gil's Refined Ranking System

Ambling Alp II
Super Middleweight
Posts: 15097
Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31

Re: gil's Refined Ranking System

Post by Ambling Alp II »

gilgamesh wrote: 08 Jan 2026, 22:38
Ambling Alp II wrote: 08 Jan 2026, 21:50 Yet you have Ray Leonard rated so low.
The guy has win over 4 different Top 50 Fighters of All time. There are less than 10 guys who have done that. One of your problems is that you are not giving fighters enough credit for really huge wins.
I gave him more credit for his biggest wins than anybody else on the list so far. He's the only person on my list as of this moment with 3 All Time wins to his credit.

My rating of Leonard is not low. I just haven't measured many fighters below Heavyweight yet. When I do I wouldn't think many of them will pass up Leonard, and the ones that do will all have a hell of a resume, and as strong a case to be made for them as Leonard has if not stronger.
its obvious that you still aren't giving Leonard enough credit for huge wins. And there were4, not 3. He was obviously a better fighter than Inoue.

Going to try one time to show you how silly it is to greatly overrate most title fights.

In 1920, there were 8 weight classes. 8 world champions
In 1962, there were 11 weight classes. 11 world champions.
In 1977, (when Leonard started his career), there 13 weight classes. 2 WBS Organizations (WBC and WBA). Potential of 26 titleholders.
In 2026 -There are 17 weight classes. Four WBS Organizations. Potential of 68 titleholders.

Surely you can tell that it was a lot harder to be titleholder when there in one champion rather 4.
Also, easier when there is 17 weight classes than 17.
Put the two together, and you get a gigantic difference. from 8 champions to potentially 68 titleholders. (Usually less, but a lot closer to 68 than 8)

Therefore, it's not usually not fair to count WBS title fights from era to another. when it was much harder to win a title.
This is not rocket science. "
jimglen
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 987
Joined: 21 Jan 2004, 04:38

Re: gil's Refined Ranking System

Post by jimglen »

Ambling Alp II wrote: 09 Jan 2026, 12:20
gilgamesh wrote: 08 Jan 2026, 22:38
Ambling Alp II wrote: 08 Jan 2026, 21:50 Yet you have Ray Leonard rated so low.
The guy has win over 4 different Top 50 Fighters of All time. There are less than 10 guys who have done that. One of your problems is that you are not giving fighters enough credit for really huge wins.
I gave him more credit for his biggest wins than anybody else on the list so far. He's the only person on my list as of this moment with 3 All Time wins to his credit.

My rating of Leonard is not low. I just haven't measured many fighters below Heavyweight yet. When I do I wouldn't think many of them will pass up Leonard, and the ones that do will all have a hell of a resume, and as strong a case to be made for them as Leonard has if not stronger.
its obvious that you still aren't giving Leonard enough credit for huge wins. And there were4, not 3. He was obviously a better fighter than Inoue.

Going to try one time to show you how silly it is to greatly overrate most title fights.

In 1920, there were 8 weight classes. 8 world champions
In 1962, there were 11 weight classes. 11 world champions.
In 1977, (when Leonard started his career), there 13 weight classes. 2 WBS Organizations (WBC and WBA). Potential of 26 titleholders.
In 2026 -There are 17 weight classes. Four WBS Organizations. Potential of 68 titleholders.

Surely you can tell that it was a lot harder to be titleholder when there in one champion rather 4.
Also, easier when there is 17 weight classes than 17.
Put the two together, and you get a gigantic difference. from 8 champions to potentially 68 titleholders. (Usually less, but a lot closer to 68 than 8)

Therefore, it's not usually not fair to count WBS title fights from era to another. when it was much harder to win a title.
This is not rocket science. "
See my Suggestions above, and over the years I have Posted a few such posts where I gave a more extensive possibility for improving the Ratings... again it is an Easy Fix to come up with a more Honest and Reflective Ratings System respecting the Fighters, their Eras and Boxing History...

because let's be honest, BoxRec's Ratings are the brunt of a lot of scoffing & snubbing altogether.
gilgamesh
Cruiserweight
Posts: 46233
Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 16:21

Re: gil's Refined Ranking System

Post by gilgamesh »

Ambling Alp II wrote: 09 Jan 2026, 12:20
gilgamesh wrote: 08 Jan 2026, 22:38
Ambling Alp II wrote: 08 Jan 2026, 21:50 Yet you have Ray Leonard rated so low.
The guy has win over 4 different Top 50 Fighters of All time. There are less than 10 guys who have done that. One of your problems is that you are not giving fighters enough credit for really huge wins.
I gave him more credit for his biggest wins than anybody else on the list so far. He's the only person on my list as of this moment with 3 All Time wins to his credit.

My rating of Leonard is not low. I just haven't measured many fighters below Heavyweight yet. When I do I wouldn't think many of them will pass up Leonard, and the ones that do will all have a hell of a resume, and as strong a case to be made for them as Leonard has if not stronger.
its obvious that you still aren't giving Leonard enough credit for huge wins. And there were4, not 3. He was obviously a better fighter than Inoue.

Going to try one time to show you how silly it is to greatly overrate most title fights.

In 1920, there were 8 weight classes. 8 world champions
In 1962, there were 11 weight classes. 11 world champions.
In 1977, (when Leonard started his career), there 13 weight classes. 2 WBS Organizations (WBC and WBA). Potential of 26 titleholders.
In 2026 -There are 17 weight classes. Four WBS Organizations. Potential of 68 titleholders.

Surely you can tell that it was a lot harder to be titleholder when there in one champion rather 4.
Also, easier when there is 17 weight classes than 17.
Put the two together, and you get a gigantic difference. from 8 champions to potentially 68 titleholders. (Usually less, but a lot closer to 68 than 8)

Therefore, it's not usually not fair to count WBS title fights from era to another. when it was much harder to win a title.
This is not rocket science. "
Inoue is a better Pound for Pound talent at his weight range than Leonard was at his. That's what my system shows. If you disagree, put the work in to come up with a system that's better than mine that covers all facets of the game the way mine does.

Agree or Don't. I don't give a sh*t. How about you WATCH Inoue though instead of giving me a history Lesson that I don't need since I know all of this sh*t you're telling me as I've told you 25 times.
gilgamesh
Cruiserweight
Posts: 46233
Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 16:21

Re: gil's Refined Ranking System

Post by gilgamesh »

Ambling Alp II wrote: 09 Jan 2026, 12:20
gilgamesh wrote: 08 Jan 2026, 22:38
Ambling Alp II wrote: 08 Jan 2026, 21:50 Yet you have Ray Leonard rated so low.
The guy has win over 4 different Top 50 Fighters of All time. There are less than 10 guys who have done that. One of your problems is that you are not giving fighters enough credit for really huge wins.
I gave him more credit for his biggest wins than anybody else on the list so far. He's the only person on my list as of this moment with 3 All Time wins to his credit.

My rating of Leonard is not low. I just haven't measured many fighters below Heavyweight yet. When I do I wouldn't think many of them will pass up Leonard, and the ones that do will all have a hell of a resume, and as strong a case to be made for them as Leonard has if not stronger.
its obvious that you still aren't giving Leonard enough credit for huge wins. And there were4, not 3. He was obviously a better fighter than Inoue.

Going to try one time to show you how silly it is to greatly overrate most title fights.

In 1920, there were 8 weight classes. 8 world champions
In 1962, there were 11 weight classes. 11 world champions.
In 1977, (when Leonard started his career), there 13 weight classes. 2 WBS Organizations (WBC and WBA). Potential of 26 titleholders.
In 2026 -There are 17 weight classes. Four WBS Organizations. Potential of 68 titleholders.

Surely you can tell that it was a lot harder to be titleholder when there in one champion rather 4.
Also, easier when there is 17 weight classes than 17.
Put the two together, and you get a gigantic difference. from 8 champions to potentially 68 titleholders. (Usually less, but a lot closer to 68 than 8)

Therefore, it's not usually not fair to count WBS title fights from era to another. when it was much harder to win a title.
This is not rocket science. "
At least half of Inoue's Championship bouts have been for a Unified or Undisputed Championship. Not simply 1 belt.

He has more UNIFIED Championship bouts than Leonard has Championship bouts period.

Even if you completely ignore his "WBS" title defenses as you put it. His career has been stellar. Even if you look at it through a modern lens. The only people that rack up those kinda numbers in Championship bouts are LEGENDS. Whether they fought back then. Whether they fight now.

Stop having the knee jerk reaction that a Modern fighter couldn't possibly be great, and Watch these guys, that way your opinion isn't coming from a place of Nostalgia based ignorance.
gilgamesh
Cruiserweight
Posts: 46233
Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 16:21

Re: gil's Refined Ranking System

Post by gilgamesh »

And for the record. Any of the Champions from the 8 division. 1 Champion era. Would automatically be getting a +20 for any Championship win. Because as you say back then there was only 1 Champion, and that is always going to make it mean more.

The only way a fighter in the modern era can reach that same status with his Championship is by becoming Undisputed or Universally recognized in some other manner (primarily beating the top guys, I wouldn't penalize a Unified 3 belt Champion because 1 paper Champ is scared of him or something)

To me whether there's 2 Championships, 3 Championships or 4 makes no difference. If there's more than one then the title is split, and it is worth less than it would've been if there were only 1. So I treat a split title the same throughout the eras.

So to give an example

Joe Frazier. He wins the New York State Athletic Commission version of the Heavyweight Championship and it's recognized in 6 other States. That's a version of the Heavyweight Championship that really only existed at that time due to unique circumstances, but nevertheless I recognize it as a sort of claim to the Heavyweight title. His fights in defense of that title would net him an automatic +5 along with the score of the bout itself.

He became Unified when he defeated Jimmy Ellis. His fights in defense of that title would net him an automatic +10 along with the score of the bout itself.

He became THE Champion when he defeated Muhammad Ali. His fights in defense of THAT title would net him an automatic +20 along with the score of the bout itself.

The value of these Championship bouts would all be scored according to the value of both the Championship and the Opponent.

I may still give Gold star status in a 1 title bout if the opponent is a Great opponent, and the fight was a great fight. For instance, Joe would get it for his win over Jerry Quarry. Quarry was if not a Level 5 opponent, certainly a Level 4 one, and the Fight was Fight of the Year so that speaks for itself. It was an excellent victory for Joe, and is raised above his other title defenses against lesser opposition.

PERFORMANCE AND QUALITY OF OPPOSITION IS ALWAYS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.
PERFORMANCE AND QUALITY OF OPPOSITION IS ALWAYS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.
PERFORMANCE AND QUALITY OF OPPOSITION IS ALWAYS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.

Hope this helps.
Ambling Alp II
Super Middleweight
Posts: 15097
Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31

Re: gil's Refined Ranking System

Post by Ambling Alp II »

Have fun.
gilgamesh
Cruiserweight
Posts: 46233
Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 16:21

Re: gil's Refined Ranking System

Post by gilgamesh »

I am. I'm closing in on adding Muhammad Ali, Joe Louis, and Floyd Mayweather Jr. to the list. Trying to cover the biggest names first, and then branch out from there.

Any suggestions of which fighters should be run through the system?
keithmoonhangover
Cruiserweight
Posts: 16747
Joined: 16 Sep 2010, 10:42

Re: gil's Refined Ranking System

Post by keithmoonhangover »

gilgamesh wrote: 28 Dec 2025, 21:23
Heavyweight
1. George Foreman - 694 points
That's interesting to me, because I did a point scoring system when I was in my teens, armed with The Ring Record Book. I did all the heavyweight champions, scoring them for wins, KOs, title fights etc and the guy that came out on top was a pre comeback George Foreman.
gilgamesh
Cruiserweight
Posts: 46233
Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 16:21

Re: gil's Refined Ranking System

Post by gilgamesh »

keithmoonhangover wrote: 10 Jan 2026, 06:49
gilgamesh wrote: 28 Dec 2025, 21:23
Heavyweight
1. George Foreman - 694 points
That's interesting to me, because I did a point scoring system when I was in my teens, armed with The Ring Record Book. I did all the heavyweight champions, scoring them for wins, KOs, title fights etc and the guy that came out on top was a pre comeback George Foreman.
He's definitely one of the most devastating Heavyweights ever for sure. Aside from all the wins and KO's, the huge wins over Frazier, Norton and Moorer give him a big boost.

I also don't score the "loss" against Shannon Briggs against him.
gilgamesh
Cruiserweight
Posts: 46233
Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 16:21

Re: gil's Refined Ranking System

Post by gilgamesh »

So now we come to the breakdown of Muhammad Ali "The Greatest of All Times"

And his claim to that as a Heavyweight or even as a Pound for Pound Great is about as good as it gets. He has a record of 56-5 with 37 KO's. He has 25 Championship bouts going 22-3 in them.

He has 3 All Time Great wins (Liston, Foreman, Frazier 3). He has 5 Gold star wins (3 non title) (Jerry Quarry 1, Frazier 2, Norton 2 and 3, and Bob Foster) and 28 Quality opponents in an absolutely amazing Heavyweight career.

He loses no points for his loss to Joe Frazier in the Fight of the Century because it's one of the Greatest Fights of All Time, and it raises his legacy honestly to have been a part of it.

When you take it all in his total score comes to 1107 Points. He truly is The Greatest of All Times.
Ezzard
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 11172
Joined: 12 May 2005, 09:20

Re: gil's Refined Ranking System

Post by Ezzard »

What about a guy moving up in wieght and taking on bigger men? That deserves a bonus perhaps?

Not talking about when they keep a young prospect drained and then move up (which is normal today) but when an established fighter like Duran, Holyfield, Usyk, Arguello, move up and are at a disadvantage.
Ezzard
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 11172
Joined: 12 May 2005, 09:20

Re: gil's Refined Ranking System

Post by Ezzard »

gilgamesh wrote: 09 Jan 2026, 05:17
Ezzard wrote: 09 Jan 2026, 04:10
gilgamesh wrote: 07 Jan 2026, 13:37

Boxing isn't any other Sport though. If you're defeated in Boxing it does hurt your reputation. It does hurt your drawing power. If a Sports team loses 2 or 3 games in a row, they're still going to have all of their fans at the next game.

If a fighter loses 2 or 3 in a row. People are saying they're washed up, and need to retire.

Losing a game doesn't matter. Losing a fight does.
That's a different thing. If you're ranking on reputation or drawing power then fine. If you're trying to work out who achieved the most then that's a different thing.

Boxing as a sport does reward undefeated records, and that's a big problem for us fans.
Who achieved the most and who looked best doing it is probably the overall purpose of the list once it's done.

Losses just like wins are not created equally, and performance and quality of opposition is taken into account there as well.

HOW you lost and who you lost to is often more important than it is THAT you lost. Most guys lose eventually. It's the nature of the beast.

Having an unbeaten record certainly never hurt anyone's Legacy though. Let's not kid ourselves.
I'l never agree on the losses for a system like this but still enjoy your work.
gilgamesh
Cruiserweight
Posts: 46233
Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 16:21

Re: gil's Refined Ranking System

Post by gilgamesh »

I would never agree with NOT deducting for losses. Who you beat and who you didn't beat is what defines a career. Many guys' careers are more defined by their losses than their wins.

If you didn't deduct for losses then Len Wickwar, Marty Jakubowski and Yory Boy Campas are some of the all time great fighters. :lol:

Losses matter. Everything matters. Wins, Losses, Draws, Knockouts, Excitement, Level of Competition, Championship bouts and the Prestige that various titles may carry. It's all part of the story.
gilgamesh
Cruiserweight
Posts: 46233
Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 16:21

Re: gil's Refined Ranking System

Post by gilgamesh »

Ezzard wrote: 14 Jan 2026, 05:49 What about a guy moving up in wieght and taking on bigger men? That deserves a bonus perhaps?

Not talking about when they keep a young prospect drained and then move up (which is normal today) but when an established fighter like Duran, Holyfield, Usyk, Arguello, move up and are at a disadvantage.
If you fight a great fighter in a great fight or great performance it gets you a bonus. I don't personally give bonuses simply for a guy moving up in weight because honestly we've seen many cases in boxing where moving up in weight isn't necessarily a challenge so much as it is ducking the better fighter in your current weight class.

How many guys have we seen move up in weight and "cherry pick" an easy belt off of a weak titleholder?

So no, I don't reward moving up in weight in and of itself, but if you're moving up in weight to fight a great fighter, and you succeed. That's almost certainly going to quality for bonus points just for being a bout of a high standard.
Ezzard
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 11172
Joined: 12 May 2005, 09:20

Re: gil's Refined Ranking System

Post by Ezzard »

gilgamesh wrote: 14 Jan 2026, 12:48 I would never agree with NOT deducting for losses. Who you beat and who you didn't beat is what defines a career. Many guys' careers are more defined by their losses than their wins.

If you didn't deduct for losses then Len Wickwar, Marty Jakubowski and Yory Boy Campas are some of the all time great fighters. :lol:

Losses matter. Everything matters. Wins, Losses, Draws, Knockouts, Excitement, Level of Competition, Championship bouts and the Prestige that various titles may carry. It's all part of the story.
Fighting a great and losing has to be better than not fighting a great at all. In fact we can say that fighting anyone and losing is better than not fighting anyone at all.

The system's weakness is that you are penalising someone for taking the hardest challenges and rewarding someone for avoiding them.

To crystalise why, just imagine a dedicated boxer who on his first fight gets blown away by Marvin Hagler. A guy who never laced a glove would be rated higher. Clearly, this will never happen, but it's a huge flaw in any sports ranking system that applies negative points for defeat.

It's your system, enjoy. I am. I think it's fascinating. Just offering my thoughts. I dont think for a moment you should change it. Just get a lot out of discussions of ranking systems is all. I work with a lot of stats people who love sports models. And my son is a football data analyst who works on Serie A.
gilgamesh
Cruiserweight
Posts: 46233
Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 16:21

Re: gil's Refined Ranking System

Post by gilgamesh »

Ezzard wrote: 15 Jan 2026, 05:19
gilgamesh wrote: 14 Jan 2026, 12:48 I would never agree with NOT deducting for losses. Who you beat and who you didn't beat is what defines a career. Many guys' careers are more defined by their losses than their wins.

If you didn't deduct for losses then Len Wickwar, Marty Jakubowski and Yory Boy Campas are some of the all time great fighters. :lol:

Losses matter. Everything matters. Wins, Losses, Draws, Knockouts, Excitement, Level of Competition, Championship bouts and the Prestige that various titles may carry. It's all part of the story.
Fighting a great and losing has to be better than not fighting a great at all. In fact we can say that fighting anyone and losing is better than not fighting anyone at all.

The system's weakness is that you are penalising someone for taking the hardest challenges and rewarding someone for avoiding them.

To crystalise why, just imagine a dedicated boxer who on his first fight gets blown away by Marvin Hagler. A guy who never laced a glove would be rated higher. Clearly, this will never happen, but it's a huge flaw in any sports ranking system that applies negative points for defeat.

It's your system, enjoy. I am. I think it's fascinating. Just offering my thoughts. I dont think for a moment you should change it. Just get a lot out of discussions of ranking systems is all. I work with a lot of stats people who love sports models. And my son is a football data analyst who works on Serie A.
Well I'm really only going to be ranking people that were either Champions or World Title contenders. Elite level talent. I don't think I'm going to be bothering to throw any 0-1 guys a score of less than zero, because that would apply to myself as an amateur as well. I respect any fighter who steps in the ring certainly, but this list is about trying to rank the Elites in their proper context.

I don't think I need to spell it out to people that Francis Ngannou with his 0-2 record would still beat the sh*t out of the average person about 99.9999% of the time, or Pete Rademacher was tougher than a guy that never laced up a glove. I think people understand that for themselves.
gilgamesh
Cruiserweight
Posts: 46233
Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 16:21

Re: gil's Refined Ranking System

Post by gilgamesh »

Floyd Mayweather Jr. now joins the list, and here's the points breakdown for Mayweather Jr.

Floyd Mayweather Jr. with a record of 50-0 (27 KO's), he fought in 26 World Championship fights winning all 26 of them. He beat 14 Quality opponents (Genaro Hernandez, Corrales, Castillo, Gatti, Judah, De La Hoya, Hatton, Marquez, Mosley, Cotto, Canelo, Maidana 2x, and Manny Pacquiao) and has 4 Gold Star wins (Corrales, Gatti, De La Hoya, Cotto).

He finishes with a score of 656 Points. The Best Ever? No. But a damn impressive run, and a Legendary Career in its own right? Absolutely.

Note: I only give him partial credit for the 1st Castillo bout which I didn't believe he legitimately won, and he receives no Championship bonus for that bout, but I do acknowledge it as one of his 26 Title wins just for accuracy's sake.
gilgamesh
Cruiserweight
Posts: 46233
Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 16:21

Re: gil's Refined Ranking System

Post by gilgamesh »

Michael Spinks. One of the few men in Boxing history to have won the World Championship as both a Light Heavyweight and a Heavyweight.

He had a record of 31-1 with 21 KO's. He competed in 16 Championship fights with a record of 15-1 in them.

He has 11 quality wins to his credit (Yaqui Lopez, Marvin Johnson, Eddie Mustafa Muhammad, Vonzell Johnson, Murray Sutherland 2x, Dwight Braxton, Eddie Davis, Larry Holmes 2x and Gerry Cooney)

He has 3 Gold star wins (Marvin Johnson, Braxton and Holmes 1)

His total score comes to 418 points. A tremendous record to have amassed with relatively few fights compared to other Hall of Famers.
gilgamesh
Cruiserweight
Posts: 46233
Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 16:21

Re: gil's Refined Ranking System

Post by gilgamesh »

"The Brown Bomber" Joe Louis

With a record of 66-3 with 52 KO's. He competed in 28 Heavyweight Championship bouts winning 27 of them, and making 26 consecutive World Title defenses. A record that still holds to this day.

He beat about 14 Quality opponents (Carnera, Sharkey, Braddock, Sharkey, Schmeling 2, Buddy Baer 2x, Billy Conn 2x, Abe Simon 2x, Joe Walcott 2x, and Jimmy Bivins) He has what I would consider to be 3 Gold star wins (Max Baer, Schmeling 2, Walcott 2)

He finishes with a score of 899 Points

And I'd also like to add what a gift it is to the Boxing Historians among us that so many of the fights of Joe Louis are available on video. It's amazing how well the video for some of those fights from the 1930's holds up, and it's also amazing how many of the Pre-World Title bouts of Joe Louis were filmed. A real treasure trove of footage.
gilgamesh
Cruiserweight
Posts: 46233
Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 16:21

Re: gil's Refined Ranking System

Post by gilgamesh »

Charles "Sonny" Liston

With a record of 50-4 with 39 KO's. He competed in 4 Heavyweight Championship bouts winning 2 of them.

He beat 7 Quality opponents (Roy Harris, Cleveland Williams 2x, Wayne Bethea, Eddie Machen, Floyd Patterson 2x). He has 4 Gold star wins (Williams 2x, Patterson 2x)

He finishes with a score of 284 points
BroughtonRulesRefuge
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 2761
Joined: 16 Dec 2008, 06:55

Re: gil's Refined Ranking System

Post by BroughtonRulesRefuge »

gilgamesh wrote: 12 Jan 2026, 14:33 So now we come to the breakdown of Muhammad Ali "The Greatest of All Times"

And his claim to that as a Heavyweight or even as a Pound for Pound Great is about as good as it gets. He has a record of 56-5 with 37 KO's. He has 25 Championship bouts going 22-3 in them.

He has 3 All Time Great wins (Liston, Foreman, Frazier 3). He has 5 Gold star wins (3 non title) (Jerry Quarry 1, Frazier 2, Norton 2 and 3, and Bob Foster) and 28 Quality opponents in an absolutely amazing Heavyweight career.

He loses no points for his loss to Joe Frazier in the Fight of the Century because it's one of the Greatest Fights of All Time, and it raises his legacy honestly to have been a part of it.

When you take it all in his total score comes to 1107 Points. He truly is The Greatest of All Times.

- And Yet---
gilgamesh wrote: 20 Jan 2026, 14:19 "The Brown Bomber" Joe Louis

With a record of 66-3 with 52 KO's. He competed in 28 Heavyweight Championship bouts winning 27 of them, and making 26 consecutive World Title defenses. A record that still holds to this day.

He beat about 14 Quality opponents (Carnera, Sharkey, Braddock, Sharkey, Schmeling 2, Buddy Baer 2x, Billy Conn 2x, Abe Simon 2x, Joe Walcott 2x, and Jimmy Bivins) He has what I would consider to be 3 Gold star wins (Max Baer, Schmeling 2, Walcott 2)

He finishes with a score of 899 Points

And I'd also like to add what a gift it is to the Boxing Historians among us that so many of the fights of Joe Louis are available on video. It's amazing how well the video for some of those fights from the 1930's holds up, and it's also amazing how many of the Pre-World Title bouts of Joe Louis were filmed. A real treasure trove of footage.
I don't consider 2 highly controversial fights with Liston worth a Gold Star rating. As physical assets go, Liston was top shelf and frankly screwed in the 2nd Ali fight due to one of the All Time Disasters in officiating by Maine officials and particular JJ Walcott in a Heavy title fight with what is the All Time smallest, teensy really attendances since modern Heavy history post Jack Dempsey, ie 2434.

The Foreman fight was another travesty in that Foreman was on his feet looking at Clayton when he was waved off at the 9 second mark. The scores were a joke with Foreman giving Ali a beating in their first fight that he never fully recovered from. Then he ducked the immediate lucrative rematch offered by a black oilman in Indonesia to get beat up for peanut$ by Wepner so badly he was bawling to the ref.

Shortly after that fight Big George made an exhibition 5x 3 rd Heavy exhibition in Canada where he knocked out all but Terry Daniels. Ali attended while screaming to George at ringside he ain't ever getting another fight. Security had to escort him back to his seat several times.

Then the drugging by his trainer Sadler in the dressing room before the Ali fight where Foreman had to fire Sadler and Archie Moore. Archie was later hired by George in his comeback after convincing him he was not part of the drugging.

Joe has almost as many KOs as Ali has fights and the few controversies he had he settled by KO in the rematches.

I've watched all of Ali fights and all of Joe's title fights and Joe never stunk out the ring like Ali did too many times while acting like a clown.

Of your Gold Star rankings, the Norton and Frazier 3rd fights were typical in that both beat Ali up for 15 rds to limited
credit. Frazier in particular was on his feet jumping up and down in his corner waiting for the 15th rd. Meanwhile Ali was screaming to Angelo to cut the gloves off like he screamed in the first Liston fight.

I'll just close with Ali screaming(Ali easily went hysteric in public settings), ie Liston, Foreman, and even the long retired Louis.

When mocked for his Bum of the Month record by the new champ, Muhammad Ali, Joe kept it simple and on target…

:TU: “I’d make you one of my bums too.”... :TU:
gilgamesh
Cruiserweight
Posts: 46233
Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 16:21

Re: gil's Refined Ranking System

Post by gilgamesh »

All I'll say to most of that nonsense there is that Joe Louis would never have made such a remark like "I'll make you one of my bums too" He was not that kinda guy, and nothing from his history would suggest he'd have ever made such a boastful comment even in his prime let alone as an old man referring to a young Champion.
gilgamesh
Cruiserweight
Posts: 46233
Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 16:21

Re: gil's Refined Ranking System

Post by gilgamesh »

"Smokin" Joe Frazier

With a record of 32-4-1 (27 KO's). He fought in 12 Heavyweight Championship fights, and won 10 of them. He has 11 Quality wins (Eddie Machen, Oscar Bonavena 2x, Jerry Quarry 2x, Jimmy Ellis 2x, Bob Foster, Muhammad Ali, George Chuvalo, and Joe Bugner). He has what I consider to be 2 Gold star wins (Quarry 1, and Bob Foster) and 1 All Time Great win (Muhammad Ali 1).

Because of the Legendary nature of how Joe went down in defeat in "The Thrilla in Manila" He loses no points from his overall score for that performance.

His overall score comes to 353 points
witherspoon
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1048
Joined: 26 Jun 2005, 11:17

Re: gil's Refined Ranking System

Post by witherspoon »

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote: 24 Jan 2026, 14:08 The Foreman fight was another travesty in that Foreman was on his feet looking at Clayton when he was waved off at the 9 second mark. The scores were a joke with Foreman giving Ali a beating in their first fight that he never fully recovered from. Then he ducked the immediate lucrative rematch offered by a black oilman in Indonesia to get beat up for peanut$ by Wepner so badly he was bawling to the ref.
Wepner's "beating" of Ali consisted almost exclusively of rabbit punches, and nasty ones at that.

Far from bawling to the referee, Ali started berating him (Tony Perez, if I recall correctly) after several rounds of taking punishing blows to the back of the neck. He warned Perez that if he (Perez) didn't take action he would retaliate in kind. And he did.

I've always found this fight fascinating as an example of a fighter with an inferior skillset trying to overcome that disadvantage with roughhouse tactics, and the superior boxer having to prove his own mental and physical resilience in order to overcome those tactics.

It takes alot of mental gymnastics to see this particular fight, in itself, as proof that Ali was anything other than teak tough and exceptionally ringwise.

As for the context of Ali ducking a Foreman rematch, that's a fascinating scenario to assess, but if Ali was physically damaged by the win over Foreman, there's no doubt that Foreman (by his own admission) was equally damaged psychologically by that defeat. Who knows how a rematch would have panned out?
I'm not going to pretend it's me.
gilgamesh
Cruiserweight
Posts: 46233
Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 16:21

Re: gil's Refined Ranking System

Post by gilgamesh »

"The Brockton Blockbuster" Rocky Marciano

With a record of 49-0 (43 KO's). He fought in 7 Heavyweight Championship fights, and won them all. He has 11 Quality wins (Harry Matthews, Joe Louis, Lee Savold, Jersey Joe Walcott 2x, Ezzard Charles 2x, Roland LaStarza 2x, Don Cockell and Archie Moore).

He has 5 Gold star wins (1 non title over Joe Louis), the others are the 2 Walcott wins, the 2nd Charles win, and the Archie Moore win.

He finishes with an overall score of 474 points, and ranks among the very best Heavyweights of all time.
Post Reply