BoxRec

Bob Olson is mid list too. That one baffles me slightly.

crold1 wrote: ↑03 Feb 2022, 21:39 No sir. Calzaghe was ranked 8th and Eubank 9th in the Jan 98 issue. The next issue (welter skelter cover), Calzaghe moves up off the result. You're right about Eubank prior to the fight but he was there nonetheless.

Thanks for putting me right. It might have been an assumption on my part at the time for missing an issue. Schoolboy error.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑09 Feb 2022, 11:58

Ezzard wrote: ↑08 Feb 2022, 17:16 They have to make sure contemporary popular guys get high on the list.

At first I thought they were just picking names out of hat. Greb wasn't picked until they got to 76 and so on.
But maybe you are all right, they were just catering to modern fans, with the occasional fighter from way back just to make it look like they had actually done some research.

Picked? It's all based on a mathematical formula - a flawed one.

Yeah but there’s human intervention too. Someone has to input the data, create the formula and crunch the data. You’d think Even in this day and age someone would look at the output and think hmm that’s surprising.

Bobo Olson. Though as old boots and fought all the big names of the era. He’s not even rated in any previous top 80/100 lists they did. He didn’t even register in their top 20 middleweight lists and given they didn’t rate him that highly from after his career ended how on earth is he now mid tier on an all time 100 list? He doesn’t even crack their top 20.

orbtastic wrote: ↑09 Feb 2022, 13:17 Bob Olson is mid list too. That one baffles me slightly.

Slightly? It’s ridiculous. Where is Dave Sands on the list?

The whole thing is on the ring website in multiple blog posts but it’s not worth reading. I think it’s the most foolish list I’ve ever seen.

An easy example, Mickey Walker rated 30 spots above Harry Greb.

Ffs.

Cholo_cws wrote: ↑09 Feb 2022, 13:40

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑09 Feb 2022, 11:58

Ezzard wrote: ↑08 Feb 2022, 17:16 They have to make sure contemporary popular guys get high on the list.

At first I thought they were just picking names out of hat. Greb wasn't picked until they got to 76 and so on.
But maybe you are all right, they were just catering to modern fans, with the occasional fighter from way back just to make it look like they had actually done some research.

Picked? It's all based on a mathematical formula - a flawed one.

The "mathematical formula" may be skewed to favor certain factors that favor mostly recent fighters. The nature of the sport has changed dramatically over the years.
Has there ever been a mathematical formula that is reasonable? It just doesn't seem to work for boxing. There are just many variables that are hard to quantify.

If I am following this correctly, they are basing this off of Ring Magazine Ratings going back to when they started them in 1925. That would exclude nearly all of Harry Greb's entire career, as well as other greats who fought before 1925.
Ring Magazine originally only ranked fighters in 8 weight classes. Gradually that number went up to 17. Does that skew things in favor of more recent fighters?

all math is unfair to the past

Ezzard wrote: ↑09 Feb 2022, 04:50

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote: ↑03 Feb 2022, 10:03 - Looks like a sorta Bill James approach to ranking fighters instead of Baseball players by using Ring's 100 years of Fight Division rankings as a baseline.

I'm rather dubious of that Ring Fishnet crew who horribly botched the now heavily derided Floyd Mayweather Olympic Drug Testing Testing TUE standards for boxing, but 'tis what it 'tis, a brand new Ring History perspective enhanced by what I assume to be a new algorithm to correlate all the details.

https://www.ringtv.com/634216-to-be-the ... gs-100-91/



Will Sugar Ray Robinson retain his traditional all time Greatest status, or could Harry Greb sucker punch him off of his throne? What of Ali? Could he withstand a Fury Blubber charge after being KOed by Rocky in the first computerized tourney?

Hi Broughton, hope you're well my friend. Thanks for posting. I might buy it just to be able to whine. These things are always fun.

Hope all is well with you.

- Ez, nice to see you out and about again. Guess your little girl has recovered and now nearing pubescence already smarter than mom, pop, and all the boys combined, so hang on as boys enter her equation.

I was lucky in that all I had to worry about my two boys was them getting in fights, property damage, and school suspension.

Anyway, I'll suspend Ring disbelief until the entirety of the list is published, but here is the necessarily convoluted logic involved in ranking fighters from such disparate eras as to beggar belief the same sport exists.

https://www.ringtv.com/article/to-be-the-best-intro/

Having done a study on baseball quite by accident, I understand the mind boggling effort in compiling incessant statistical numbers, but from what I see thus far aside from diversity of win/loss records, Cliff's new stat categories, Overall Score Rank, Peak Score Rank, Win Total Rank are nonsensically removed from the numerical ratings. That implies subjective judgement was used in compiling the "rank" order.

As a Corona Virus(Vaccine) statistical side note, might be interested in our "Public Health Authority" has finally come clean with the declaration that 95% of our Corona fatalities involved folks with "comorbidity" conditions, ie diabetes, AIDs, Hepatitis, heart conditions, ect, and worse, most were the new and growing racial demographic of "people of color," ie everyone not "White." Given the lack of Federal guidance in the compiling of national Corona stats and the general politicization and commercialization of Science and Medicine, maybe de-evolution is now taking place as the cost of living spikes as folks be rioting with suicide on the rise, and who to thank

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote: ↑09 Feb 2022, 22:34

Ezzard wrote: ↑09 Feb 2022, 04:50

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote: ↑03 Feb 2022, 10:03 - Looks like a sorta Bill James approach to ranking fighters instead of Baseball players by using Ring's 100 years of Fight Division rankings as a baseline.

I'm rather dubious of that Ring Fishnet crew who horribly botched the now heavily derided Floyd Mayweather Olympic Drug Testing Testing TUE standards for boxing, but 'tis what it 'tis, a brand new Ring History perspective enhanced by what I assume to be a new algorithm to correlate all the details.

https://www.ringtv.com/634216-to-be-the ... gs-100-91/



Will Sugar Ray Robinson retain his traditional all time Greatest status, or could Harry Greb sucker punch him off of his throne? What of Ali? Could he withstand a Fury Blubber charge after being KOed by Rocky in the first computerized tourney?

Hi Broughton, hope you're well my friend. Thanks for posting. I might buy it just to be able to whine. These things are always fun.

Hope all is well with you.

- Ez, nice to see you out and about again. Guess your little girl has recovered and now nearing pubescence already smarter than mom, pop, and all the boys combined, so hang on as boys enter her equation.

I was lucky in that all I had to worry about my two boys was them getting in fights, property damage, and school suspension.

Anyway, I'll suspend Ring disbelief until the entirety of the list is published, but here is the necessarily convoluted logic involved in ranking fighters from such disparate eras as to beggar belief the same sport exists.

https://www.ringtv.com/article/to-be-the-best-intro/

Having done a study on baseball quite by accident, I understand the mind boggling effort in compiling incessant statistical numbers, but from what I see thus far aside from diversity of win/loss records, Cliff's new stat categories, Overall Score Rank, Peak Score Rank, Win Total Rank are nonsensically removed from the numerical ratings. That implies subjective judgement was used in compiling the "rank" order.

As a Corona Virus(Vaccine) statistical side note, might be interested in our "Public Health Authority" has finally come clean with the declaration that 95% of our Corona fatalities involved folks with "comorbidity" conditions, ie diabetes, AIDs, Hepatitis, heart conditions, ect, and worse, most were the new and growing racial demographic of "people of color," ie everyone not "White." Given the lack of Federal guidance in the compiling of national Corona stats and the general politicization and commercialization of Science and Medicine, maybe de-evolution is now taking place as the cost of living spikes as folks be rioting with suicide on the rise, and who to thank

They haven’t been removed. Each category ranking is still there and the scoring explanation is appended at the end of each section. The order is a little different than print as explained in the authors note: https://www.ringtv.com/634641-to-be-the ... ngs-60-51/

Cholo_cws wrote: ↑09 Feb 2022, 13:28

crold1 wrote: ↑03 Feb 2022, 21:39 No sir. Calzaghe was ranked 8th and Eubank 9th in the Jan 98 issue. The next issue (welter skelter cover), Calzaghe moves up off the result. You're right about Eubank prior to the fight but he was there nonetheless.

Thanks for putting me right. It might have been an assumption on my part at the time for missing an issue. Schoolboy error.

All good. I’m still catching little things here and there editing the addendum. It’s a LOT of small pieces of data.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑09 Feb 2022, 16:46

Cholo_cws wrote: ↑09 Feb 2022, 13:40

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑09 Feb 2022, 11:58

At first I thought they were just picking names out of hat. Greb wasn't picked until they got to 76 and so on.
But maybe you are all right, they were just catering to modern fans, with the occasional fighter from way back just to make it look like they had actually done some research.

Picked? It's all based on a mathematical formula - a flawed one.

The "mathematical formula" may be skewed to favor certain factors that favor mostly recent fighters. The nature of the sport has changed dramatically over the years.
Has there ever been a mathematical formula that is reasonable? It just doesn't seem to work for boxing. There are just many variables that are hard to quantify.

If I am following this correctly, they are basing this off of Ring Magazine Ratings going back to when they started them in 1925. That would exclude nearly all of Harry Greb's entire career, as well as other greats who fought before 1925.
Ring Magazine originally only ranked fighters in 8 weight classes. Gradually that number went up to 17. Does that skew things in favor of more recent fighters?

That's right. For Greb, it's just official results from 1924 forward (meaning the first set of Ring rankings was derived from where guys were at the end of that year). The study references that while also noting Greb's larger historical regard; that's how great Greb was. Just a piece of his career on the back end was that strong with what was being examined. It's not a best or greatest fighters list (and considered just doing it alphabetically). It's a study of the rankings themselves and performance against them. The intro also explains the ebb and flow of what divisions had ratings. the first set actually had nine, then there were ten, then eight from the late 30s to the early 60s etc.

It's useless.

crold1 wrote: ↑09 Feb 2022, 22:45

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote: ↑09 Feb 2022, 22:34

Ezzard wrote: ↑09 Feb 2022, 04:50

Hi Broughton, hope you're well my friend. Thanks for posting. I might buy it just to be able to whine. These things are always fun.

Hope all is well with you.

- Ez, nice to see you out and about again. Guess your little girl has recovered and now nearing pubescence already smarter than mom, pop, and all the boys combined, so hang on as boys enter her equation.

I was lucky in that all I had to worry about my two boys was them getting in fights, property damage, and school suspension.

Anyway, I'll suspend Ring disbelief until the entirety of the list is published, but here is the necessarily convoluted logic involved in ranking fighters from such disparate eras as to beggar belief the same sport exists.

https://www.ringtv.com/article/to-be-the-best-intro/

Having done a study on baseball quite by accident, I understand the mind boggling effort in compiling incessant statistical numbers, but from what I see thus far aside from diversity of win/loss records, Cliff's new stat categories, Overall Score Rank, Peak Score Rank, Win Total Rank are nonsensically removed from the numerical ratings. That implies subjective judgement was used in compiling the "rank" order.

As a Corona Virus(Vaccine) statistical side note, might be interested in our "Public Health Authority" has finally come clean with the declaration that 95% of our Corona fatalities involved folks with "comorbidity" conditions, ie diabetes, AIDs, Hepatitis, heart conditions, ect, and worse, most were the new and growing racial demographic of "people of color," ie everyone not "White." Given the lack of Federal guidance in the compiling of national Corona stats and the general politicization and commercialization of Science and Medicine, maybe de-evolution is now taking place as the cost of living spikes as folks be rioting with suicide on the rise, and who to thank

They haven’t been removed. Each category ranking is still there and the scoring explanation is appended at the end of each section. The order is a little different than print as explained in the authors note: https://www.ringtv.com/634641-to-be-the ... ngs-60-51/

- Never meant the category was "missing," but perhaps should have worded it for better understanding that the numeric values given are all over the map as the work progresses, and in particular lacking meaning absent any understanding of the emboldened terminology.

I applaud the epic effort, but in a fashion what you attempted was trying through "The Bible of Boxing" to nail down a poorly organized sport through the ages long derided as the lower base level of mankind in between periods of individual fighters of note alongside other associated boxing persons ennobling the sport, ie the ever shifting plasma of poorly recorded time.

The Work is now completed and entered into the 'Boxing Archives, so gonna start "small" with a few examples needing answers in Italics.

100 – Gus Lesnevich 

Career Record: 61-14-5 (23 KO, 5 KOBY)

First Ring Ranking: #6 Light Heavyweight (November 1936)

Last Ring Ranking: #2 Light Heavyweight (July 1949)

Record vs. Ring-rated Opponents: 17-13-3 (8 KO, 5 KOBY)

Overall Score Rank: 196

Peak Score Rank: 200

Win Total Rank: 55

Ring Magazine Championships: Light Heavyweight (1941-48)

456 /\

393\/

#99 – Jose Torres 

Career Record: 41-3-1 (29 KO, 1 KOBY)

First Ring Ranking: #9 Middleweight (March 1964)

Last Ring Ranking: #7 Light Heavyweight (January 1969)

Record vs. Ring-rated Opponents: 7-2 (4 KO)

Overall Score Rank: 73 

Peak Score Rank: 95

Win Total Rank: 225

Numbers shook up in a jar and poured out on a board could form a more cohesive whole than the above.

Baseball the analogous popular well paying sport at the turn of the 20th Century with Boxing has accumulative stat total, ie HR, Hits, Run Batted In, Runs Scored that started with basic box scores making various various career accumulations possible by the newly organized MLB and baseball aficionados. Boxing had no such organization by dint of being an outlaw sport...The New York Tribune scathingly noted the derelict nature of the gamblers, crooks, murderers and sports, “the most vicious congregation of roughs that was ever witnessed in a Christian city,” noting by the conclusion of the bout, “…so much rowdyism, villainy, scoundrelism, and boiled down viciousness concentrated on so small a space.”

#70 – Kostya Tszyu

Career Record: 31-2 (25 KOs, 2 KOBY)

First Ring Ranking: #10 Jr. Welterweight (March 1993)

Last Ring Ranking: #2 Jr. Welterweight (September 2006)

Record vs. Ring-rated Opponents: 11-2 (9 KOs, 2 KOBY)

Overall Score Rank: 69

Peak Score Rank: 71

Win Total Rank: 114

Ring Magazine Championships: Jr. Welterweight (2001-05)Kostya Tszyu was The Ring’s junior welterweight champion from 2002-2005.

254/\

1408\/

#69 – Kid Gavilan

Career Record: 108-30-5 (28 KOs)

First Ring Ranking: #8 Welterweight (January 1948)
Last Ring Ranking: #10 Welterweight (September 1958)
Record vs. Ring-rated Opponents: 23-27-5 (4 KO)
Overall Score Rank: 1309
Peak Score Rank: 72
Win Total Rank: 27

Here is what must surely be a typo so far removed from the point totals thus far growing smaller to reflect the better rankings.


#31 – Larry Holmes

Career Record: 69-6 (44 KOs, 1 KOBY)

First Ring Ranking: #10 Heavyweight (March 1976)
Last Ring Ranking: #6 Heavyweight (July 1995)
Record vs. Ring-rated Opponents: 20-5 (14 KOs, 1 KOBY)
Overall Score Rank: 40
Peak Score Rank: 45
Win Total Rank: 34
Ring Magazine Championships: Heavyweight (1980-85)
Larry Holmes was Ring’s 1982 Fighter of the Year.

“The Easton Assassin” was the last of the great 1970s heavyweights, dominating the flagship class for years behind a punishing left jab. Holmes spent two years in the top ten before securing the first of two fights with Earnie Shavers. Holmes was number three in the rankings on the eve of his memorable war with Ken Norton for the WBC belt and never looked back. Holmes gained recognition as Ring’s champion in the June 1980 issue when Mike Weaver, whom Holmes had already defeated, won the WBA belt. Holmes aligned his claim to the title with the lineage of the crown by defeating Muhammad Ali later in the year.

Holmes would forsake the WBC belt for the recognition of the fledgling IBF beginning with his defense against “Bonecrusher” Smith. Combining his reigns as Ring, WBC, and IBF champion, Holmes had a total of 20 consecutive defenses. 

Ahhhh, my favorite punch dummy for reference. I'd be too embarrassed to record such specious ring logic without some kind of rebuttal. And how can Lar who seems to be the first major single belt holder in a multibelt era he helped to create have 20 "consecutive" defenses when he forfeited, ie was stripped of his WBC to duck his mandatory Greg Page for fight Marvis Frazier whom his Buddy Bob Lee of IBF infamy soon to be hauled off to the Big House, why not even Lee would sanction Marvis.

You can look up fighter timelines in boxrec. Lar 0-6, 0 KO vs champs having won their titles in the Ring. Kenny, bless him, should've won the Ali fight was an Administrative Champ when the WBC upgraded his Jimmy Young Title Eliminator after he beat Young who should've been awarded the decision over Ali who had no business in the Ring by then.

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote: ↑15 Feb 2022, 23:59

crold1 wrote: ↑09 Feb 2022, 22:45

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote: ↑09 Feb 2022, 22:34



- Ez, nice to see you out and about again. Guess your little girl has recovered and now nearing pubescence already smarter than mom, pop, and all the boys combined, so hang on as boys enter her equation.

I was lucky in that all I had to worry about my two boys was them getting in fights, property damage, and school suspension.

Anyway, I'll suspend Ring disbelief until the entirety of the list is published, but here is the necessarily convoluted logic involved in ranking fighters from such disparate eras as to beggar belief the same sport exists.

https://www.ringtv.com/article/to-be-the-best-intro/

Having done a study on baseball quite by accident, I understand the mind boggling effort in compiling incessant statistical numbers, but from what I see thus far aside from diversity of win/loss records, Cliff's new stat categories, Overall Score Rank, Peak Score Rank, Win Total Rank are nonsensically removed from the numerical ratings. That implies subjective judgement was used in compiling the "rank" order.

As a Corona Virus(Vaccine) statistical side note, might be interested in our "Public Health Authority" has finally come clean with the declaration that 95% of our Corona fatalities involved folks with "comorbidity" conditions, ie diabetes, AIDs, Hepatitis, heart conditions, ect, and worse, most were the new and growing racial demographic of "people of color," ie everyone not "White." Given the lack of Federal guidance in the compiling of national Corona stats and the general politicization and commercialization of Science and Medicine, maybe de-evolution is now taking place as the cost of living spikes as folks be rioting with suicide on the rise, and who to thank

They haven’t been removed. Each category ranking is still there and the scoring explanation is appended at the end of each section. The order is a little different than print as explained in the authors note: https://www.ringtv.com/634641-to-be-the ... ngs-60-51/

- Never meant the category was "missing," but perhaps should have worded it for better understanding that the numeric values given are all over the map as the work progresses, and in particular lacking meaning absent any understanding of the emboldened terminology.

I applaud the epic effort, but in a fashion what you attempted was trying through "The Bible of Boxing" to nail down a poorly organized sport through the ages long derided as the lower base level of mankind in between periods of individual fighters of note alongside other associated boxing persons ennobling the sport, ie the ever shifting plasma of poorly recorded time.

The Work is now completed and entered into the 'Boxing Archives, so gonna start "small" with a few examples needing answers in Italics.

100 – Gus Lesnevich 

Career Record: 61-14-5 (23 KO, 5 KOBY)

First Ring Ranking: #6 Light Heavyweight (November 1936)

Last Ring Ranking: #2 Light Heavyweight (July 1949)

Record vs. Ring-rated Opponents: 17-13-3 (8 KO, 5 KOBY)

Overall Score Rank: 196

Peak Score Rank: 200

Win Total Rank: 55

Ring Magazine Championships: Light Heavyweight (1941-48)

456 /\

393\/

#99 – Jose Torres 

Career Record: 41-3-1 (29 KO, 1 KOBY)

First Ring Ranking: #9 Middleweight (March 1964)

Last Ring Ranking: #7 Light Heavyweight (January 1969)

Record vs. Ring-rated Opponents: 7-2 (4 KO)

Overall Score Rank: 73 

Peak Score Rank: 95

Win Total Rank: 225

Numbers shook up in a jar and poured out on a board could form a more cohesive whole than the above.

Baseball the analogous popular well paying sport at the turn of the 20th Century with Boxing has accumulative stat total, ie HR, Hits, Run Batted In, Runs Scored that started with basic box scores making various various career accumulations possible by the newly organized MLB and baseball aficionados. Boxing had no such organization by dint of being an outlaw sport...The New York Tribune scathingly noted the derelict nature of the gamblers, crooks, murderers and sports, “the most vicious congregation of roughs that was ever witnessed in a Christian city,” noting by the conclusion of the bout, “…so much rowdyism, villainy, scoundrelism, and boiled down viciousness concentrated on so small a space.”

#70 – Kostya Tszyu

Career Record: 31-2 (25 KOs, 2 KOBY)

First Ring Ranking: #10 Jr. Welterweight (March 1993)

Last Ring Ranking: #2 Jr. Welterweight (September 2006)

Record vs. Ring-rated Opponents: 11-2 (9 KOs, 2 KOBY)

Overall Score Rank: 69

Peak Score Rank: 71

Win Total Rank: 114

Ring Magazine Championships: Jr. Welterweight (2001-05)Kostya Tszyu was The Ring’s junior welterweight champion from 2002-2005.

254/\

1408\/

#69 – Kid Gavilan

Career Record: 108-30-5 (28 KOs)

First Ring Ranking: #8 Welterweight (January 1948)
Last Ring Ranking: #10 Welterweight (September 1958)
Record vs. Ring-rated Opponents: 23-27-5 (4 KO)
Overall Score Rank: 1309
Peak Score Rank: 72
Win Total Rank: 27

Here is what must surely be a typo so far removed from the point totals thus far growing smaller to reflect the better rankings.


#31 – Larry Holmes

Career Record: 69-6 (44 KOs, 1 KOBY)

First Ring Ranking: #10 Heavyweight (March 1976)
Last Ring Ranking: #6 Heavyweight (July 1995)
Record vs. Ring-rated Opponents: 20-5 (14 KOs, 1 KOBY)
Overall Score Rank: 40
Peak Score Rank: 45
Win Total Rank: 34
Ring Magazine Championships: Heavyweight (1980-85)
Larry Holmes was Ring’s 1982 Fighter of the Year.

“The Easton Assassin” was the last of the great 1970s heavyweights, dominating the flagship class for years behind a punishing left jab. Holmes spent two years in the top ten before securing the first of two fights with Earnie Shavers. Holmes was number three in the rankings on the eve of his memorable war with Ken Norton for the WBC belt and never looked back. Holmes gained recognition as Ring’s champion in the June 1980 issue when Mike Weaver, whom Holmes had already defeated, won the WBA belt. Holmes aligned his claim to the title with the lineage of the crown by defeating Muhammad Ali later in the year.

Holmes would forsake the WBC belt for the recognition of the fledgling IBF beginning with his defense against “Bonecrusher” Smith. Combining his reigns as Ring, WBC, and IBF champion, Holmes had a total of 20 consecutive defenses. 

Ahhhh, my favorite punch dummy for reference. I'd be too embarrassed to record such specious ring logic without some kind of rebuttal. And how can Lar who seems to be the first major single belt holder in a multibelt era he helped to create have 20 "consecutive" defenses when he forfeited, ie was stripped of his WBC to duck his mandatory Greg Page for fight Marvis Frazier whom his Buddy Bob Lee of IBF infamy soon to be hauled off to the Big House, why not even Lee would sanction Marvis.

You can look up fighter timelines in boxrec. Lar 0-6, 0 KO vs champs having won their titles in the Ring. Kenny, bless him, should've won the Ali fight was an Administrative Champ when the WBC upgraded his Jimmy Young Title Eliminator after he beat Young who should've been awarded the decision over Ali who had no business in the Ring by then.

I see what you're getting at. Things like Gavilan can be explained in the explanation of how the results were grouped. It was an attempt the show the range of data.

"To best display the range of data, they were then divided into four groups to settle on the final 100.

Group one: anyone who finished in the top 100 of all three scoring categories or whose scoring average was higher than those who did. (1-64).

Group two was anyone else who finished in the top 100 for peak score and ranked wins but not overall points (65-69).

Group three was derived from fighters who scored in the top 75 of any of the three scoring categories or whose final scoring average was higher than what would otherwise be the bottom ten of the top 100 (70-100).

The final average score was used to order the fighters in each group for those who made the top 100."

I don't know if that was the best way to do it. It's why I include everyone else who had a top 100 ranking in one of the three categories in the addendum that's coming. That will just be some general stuff and their identified results. Some of the overall math could/surely does have human error. There were some clean up edits I can add into a future revision after I submitted stemming from addendum edits. As to Tszyu, the Ring reinstated their title policy in the April 2002 issue. The date for the rankings was December 2, 2001. 2001 is right (and it was only one issue after they recorded the win).

No argument on the funkiness of Holmes. That was a mess. But in a study of Ring rankings, Frazier would count as a title defense. Even for those who are not fans of how the order finished (I get it; did my best in approaching this from a different angle), I think there is a lot of fun stuff in here besides that. The biggest point for me was to try to capture, in the context of what we knew 'then,' a snapshot of the rankings/times each guy was confronting. I may eventually put it all in just plain alphabetical order and put out all the findings. I need a break first though. This was a lot of work. :)

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote: ↑09 Feb 2022, 22:34

Ezzard wrote: ↑09 Feb 2022, 04:50

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote: ↑03 Feb 2022, 10:03 - Looks like a sorta Bill James approach to ranking fighters instead of Baseball players by using Ring's 100 years of Fight Division rankings as a baseline.

I'm rather dubious of that Ring Fishnet crew who horribly botched the now heavily derided Floyd Mayweather Olympic Drug Testing Testing TUE standards for boxing, but 'tis what it 'tis, a brand new Ring History perspective enhanced by what I assume to be a new algorithm to correlate all the details.

https://www.ringtv.com/634216-to-be-the ... gs-100-91/



Will Sugar Ray Robinson retain his traditional all time Greatest status, or could Harry Greb sucker punch him off of his throne? What of Ali? Could he withstand a Fury Blubber charge after being KOed by Rocky in the first computerized tourney?

Hi Broughton, hope you're well my friend. Thanks for posting. I might buy it just to be able to whine. These things are always fun.

Hope all is well with you.

- Ez, nice to see you out and about again. Guess your little girl has recovered and now nearing pubescence already smarter than mom, pop, and all the boys combined, so hang on as boys enter her equation.

I was lucky in that all I had to worry about my two boys was them getting in fights, property damage, and school suspension.

Anyway, I'll suspend Ring disbelief until the entirety of the list is published, but here is the necessarily convoluted logic involved in ranking fighters from such disparate eras as to beggar belief the same sport exists.

https://www.ringtv.com/article/to-be-the-best-intro/

Having done a study on baseball quite by accident, I understand the mind boggling effort in compiling incessant statistical numbers, but from what I see thus far aside from diversity of win/loss records, Cliff's new stat categories, Overall Score Rank, Peak Score Rank, Win Total Rank are nonsensically removed from the numerical ratings. That implies subjective judgement was used in compiling the "rank" order.

As a Corona Virus(Vaccine) statistical side note, might be interested in our "Public Health Authority" has finally come clean with the declaration that 95% of our Corona fatalities involved folks with "comorbidity" conditions, ie diabetes, AIDs, Hepatitis, heart conditions, ect, and worse, most were the new and growing racial demographic of "people of color," ie everyone not "White." Given the lack of Federal guidance in the compiling of national Corona stats and the general politicization and commercialization of Science and Medicine, maybe de-evolution is now taking place as the cost of living spikes as folks be rioting with suicide on the rise, and who to thank

Thanks for remembering. What a terrible few years we've had. Appreciate the words of advice too. But she's on the right track sort of... Was all set for Oxford but side-stepped it for film school. As long as she's happy...

I like the effort in the rankings. I guess we all have our own ideas on how a list should be compiled. And if you can get your model to a good place then in theory it should work. Bookies seem to do well out of it.

I used to code sports simulations as a kid. Lot of fun.

For me who you beat and who you fought are the two biggest factors. Problem is that all those dead fighters the media can't make money from had more expansive careers.

crold1 wrote: ↑16 Feb 2022, 01:00 I see what you're getting at. Things like Gavilan can be explained in the explanation of how the results were grouped. It was an attempt the show the range of data.

"To best display the range of data, they were then divided into four groups to settle on the final 100.

Group one: anyone who finished in the top 100 of all three scoring categories or whose scoring average was higher than those who did. (1-64).

Group two was anyone else who finished in the top 100 for peak score and ranked wins but not overall points (65-69).

Group three was derived from fighters who scored in the top 75 of any of the three scoring categories or whose final scoring average was higher than what would otherwise be the bottom ten of the top 100 (70-100).

The final average score was used to order the fighters in each group for those who made the top 100."

I don't know if that was the best way to do it. It's why I include everyone else who had a top 100 ranking in one of the three categories in the addendum that's coming. That will just be some general stuff and their identified results. Some of the overall math could/surely does have human error. There were some clean up edits I can add into a future revision after I submitted stemming from addendum edits. As to Tszyu, the Ring reinstated their title policy in the April 2002 issue. The date for the rankings was December 2, 2001. 2001 is right (and it was only one issue after they recorded the win).

No argument on the funkiness of Holmes. That was a mess. But in a study of Ring rankings, Frazier would count as a title defense. Even for those who are not fans of how the order finished (I get it; did my best in approaching this from a different angle), I think there is a lot of fun stuff in here besides that. The biggest point for me was to try to capture, in the context of what we knew 'then,' a snapshot of the rankings/times each guy was confronting. I may eventually put it all in just plain alphabetical order and put out all the findings. I need a break first though. This was a lot of work. :)

- Thus my critique of Ring efficacy through the years that preceded your admirable study, yet continues to this very day.

The Ring data yielded these results:

#63 – Gennadiy Golovkin

Career Record: 41-1-1 (36 KOs)

First Ring Ranking: #10 Middleweight (March 2012)

Last Ring Ranking: To Be Determined

Record vs. Ring-rated Opponents: 11-1-1 (9 KOs)

Overall Score Rank: 45

Peak Score Rank: 62

Win Total Rank: 134

Ring Magazine Championships: None
Gennadiy Golovkin’s rematch with Canelo Alvarez was Ring Magazine’s 2018 Fight of the Year.


***One of the most accomplished and long-reigning heavyweight champions of all time is joined in this group by two of the most popular and celebrated heavyweight champs ever. (It makes you wonder how amazingly accomplished the fighters who made the first half of this list must be.)

The heavyweights are good company. This group includes two of Sugar Ray Robinson’s toughest middleweight rivals, two dominant lightweight kings (whose title reigns are separated by 60 years), an all-time great from Puerto Rico, one of Britain’s most talented champions, and a forgotten Olympic gold medalist who faced the best featherweights, lightweights and welterweights of the late 1920s/early 1930s.

#60 – Wladimir Klitschko

Career Record: 64-5 (53 KOs, 4 KOBY)

First Ring Ranking: #6 Heavyweight (March 2001)

Last Ring Ranking: #3 Heavyweight (November 2017)

Record vs. Ring-rated Opponents: 15-4 (9 KOs, 3 KOBY)

Overall Score Rank: 80

Peak Score Rank: 78

Win Total Rank: 73

Ring Magazine Championships: Heavyweight (2009-15)

#59 – Carl “Bobo” Olson

Career Record: 97-16-2 (46 KOs, 7 KOBY)

First Ring Ranking: #7 Middleweight (August 1949)

Last Ring Ranking: #9 Light Heavyweight (May 1967)

Record vs. Ring-rated Opponents: 18-14-2 (4 KOs, 7 KOBY)

Overall Score Rank: 125

Peak Score Rank: 61

Win Total Rank: 45

Ring Magazine Championships: Middleweight (1953-55)
Carl Olson was The Ring’s 1953 Fighter of the Year.

***OK, etched in stone now, and we've all seen and compiled incessant linear ranked lists through our ages, but I don't recall Bobo whom I have a fondness for ever entering the conversation.

Golovkin like the Ks turned pro under German promoters and did quite well, but took a flyer to the US for greater accolades. He wiped clean several times over the middle division to arguably tie or exceed the all time middle title fights and most assuredly holds the KO record for middle title records.

Wlad with many setbacks under similar early beginnings turns pro with his bro Vitali using their amateur coach who had zip professional boxing experience and they dominated the American Flagship division, cancelling Don King to a pipsqueak level promoter. Wlad approached and technically surpassed Joe Louis title bouts but fell short of Joe's most brilliant heavy record in history. No heavy before or after has managed such a streak of excellence.

So, philosophically, what use are Ring ratings if they cannot distinguish more than a nominal difference between Bobo and the above mentioned Ukrainians?

Ask Doogie how many years Tyson Fury has been listed as Ring Champ, and how many defenses he fought?

I see it as 6 years the Ring Champ with a single defense over the guy he KOed the fight before. What kind of org has Ring become to allow such a thing to happen? Facts are after Fury and Wilder turned down career purses to fight AJ, ie the Olympic Gold Medalist who reunified the great Wlad titles and actually gave the 40+ Wlad his only chance to win back his titles. Fury had ducked the contractual rematch further disgraced with a steroid positive drug test for his Ring title.

The highest rated fighter that would fight AJ was Joe Parker. To compound their ignominy, the fainting goats repeated their their dereliction in AJ's American Debut.

Oh the shame of the shameless, but wait!

Hosannas, Praise the Lord for the Self Identified Mexican born in America, Fat Andy, a hero beyond all others in his moment who saved the day for America AND Mexico when all others were stricken with The Vapors.

To wit per Ring Rules-

RATING PANEL / CHAMPIONSHIP POLICY
Championship vacancies can be filled in the following two ways:

THE RING’s Nos. 1 and 2 contenders fight one another.
If a fight between the Nos. 1 and 2 contenders can not be made and No. 1 fights No. 3, the winner may be awarded THE RING belt if the Editorial Board deems the No. 3 contender worthy.

Now understand Cliff, I in no way hold you responsible for above. I'm just having some fun with Ring numbers and actual factual history...only in boxing, folks