Page 2 of 8
Posted: 19 May 2006, 15:08
by dempseyfire
Decagon wrote:dempseyfire wrote:Chris Byrd over Jerry Quarry, Willis, Langford, Baer, and the omitted Jimmy Young (who beat a much more impressive list of fighters than Byrd)??
Jimmy Young also lost a lot of his fights against top fighters. Baer lost to a guy making his pro debut.
And don't complain about Byrd's competition when you're hyping Wills, whose best wins were over Fred Fulton, Gunboat Smith and a couple of aged fighters from the early 1900s.
dempseyfire wrote:Byrd's one clear win over a proven top contender was vs Tua. After that he has some wins over underachievers who typified why the division got so bad in the 21st century. I can think of many HW contenders who fought and beat tougher comp than Byrd.
Some people can't face facts. Byrd did beat Vitali Klitschko. Byrd did beat Fres Oquendo (I didn't score it for Oquendo). Byrd did beat Jameel McCline. Byrd did beat David Tua. Byrd did beat Evander Holyfield, who was coming off a win over Hasim Rahman. Byrd did beat Mo Harris, who was much better than his record suggests.
Collins2000 wrote:But where is Klondyke? I know for a fact that you have been told over and over again that he is far better than Foreman and Holmes.
Klondike is, of course, the greatest heavyweight who ever lived, and this is just a list of fighters that could possibly challenge him. Muhammad Ali isn't the #1 heavyweight of all time; he's the #1 contender to Klondike's title, which he shares with Big Bill Tate.
Collins2000 wrote:Plus I'd have Quarry over Shavers.... and not just because he overwhelmed him easily.
Good point. For way too long, I've been overrating Shavers based on his performance against Muhammad Ali. For years, I've been thinking of him as an uncrowned World Heavyweight Champion, while ignoring similar credentials Jimmy Young could hold. Worse yet, I always rank fighters based in part on how consistent they were, and I'm judging Shavers based on his best performance, rather than on his career as a whole, which is going against my philosophy for ranking fighters.
wouter wrote:Decagon, could you explain what Bowe has done to be rated #14 and Ibeabuchi #30?
Both men never met a man in the professional ring that they couldn't get the better of. Ibeabuchi beat two men in my top 40. Bowe's only loss as a pro was VERY controversial, although people don't like talking about it, since Bowe is such a jerk.
Basically, I came to rank Bowe so high because I kept moving people around, based on head-to-head and accomplishments. Were the fighters Bowe beat worse than the fighters, say, Jim Jeffries beat? Or the heavyweights Gene Tunney beat? Actually, you've almost convinced me to put him at #13 and Tunney at #14. I do hate having Bowe that high, and I don't think he deserves it, but who else does? I see people ranking Floyd Patterson over Riddick Bowe.
That makes me shake my head.
I simply can't find it in myself to rank Sam Langford very high. Although Barry thinks that Klondike and Big Bill Tate were "as solid as" Larry Holmes and George Foreman, Langford didn't beat good enough heavyweights for me to rank him.
And Vitali Klitschko did not beat Chris Byrd. Byrd was landing solid shots right before Vitali quit. Byrd won that bout as clearly as possible. If the other guy quits, there's nothing you can say against the man who beat him. He won the match, fair and square.
Fulton, Langford, Norfolk, Jeannette, and Mcvey are wins against very strong fighters. Much better than friggin' Oquendo (even if you do have him winning, is that impressive? . . .Ruiz beat Fres much more decisively), McCline, and Tua.
Young lost a lot of early fights b/c he was basically thrown to the liosn early on. Went on a tremondous streak between 1973 and 77 in which he defeated Shavers (the draw was a sham), Lyle, Foreman, and and most believe Ali. That's ten times better than anything Byrd did. You're going to slam him in the rankings b/c he went on to fight past his best overweight and with a drug problem? If you weigh so much on head to head matchups Young should be much higher, and Byrd lower. Young although a soft puncher was a real HW, not a light HW gaining lbs to fight over 200.
And I actually see the Byrd-Klit win as more legit than most. Vitali was not dominating Byrd in the slightest. Vitali was ahead but it was a competetive fight all the way. Byrd had many more problems with Wladimir.
Posted: 19 May 2006, 15:16
by pundit
dempseyfire wrote:
And I actually see the Byrd-Klit win as more legit than most. Vitali was not dominating Byrd in the slightest. Vitali was ahead but it was a competetive fight all the way. Byrd had many more problems with Wladimir.
Don't forget that Vitali had only one arm after round 2. Byrd just hang in there with a one-handed Vitali and still lost almost all rounds.
In my view the fight proved only one thing: Byrd isn't competitive when he steps in with a reasonably competent, real heavyweight.
Btw, complementary to what you wrote: an old and slowed-down Wills hit Firpo from pillar the post - the guy who had knocked Dempsey out of the ring.
Posted: 19 May 2006, 15:47
by taverner
I think a points system is best. Provided you have enough ballots the odd rogue entry shouldn't skew things too much. The trouble with excluding high and low scores is what happens to fighters who only appear on a couple of ballots - they would end up with nothing. Besides, since it is all opinion, who's to say what is outlandish? Everyone's opinion should count.
Anyway, here's my list. Use it however you think best.
1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Jack Johnson
4. Rocky Marciano
5. Jack Dempsey
6. Larry Holmes
7. Gene Tunney
8. George Foreman
9. James Jeffries
10. Lennox Lewis
11. Evander Holyfield
12. Mike Tyson
13. Joe Frazier
14. Ezzard Charles
15. Sonny Liston
16. Harry Willis
17. Sam Langford
18. Max Schmeling
19. Bob Fitzsimmons
20. Floyd Patterson
Posted: 19 May 2006, 16:12
by dempseyfire
pundit wrote:dempseyfire wrote:
And I actually see the Byrd-Klit win as more legit than most. Vitali was not dominating Byrd in the slightest. Vitali was ahead but it was a competetive fight all the way. Byrd had many more problems with Wladimir.
Don't forget that Vitali had only one arm after round 2. Byrd just hang in there with a one-handed Vitali and still lost almost all rounds.
In my view the fight proved only one thing: Byrd isn't competitive when he steps in with a reasonably competent, real heavyweight.
Btw, complementary to what you wrote: an old and slowed-down Wills hit Firpo from pillar the post - the guy who had knocked Dempsey out of the ring.
I believe he hurt his shoulder, but it didn't get bad until the last two rounds. He kept throwing with both hands very hard throughout the wide majority of the fight.
Posted: 19 May 2006, 21:18
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
The 1938 Schmeling was beyond his prime though.
how?? what signs of aging did schmeling show between 1936 and 1938? THE ANSWER IS NONE!!
Posted: 20 May 2006, 06:14
by dr_devious
Byrd is way too high at 23, and Ibeabuchi hasnt done anything to prove himself at 30. Surprised you put Frazier over Foreman who mullered him twice, I'd agree with top 15 just not exactly in the order you put them, but good list
Posted: 20 May 2006, 10:11
by wouter
Decagon wrote: Ibeabuchi beat two men in my top 40.
At least you consistently don't have a clue
Posted: 20 May 2006, 10:21
by sockdolager
dr_devious wrote:Byrd is way too high at 23, and Ibeabuchi hasnt done anything to prove himself at 30. Surprised you put Frazier over Foreman who mullered him twice, I'd agree with top 15 just not exactly in the order you put them, but good list
I know you might have issues with other lists but next time make your top 20 for comparison. Its much tougher to do that than to nitpick another list.
Posted: 20 May 2006, 13:41
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
Decagon wrote:BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:how?? what signs of aging did schmeling show between 1936 and 1938? THE ANSWER IS NONE!!
Well, that's because he couldn't get any big fights after 1936. Braddock was scheduled to fight him twice, but pulled out both times. If Schmelling actually had fought Braddock, we'd know more about how good a fighter he was by 1938. But that isn't the point. Schmelling was already old by 1933. Look at the difference between him in the Walker fight and him in the Baer fight.
schmeling had a bit of a plunge in 1933-34 but he looked as good as ever in 1935-36.
schmelings prime or peak was 1936. he looked better on film in the joe louis fight than any other fight. he retained all his physical gifts in 1936 except he was stronger, smarter and more experienced
Posted: 20 May 2006, 13:42
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
Posted: 20 May 2006, 14:01
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
i think louis beat a near prime schmeling in 1938
Posted: 20 May 2006, 18:42
by pundit
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:i think louis beat a near prime schmeling in 1938
Do you believe the 1938 Louis could have beaten up the 1936 (or 1932) Schmeling the way he did in 1938?
Posted: 21 May 2006, 03:01
by jezzamundo
In case anyone was wondering what I meant by a political based voting system, it works as such:
Majority rules with no exceptions. In order for one fighter to be rated above another, he must have more people place him higher than that other fighter. I used this system in the BWH (BoxRec world heavyweight) rankings, and it worked very well. An example is below:
Of the 12 people who voted, 8 placed Samuel Peter in their top 10, and 7 placed Calvin Brock in their top 10.
Voter 1 - Brock 7, Peter unrated
Voter 2 - Brock 5, Peter 9
Voter 3 - Brock 10, Peter 8
Voter 4 - Brock 10, Peter 9
Voter 5 - Brock 9, Peter 10
Voter 6 - Brock unrated, Peter 8
Voter 7 - Brock unrated, Peter 10
Voter 8 - Brock 10, Peter unrated
Voter 9 - Brock unrated, Peter 9
Voter 10 - Brock 7, Peter 6
Voter 11 - Brock unrated, Peter unrated
Voter 12 - Brock unrated, Peter unrated
6 people rated Peter above Brock, 4 rated Brock above Peter, so Peter was ranked No9, Brock No10. Ruiz was rated above Peter by a majority of voters, so he ranked 8 etc etc. If I had used a points based system eg, 10 points for No1, 9 for No2 etc, Brock would have rated above Peter even though more people rated Peter higher.
Posted: 21 May 2006, 10:13
by pundit
Decagon wrote:I absolutely wouldn't. In his prime, Schmelling was a very good defensive fighter. The only knockout he suffered in his prime was in the 10th round against Max Baer.
I agree.
Posted: 21 May 2006, 10:14
by pundit
jezzamundo wrote:In case anyone was wondering what I meant by a political based voting system, it works as such:
Majority rules with no exceptions. In order for one fighter to be rated above another, he must have more people place him higher than that other fighter. I used this system in the BWH (BoxRec world heavyweight) rankings, and it worked very well. An example is below:
Of the 12 people who voted, 8 placed Samuel Peter in their top 10, and 7 placed Calvin Brock in their top 10.
Voter 1 - Brock 7, Peter unrated
Voter 2 - Brock 5, Peter 9
Voter 3 - Brock 10, Peter 8
Voter 4 - Brock 10, Peter 9
Voter 5 - Brock 9, Peter 10
Voter 6 - Brock unrated, Peter 8
Voter 7 - Brock unrated, Peter 10
Voter 8 - Brock 10, Peter unrated
Voter 9 - Brock unrated, Peter 9
Voter 10 - Brock 7, Peter 6
Voter 11 - Brock unrated, Peter unrated
Voter 12 - Brock unrated, Peter unrated
6 people rated Peter above Brock, 4 rated Brock above Peter, so Peter was ranked No9, Brock No10. Ruiz was rated above Peter by a majority of voters, so he ranked 8 etc etc. If I had used a points based system eg, 10 points for No1, 9 for No2 etc, Brock would have rated above Peter even though more people rated Peter higher.
Sounds like a good idea, but also like a lot of work.
Posted: 22 May 2006, 01:28
by jezzamundo
Sounds like a good idea, but also like a lot of work.
I'm sure it will be! I won't be tallying anything for the moment, want to get plenty of people to put in their lists to make it more comprehensive. Plus I'm in my final year of university and I probably shouldn't be giving myself more work to do!
Posted: 22 May 2006, 01:58
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
decagon doesnt realize louis was an unstoppable wrecking machine on that night in 1938 and no heavyweight in the world(or history IMO) could have lasted the distance with joe louis that night.
the fact louis destroyed schmeling in 1 is a testament to louis greatness, not how shot schmeling was.
i think a peak 1938 louis of the rematch would have done the same thing to a 1936, 1930 or w/e schmeling. schmeling was very much near his prime in 1938, and he hadnt shown any signs of aging since knocking joe out in 1936
Posted: 22 May 2006, 04:37
by Ezzard
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:decagon doesnt realize louis was an unstoppable wrecking machine on that night in 1938 and no heavyweight in the world(or history IMO) could have lasted the distance with joe louis that night.
the fact louis destroyed schmeling in 1 is a testament to louis greatness, not how shot schmeling was.
i think a peak 1938 louis of the rematch would have done the same thing to a 1936, 1930 or w/e schmeling. schmeling was very much near his prime in 1938, and he hadnt shown any signs of aging since knocking joe out in 1936
You tend to equate a fighter's prime with their peak fight (best performance). It's not the same thing.
As for saying that "no HW could have lasted the distance that night"... This is a much overused line often cited by boxing journos (and a poor one) for plenty of fighters. I've heard the same thing said about Frazier in the first Ali fight, Dempsey when he fought Willard, Tyson when he beat Spinks, Liston when he beat Patterson... They can't all be right.
Schmeling was a top top fighter. Louis was one of the greatest. Schmeling beat Louis but doesn't seem to get the credit for it. I can't see that Louis can be 1, 2 or 3 and Schmeling absolutely nowhere.
Posted: 22 May 2006, 06:35
by bigzab
1.Ali
2.Louis
3.Holmes
4.Johnson
5.Foreman
6.Liston
7.Langford
8.Frazier
9.Dempsey
10.Schmeling
11.Charles
12.Lewis
13.Bowe
14.Holyfield
15.Walcott
16.Tyson
17.Norton
18.Tunney
19.Patterson
20.Jefferies
Posted: 22 May 2006, 09:41
by pundit
bigzab wrote:1.Ali
2.Louis
3.Holmes
4.Johnson
5.Foreman
6.Liston
7.Langford
8.Frazier
9.Dempsey
10.Schmeling
11.Charles
12.Lewis
13.Bowe
14.Holyfield
15.Walcott
16.Tyson
17.Norton
18.Tunney
19.Patterson
20.Jefferies
Interesting list with several eccentric but defendable picks. However, you have forgotten Marciano, haven't you?
Posted: 22 May 2006, 09:48
by The Great John L
pundit wrote:bigzab wrote:1.Ali
2.Louis
3.Holmes
4.Johnson
5.Foreman
6.Liston
7.Langford
8.Frazier
9.Dempsey
10.Schmeling
11.Charles
12.Lewis
13.Bowe
14.Holyfield
15.Walcott
16.Tyson
17.Norton
18.Tunney
19.Patterson
20.Jefferies
Interesting list with several eccentric but defendable picks. However, you have forgotten Marciano, haven't you?
Which picks do you consider eccentric? Actually, other than the exclusion of the Rock, this list looks pretty mainstream.
Posted: 22 May 2006, 10:01
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
well no ezzard,
its just i thought schmeling never looked better than in louis I. i certainly didnt see any signs of aging when he fought louis. on the other hand, i thought schmeling was stronger, smarter, more experienced as well as retaining his physical peak.
on the other hand i think charles was past his prime vs marciano cause unlike schmeling, i noticed phyiscal decline in charles wheres i did not in schmeling.
Posted: 22 May 2006, 10:02
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
bigzab wrote:1.Ali
2.Louis
3.Holmes
4.Johnson
5.Foreman
6.Liston
7.Langford
8.Frazier
9.Dempsey
10.Schmeling
11.Charles
12.Lewis
13.Bowe
14.Holyfield
15.Walcott
16.Tyson
17.Norton
18.Tunney
19.Patterson
20.Jefferies
im pretty sure u just accidentley forgot marciano right? cause i saw u pick marciano over lennox in another thread and u rate lennox # 12 and u dont rate marciano at all
Posted: 22 May 2006, 10:28
by bigzab
Posted: 22 May 2006, 10:32
by bigzab
bigzab wrote:1.Ali
2.Louis
3.Holmes
4.Johnson
5.Foreman
6.Liston
7.Marciano
8.Langford
9.Frazier
10.Dempsey
11.Schmeling
12.Charles
13.Lewis
14.Bowe
15.Holyfield
16.Walcott
17.Tyson
18.Norton
19.Tunney
20.Patterson
Apologies to the memory of the Rock, and all who hold him sacred
Sorry Jim a'da Jeff.
