)

But what I think we have here is the classic: 'What defines greatness?' question - we should have a discussion about that before we try to set criteria for listing. (I would like to have that discussion anyway, list or no list.)

There seems to be two basic schools of thought: head to head & longevity - both with their advantages and qualifications - I go with head to head because I think about it from a gamblers POV

Taking the head to head in its purist form I ran into a problem Rocky Garziano (back in the MDW) - I believed that there was an 18 month period where Garziano (on one of his good nights) could have taken half the guys on my list, but I couldn't bring myself to put him on my list, because 18 months doesn't denote a great career. And there you go, suddenly I am back to longevity, where I claimed I wasn't going. LOL - I go round and round with these stupid lists.

I can't put my finger on what greatness' is suppose to be.

My problem with head to head is the way people sometimes use it. They say that so and so would have beaten so and so, therefore he should be rated ahead of him.
To me, that is not true head to head. True head to head, is if the two fighters actually fought each other. If they didn't fight each other , then you can't do head to head.

Don't like longevity either. Doesn't matter how long a fighter's career was. It's what he did in whatever time he had that counts.

Basically weigh the big wins vs the losses/bad performances. Take into the consideration of a fighter's career, and stage of the career of his opponents.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

APerno wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:But wouldn't that make it more likely that people were consistent and rated fighters fairly, regardless of how much they liked a particular fighter?

The way we do it now, people can just pick and choose criteria which helps the fighters that they like. Then they can ignore this criteria and use something else to downgrade someone they don't.

For example, isn't is great that you can like a particular lightweight, and rate him highly in part because he beat a fighter who was an NABF champion? Then ignore titles when rating someone that you don't like who won world titles?

(I'm really in a mood today)

TO: Ambling Alp & Keko (no problem on the language, best I can do is curse in another language - you are light years ahead of me.)

If people like a particular fighter they will BS themselves into believing whatever is necessary regardless of the rules; in reference to this problem I give myself one slot for a pure heart choice and then try to put away my bias. (In my MDW list it was Nino; this time it was Hearns. I can make a better argument for Hearns than Nino.)

But what I think we have here is the classic: 'What defines greatness?' question - we should have a discussion about that before we try to set criteria for listing. (I would like to have that discussion anyway, list or no list.)

There seems to be two basic schools of thought: head to head & longevity - both with their advantages and qualifications - I go with head to head because I think about it from a gamblers POV

Taking the head to head in its purist form I ran into a problem Rocky Garziano (back in the MDW) - I believed that there was an 18 month period where Garziano (on one of his good nights) could have taken half the guys on my list, but I couldn't bring myself to put him on my list, because 18 months doesn't denote a great career. And there you go, suddenly I am back to longevity, where I claimed I wasn't going. LOL - I go round and round with these stupid lists.

I can't put my finger on what greatness' is suppose to be.

My problem with head to head is the way people sometimes use it. They say that so and so would have beaten so and so, therefore he should be rated ahead of him.
To me, that is not true head to head. True head to head, is if the two fighters actually fought each other. If they didn't fight each other , then you can't do head to head.

Don't like longevity either. Doesn't matter how long a fighter's career was. It's what he did in whatever time he had that counts.

Basically weigh the big wins vs the losses/bad performances. Take into the consideration of a fighter's career, and stage of the career of his opponents.

Wouldn't that give the Rocky's and Bowe's of the world an advantage? All wins....short runs.... It's an interesting take. If Wilt would have beaten Ali would that short career be the definition of greatness?

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Sugar Ray Leonard
4. Tommy Hearns
5. Floyd Mayweather Jr.
6. Pernell Whitaker
7. Jose Napoles
8. Barney Ross
9. Emile Griffith
10. Felix "Tito" Trinidad

BoxBuzz wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:

APerno wrote:
TO: Ambling Alp & Keko (no problem on the language, best I can do is curse in another language - you are light years ahead of me.)

If people like a particular fighter they will BS themselves into believing whatever is necessary regardless of the rules; in reference to this problem I give myself one slot for a pure heart choice and then try to put away my bias. (In my MDW list it was Nino; this time it was Hearns. I can make a better argument for Hearns than Nino.)

But what I think we have here is the classic: 'What defines greatness?' question - we should have a discussion about that before we try to set criteria for listing. (I would like to have that discussion anyway, list or no list.)

There seems to be two basic schools of thought: head to head & longevity - both with their advantages and qualifications - I go with head to head because I think about it from a gamblers POV

Taking the head to head in its purist form I ran into a problem Rocky Garziano (back in the MDW) - I believed that there was an 18 month period where Garziano (on one of his good nights) could have taken half the guys on my list, but I couldn't bring myself to put him on my list, because 18 months doesn't denote a great career. And there you go, suddenly I am back to longevity, where I claimed I wasn't going. LOL - I go round and round with these stupid lists.

I can't put my finger on what greatness' is suppose to be.

My problem with head to head is the way people sometimes use it. They say that so and so would have beaten so and so, therefore he should be rated ahead of him.
To me, that is not true head to head. True head to head, is if the two fighters actually fought each other. If they didn't fight each other , then you can't do head to head.

Don't like longevity either. Doesn't matter how long a fighter's career was. It's what he did in whatever time he had that counts.

Basically weigh the big wins vs the losses/bad performances. Take into the consideration of a fighter's career, and stage of the career of his opponents.

Wouldn't that give the Rocky's and Bowe's of the world an advantage? All wins....short runs.... It's an interesting take. If Wilt would have beaten Ali would that short career be the definition of greatness?

Point taken, but you guys need a 'Wilt jar' - every time one of you loses control and says 'Wilt' you have to put in a buck.