Posted: 19 May 2006, 06:10
I think we have the old rankings again.
Ah good, Primo's back at #16.Friedie wrote:I think we have the old rankings again.
BoxRec
New All time rankings In all weight classes.
Page 2 of 2
Posted: 19 May 2006, 07:27
Posted: 19 May 2006, 10:44
Yes....and Maxie is back at 14.The Great John L wrote:Ah good, Primo's back at #16.Friedie wrote:I think we have the old rankings again.
Posted: 19 May 2006, 13:24
There are some serious flaws with the way they system is designed. (Atleast to my understanding)
1. It counts wins over opponents that weren't in the weight class that is being rated. For example, wins that Jimmy Bivins has over lightheavyweights are considered in the heavyweight ratings. So Bivins is rated way too high at heavyweight even though he didn't beat any highly rated heavyweights.
2. It doesn't count losses at all! Perhaps this to eliminate fights when a fighter was far past his prime (or very early in his career). Still, you can't just not count every loss that a fighter has and have an accurrate assessment of his career.
3. It only counts the best 14 wins. This hurts a fighter who had a lot more than 14 wins.
I'ts a shame because obviously a lot of thought is put into the system, and a lot of research has been done.
If these issues were addressed the ratings would be much better. Undoubtedly there would still be a few suprises, but it would be much more likely that a certain fighter has been underrated (or overrated as the case may be), rather than just because of major flaws in the system.
Who knows, we may "discover" a fighter who has been terribly underrated!
1. It counts wins over opponents that weren't in the weight class that is being rated. For example, wins that Jimmy Bivins has over lightheavyweights are considered in the heavyweight ratings. So Bivins is rated way too high at heavyweight even though he didn't beat any highly rated heavyweights.
2. It doesn't count losses at all! Perhaps this to eliminate fights when a fighter was far past his prime (or very early in his career). Still, you can't just not count every loss that a fighter has and have an accurrate assessment of his career.
3. It only counts the best 14 wins. This hurts a fighter who had a lot more than 14 wins.
I'ts a shame because obviously a lot of thought is put into the system, and a lot of research has been done.
If these issues were addressed the ratings would be much better. Undoubtedly there would still be a few suprises, but it would be much more likely that a certain fighter has been underrated (or overrated as the case may be), rather than just because of major flaws in the system.
Who knows, we may "discover" a fighter who has been terribly underrated!
Posted: 19 May 2006, 13:57
Where is John "The HuggerMan" Ruiz?BoxBuzz wrote:Collins, change doesnt come easy to the elderly they tell me. But with my youthful attitude I may be able to find a way to somehow find peace with this. And have you reviewed all the weight classes already? Or have you just figured assess first, read the details later? Heres the HW...top 25.
1 Muhammad Ali 1,656 1960 - 1981 56-5-0
2 Jimmy Bivins 1,646 1940 - 1955 86-25-1
3 Ezzard Charles 1,633 1940 - 1959 89-25-1
4 Joe Louis 1,628 1934 - 1951 69-3-0
5 Lennox Lewis 1,576 1989 - 2003 41-2-1
6 Evander Holyfield 1,566 1984 - 2004 38-8-2
7 Jersey Joe Walcott 1,542 1930 - 1953 51-18-2
8 Floyd Patterson 1,521 1952 - 1972 55-8-1
9 Larry Holmes 1,520 1973 - 2002 69-6-0
10 Mike Tyson 1,519 1985 - 2005 50-6-0
11 Rocky Marciano 1,518 1947 - 1955 49-0-0
12 Tony Shucco 1,512 1928 - 1944 91-17-11
13 Jack Sharkey 1,507 1924 - 1936 38-14-3
14 Bob Pastor 1,495 1935 - 1942 53-7-5
15 Young Stribling 1,485 1921 - 1933 255-16-14
16 Sam Langford 1,473 1902 - 1926 198-46-46
17 Zora Folley 1,470 1953 - 1970 79-11-6
18 Johnny Risko 1,466 1923 - 1940 79-53-7
19 Primo Carnera 1,463 1928 - 1946 88-15-0
20 Ernie Schaaf 1,463 1927 - 1933 58-14-2
21 Max Schmeling 1,461 1924 - 1948 56-10-4
22 Eddie Machen 1,461 1955 - 1967 50-11-3
23 Sonny Liston 1,460 1953 - 1970 50-4-0
24 Gene Tunney 1,455 1915 - 1928 83-2-2
25 James Toney 1,447 1988 - 2006 69-4-3
Posted: 19 May 2006, 20:12
The crystal clear logic becomes evident when we see where John Ruiz has ended up.
*98 Jack Johnson 1,333 1894 - 1938 92-14-12
99 Oscar Natalio Bonavena 1,332 1964 - 1976 58-9-1
100 Hasim Rahman 1,331 1994 - 2006 41-5-2
101 Pierre Charles 1,324 1922 - 1937 63-22-11
102 John Ruiz 1,324 1992 - 2005 41-6-1
103 Eddie Blunt 1,322 1935 - 1948 37-20-6
104 Ingemar Johansson 1,320 1952 - 1963 26-2-0
*Dear almighty god..... if you are a boxing fan do not strike us down dead for this blashpemy.....
cc: to buddah, allah, the great spirit, and all holy entities who may possess omnipotent powers.
*98 Jack Johnson 1,333 1894 - 1938 92-14-12
99 Oscar Natalio Bonavena 1,332 1964 - 1976 58-9-1
100 Hasim Rahman 1,331 1994 - 2006 41-5-2
101 Pierre Charles 1,324 1922 - 1937 63-22-11
102 John Ruiz 1,324 1992 - 2005 41-6-1
103 Eddie Blunt 1,322 1935 - 1948 37-20-6
104 Ingemar Johansson 1,320 1952 - 1963 26-2-0
*Dear almighty god..... if you are a boxing fan do not strike us down dead for this blashpemy.....
cc: to buddah, allah, the great spirit, and all holy entities who may possess omnipotent powers.
Posted: 20 May 2006, 08:19
silkov wrote:The fact that you're happy shows how wacky the list is!... Corbett not in the top 500??... try reading a bit of boxing history son...Decagon wrote:As long as Jim Corbett stays out of the top 500, I'm happy.
Posted: 20 May 2006, 09:38
Decagon your just trying to get under the skin of some of the regulars. Oh and Valuev rates that low in all time yet number 2 in current. That may tell us just how bad the current crop is.
Be completely honest....do you think that little of Sullivan and Corbett?
The rest of your picks are at least somewhat representative of where they belong.
Can Stacy be found in this listing? Would he rate above or below Corbett in your estimation?
Be completely honest....do you think that little of Sullivan and Corbett?
The rest of your picks are at least somewhat representative of where they belong.
Can Stacy be found in this listing? Would he rate above or below Corbett in your estimation?