BoxRec

The deal with Charles was that only ranked as a light heavyweight for most of the 1940s.
With Tyson, I think most of us forget that he was not even a ranked contender until 1986. I had always considered him #2 in the 1980s myself. Obviously he was better than Michael Dokes but that is what happens when you rate by the decade.

Ambling Alp wrote:The deal with Charles was that only ranked as a light heavyweight for most of the 1940s.
With Tyson, I think most of us forget that he was not even a ranked contender until 1986. I had always considered him #2 in the 1980s myself. Obviously he was better than Michael Dokes but that is what happens when you rate by the decade.

I understand that under your interesting methodology, Charles, for example, might not make the cut. But the fact is that through the last 1/2 of the 1940s, even though he was a light-heavyweight according to Ring Magazine, he was routinely fighting and beating heavyweights. So, I understand your methodology and I think its largely accurate, but you do get these aberrations if you rely solely on that methodology.

Decades are just something we use to categorise things because it makes it a little easier for us.

Mildenberger does better than expected.

What I was thinking of doing sometime would be to add up a fighter's points for their entire career. That way a fighter who fought at the end of one decade and the beginning of a nother would get the points that he deserves.

I think there would still be an occasional abberration- for example I think Patterson is going to come out higher than Liston. Overall, though it should be pretty accurrate.

One thing in the back of my mind is that there are fighters who were pretty good in their day and are now terribly underrated. One of the reasons that I like to go on the Boxers of the Past Forum is that occasionally someone will bring up a fighter who has been pretty much forgotton.
By adding up these annaul rankings, you get an idea of who some of these guys were.

Not that Mildenberger was a legend or anything like that , but he was probably better than some people think. There is probably other fighters like this as well.

Ambling Alp wrote:What I was thinking of doing sometime would be to add up a fighter's points for their entire career. That way a fighter who fought at the end of one decade and the beginning of a nother would get the points that he deserves.

I think there would still be an occasional abberration- for example I think Patterson is going to come out higher than Liston. Overall, though it should be pretty accurrate.

One thing in the back of my mind is that there are fighters who were pretty good in their day and are now terribly underrated. One of the reasons that I like to go on the Boxers of the Past Forum is that occasionally someone will bring up a fighter who has been pretty much forgotton.
By adding up these annaul rankings, you get an idea of who some of these guys were.

Not that Mildenberger was a legend or anything like that , but he was probably better than some people think. There is probably other fighters like this as well.

It's a good starting point - then you have to make some adjustments.

I am sure that it wouldn't come out perfect. No doubt many people don't like this kind of thing because some of their favorites won't come out that high.

The biggest weakness that I see is that it won't be fair to fighters in a particularly strong era. They won't score quite as many points as they would had they fought in a weaker era.

Still I think I will do it some time. At the very least, I think there will be some guys who have been almost forgotton that people might take a 2nd look at.

Ambling Alp wrote:The 1940's
1. Joe Louis (108)
2. Tami Mauriello (46)
A few of the results suprised me. Probably the biggest was Mauriello being #2 for the 1940's.

That's a bit of a farce having Mauriello as the number two fighter of the 1940s. The only plausibile reasoning for ranking him so highly is longevity the fact that he was there or thereabouts throughout the whole decade.

But look at his record, who has he beat? His record has been padded by beating the same fighters twice (and sometimes three times) over again.
And so, bearing that in mind, who was his best victories against?
Bruce Woodcock, Lee Savold and Buddy Knox.

When you look at his record from this perspective, it is very clear that he didn't beat any great fighters, and so we can't elevate Tami to that level.

One other thing to consider is that Mauriello was a big-time choker. Each time he had a chance to make it into the title contention, he choked...
The very fact that he was roaming around the Light Heavy & Heavyweight divisions for the best part of 10 years and never won a World Title is very telling indeed.


Longevity is a good attribute and it weighs heavily in Mauriello's favour... But there's only so far it can take you and this guy was NOT the number two fighter of the 1940s.

Ambling Alp wrote:As I mentioned before Tami Mauriello being #2 in the 1940's was a big surprise to me. Ring Magazine must have thought highly of him. This brings up the question, was Mauriello overrated in his own time or underrated now?

I don't know if there's any links between Mauriello and The Riong Magazine staff of the time but there was no doubt that he was a top contender (on and off) for a long time. But by no means was he ever a champion boxer.



As a matter of fact, I would refer everyone to have a look at this list, it's much more accurate:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:1940-50

1. Joe Louis 6’2 207lb 76” Heavyweight peak 1942
2. Ezzard Charles 6'0 180lb 73" heavyweight peak 1948
3. Jersey Joe Walcott 6'0 194lb 74" heavyweight peak 1947
4. Elmer Ray 6’2 195lb Heavyweight peak 1946
5. Billy Conn 6’2 174lb 73” Heavyweight peak 1942
6. Jimmy Bivins 5’11 188lb Heavyweight Peak 1945
7. Arturo Godoy 6’1 202lb 74” Heavyweight Peak 1940
8. Buddy Baer 6'7 250lb 85" heavyweight peak 1941
9. Bob Pastor 6’0 185lb Heavyweight peak 1942
10. Lee Q Murray 6'0 210lb heavyweight peak 1946
11. Lem Franklin 6’2 200lb Heavyweight peak 1941
12. Turkey Thompson 5'9 205lb Heavyweight peak 1943
13. Lou Nova 6’3 205lb Heavyweight peak 1941
14. Abe Simon 6’4 255lb 84” Heavyweight peak 1940
15. Roscoe Toles 6'2 205lb Heayvweight peak 1942

HM: Tami Mauriello 6’0 200lb 73” Heavyweight peak 1943

I am certainly not going to argue that Mauriello was better than Walcott or Charles. However a couple of things have to be kept in mind when ranking by decade. No fights in the 1950s count, which hurts Charles and Walcott a bit. Also Charles was not ranked as a heavyweight until the end of the decade.

Walcott did lose to Simon the legendary Skippy Allen, Maxim, and Ray in the 1940s. He really wasn't a top heavyweight until the late 1940s. It does make sense why Walcott and Charles don't have many points if you are going to only count heavyweight rankings for the 1940s.

The rest of the other guys had some ups and downs; many of them are very close. I think Mauriello is roughly even with a lot of those guys. Many of those guys had relativley short careers so they didn't total a lot of points. It's really a case here of someone having to be a distant #2 to Louis.

Ambling Alp wrote:I am certainly not going to argue that Mauriello was better than Walcott or Charles. However a couple of things have to be kept in mind when ranking by decade. No fights in the 1950s count, which hurts Charles and Walcott a bit. Also Charles was not ranked as a heavyweight until the end of the decade.

Walcott did lose to Simon the legendary Skippy Allen, Maxim, and Ray in the 1940s. He really wasn't a top heavyweight until the late 1940s. It does make sense why Walcott and Charles don't have many points if you are going to only count heavyweight rankings for the 1940s.

The rest of the other guys had some ups and downs; many of them are very close. I think Mauriello is roughly even with a lot of those guys. Many of those guys had relativley short careers so they didn't total a lot of points. It's really a case here of someone having to be a distant #2 to Louis.

Isn't 1950 the last year of the decade called the 1940s?

Ambling Alp wrote:What I was thinking of doing sometime would be to add up a fighter's points for their entire career. That way a fighter who fought at the end of one decade and the beginning of a nother would get the points that he deserves.

I think there would still be an occasional abberration- for example I think Patterson is going to come out higher than Liston. Overall, though it should be pretty accurrate.

One thing in the back of my mind is that there are fighters who were pretty good in their day and are now terribly underrated. One of the reasons that I like to go on the Boxers of the Past Forum is that occasionally someone will bring up a fighter who has been pretty much forgotton.
By adding up these annaul rankings, you get an idea of who some of these guys were.

Not that Mildenberger was a legend or anything like that , but he was probably better than some people think. There is probably other fighters like this as well.

Systems like this are pretty entertaining.

Interesting to do a career total and lump them all into one list.

Crease wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:The 1940's
1. Joe Louis (108)
2. Tami Mauriello (46)
A few of the results suprised me. Probably the biggest was Mauriello being #2 for the 1940's.

That's a bit of a farce having Mauriello as the number two fighter of the 1940s. The only plausibile reasoning for ranking him so highly is longevity the fact that he was there or thereabouts throughout the whole decade.

But that's the whole point, there is no 'reasoning' in the sense you mean it, it's a purely statistical exercise.

Sonny Liston is the real enigma isnt he?

his best work was 50's... and way after he'd lost to Ali ...right up to 69