BoxRec

Let me note: this is a first attempt, not thoroughly researched. I excluded all active fighters for whom I think there is any reasonable likelihood their standings will be effected by the continuation of their careers. So, for instance, Evander Holyfield is included, because he is clearly long past his prime and I think there is about a 95% probability that nothing which happens for the remainder of his career will substantially change his legacy, but Wladimir Klitschko is still in his heyday and his historical standing is still very much up in the air in my eyes, and so he is not included. As I say, this list isn't too thoroughly researched and is more of a first draft, so I'm sorry if there are any really obvious exclusions.

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. George Foreman
4. Rocky Marciano
5. Joe Frazier
6. Larry Holmes
7. Jack Dempsey
8. Jim Jeffries
9. Jack Johnson
10. Evander Holyfield
11. Sonny Liston
12. Mike Tyson
13. Lennox Lewis
14. Jersey Joe Walcott
15. Ezzard Charles
16. Floyd Patterson
17. Riddick Bowe
18. Gene Tunney
19. Max Schmeling
20. Ingemar Johansson
21. Ken Norton
22. Max Baer
23. Jack Sharkey
24. Sam Langford
25. Bob Fitzsimmons
26. Jerry Quarry
27. Jim Corbett
28. Harry Wills
29. Michael Spinks
30. Elmer Ray
31. Archie Moore
32. Tom Sharkey
33. Tommy Burns
34. Jess Willard
35. Tim Witherspoon
36. Joe Jeanette
37. Jimmy Young
38. Peter Jackson
39. Sam McVey
40. Billy Conn
41. Michael Moorer
42. Jimmy Ellis
43. Eddie Machen
44. Jimmy Bivins
45. Harry Greb
46. Earnie Shavers
47. Primo Carnera
48. Buster Douglas
49. Roland LaStarza
50. Zora Folley
51. Tommy Loughran
52. Tommy Gibbons
53. Harold Johnson
54. George Godfrey
55. Ron Lyle
56. Mike Weaver
57. Jim Braddock
58. Oscar Bonavena
59. Michael Dokes
60. Ernie Terrell
61. Fred Fulton
62. Tony Tucker
63. Arturo Godoy
64. Lee Q. Murray
65. Bob Pastor
66. Tommy Farr
67. Razor Ruddock
68. Billy Miske
69. Ray Mercer
70. Ike Ibeabuchi
71. Cleveland Williams
72. Gerry Cooney
73. Luis Firpo
74. Tami Mauriello
75. Oliver McCall
76. Lou Nova
77. Turkey Thompson
78. Pinklon Thomas
79. Bill Brennan
80. Gunboat Smith
81. George Chuvalo
82. Doug Jones
83. Clarence Henry
84. Gerrie Coetzee
85. Frank Bruno
86. Bonecrusher Smith
87. Buddy Baer
88. Marvin Hart
89. Johnny Risko
90. Ernie Schaaf
91. Bob Baker
92. Trevor Berbick
93. Steve Hamas
94. Nino Valdes
95. Rex Layne
96. Paolino Uzcudun
97. Nathan Mann
98. Tommy Jackson
99. Joe Goddard
100. Lee Oma

Decagon wrote:29. Chris Byrd

.... and on to the relevant stuff.

Wanted to respond to comments from dempseyfire and meisinger
Dempsey fire- Sharkey losing to Shcucco,Levinsky,Maloney and Kennedy. All of these guys had several losses on their records with few notable wins outside of their wins over Sharkey. Sharkey also had the draw with Heeney and Walker. Imagine the criticism Bowe would have gotten if he would had a draw against a guy who was really a middleweight. To a lesser extent, Charles, Walcott, and Baer all slipped up as well. Bowe deserves some credit for not slipping up one time.

As for Charles losing to Valdes and Johnson, well that had to count against him. I'm beginning to think that Valdes is one of the most overrated fighters in history. He lost time after time throughout his career, often to fighters that no one thinks was that good. Take out his win over Charles and what is so special about his career? I think that Valdes was roughly even with several of the guys mentioned that Bowe beat.
Losing to Johnson isn't a huge embarrassment for Charles. However, this the kind of fight that a guy who is considered one of the top 20 heavyweights of all time should win. It has to count against him to some degree.

meisinger- why did I have Carl Williams and Leon spinks in there?
Spinks deserves some credit for winning the title (albiet against a far his primeAli) He did perform well in that fight. He also had a couple of other decent wins over Evangelista and Mercado, before his career fell apart.
Williams really had a lot of bad luck. He outboxed Holmes and should have won the title. He won at least 10 rounds in one of the worst robberies in heavyweight title history. If he would have gotten the decison over Holmes, not many people would think he wasn't one of the best 100. Williams also could have gotten the decision against Witherspoon; it was very close. He also easily beat Berbick.

Both Williams and Spinks are borderline picks. There are at least a dozen guys that didn't make the top 100 that could have made it instead of the last guys that did make it.

Ray Mercer had to be the top 100. I can see why at first glance you might not be impressed with Mercer. Sub par performances against Holmes,Wilson, and Ferguson should be held against him. However, he should gotten at least a draw against a prime Lennox Lewis in a very good fight. He also gave Holyfield a lot of trouble in a good fight. He had some nice wins over guys like Damiani and Morrison.

Ambling Alp wrote:Wanted to respond to comments from dempseyfire and meisinger
Dempsey fire- Sharkey losing to Shcucco,Levinsky,Maloney and Kennedy. All of these guys had several losses on their records with few notable wins outside of their wins over Sharkey. Sharkey also had the draw with Heeney and Walker. Imagine the criticism Bowe would have gotten if he would had a draw against a guy who was really a middleweight. To a lesser extent, Charles, Walcott, and Baer all slipped up as well. Bowe deserves some credit for not slipping up one time.

As for Charles losing to Valdes and Johnson, well that had to count against him. I'm beginning to think that Valdes is one of the most overatted fighters in history. He lost time after time throughout his career. Often to fighters that no one thinks was that good. Take out his win over Charles and what is so special about his career? I think that Valdes was roughly even with several of the guys mentioned that Bowe beat.
Losing to Johnson isn't a huge embarrassment for Charles. However, this the kind of fight that a guy who is considered one of the top 20 heavyweights of all time should win. It has to count against him to some degree.

meisinger- why did I have Carl Williams and Leon spinks in there?
Spinks deserves some credit for winning the title (albiet against a far his primeAli) He did perform well in that fight. He also had a couple of other decent wins over Evangelista and Mercado, before his career fell apart.
Williams really had a lot of bad luck. He outboxed Holmes and should have won the title. He won at least 10 rounds in one of the worst robberies in heavyweight title history. If he would have gotten the decison over Holmes, not many people would not think he wasn't one of the best 100. Williams also could have gotten the against Witherspoon; it was very close. He also easily beat Berbick.

Both Williams and Spinks are borderline picks. There are at least a dozen guys that didn't make the top 100 that could have made it instead of the last guys that did make it.

Ray Mercer had to be the top 100. I can see why at first glance you might not be impressed with Mercer. Sub par performances against Holmes,Wilson, and Ferguson should be held against him. However, he should gotten at least a draw against a prime Lennox Lewis in a very good fight. He also gave Holyfield a lot of trouble in a good fight. He had some nice wins over guys like Damiani and Morrison.

I see what you're saying, but I think you have to account for how the fight game was back then as opposed to now. Guys like Bowe were VERY carefully handled and managed from the very beginning of their careers, esp. since he was the leading American Olympic HW. The preparation, oversight, matchmaking, and training period before fights that Bowe enjoyed just did not exist in the 1920s and 30s.

Look at Sharkey's record: He lost to Quentin Rojas 9 days after beating Young Jack Johnson. He faced an 80 fight veteran and very good fighter in Charkey Weinert in his 12th professional fight . . he lost to Bud Gorman 17 days after beating King Soloman.

In comparison, Riddick Bowe in his 12th fight was facing the likes of Art Card and Charles Woolard. He fought often vs these scrubs but once he stepped up the level of competition (say the Thomas fight) he was getting at LEAST a month's rest between fights, usually more.

And you are saying Charles should be docked pts b/c he lost to Layne and Johnson (and the latter was recognized as a robbery) . . Bowe had only 44 fights as a professional . . .Charles at the time of these fight basically had DOUBLE the # of fights (Walcott had over 70) . . . Bowe couldn't even continue his career b/c he got his brains scrambled in his 43rd and 44th fights vs perennial loser Andrew Golota.

If he fights after Golota, you better believe he loses to guys a lot worse than Rex Layne.

Hell, after reviewing my own argument, I can't see how you could possibly rate Bowe above Charles, Baer and Walcott (and I'll concede Sharkey but I still think the Boston Gob should be higher)

Wanted to respond to some comments from Pundit;
First of all, we each some different philosophies which often leads us to disagree.
I completely disagree about ranking fighters almost entirely on their best performances. All fights near a fighters prime should be considered. Let me an analogy;
If a football team beats both of the teams in the Super Bowl and a couple of playoff teams , but goes 4-12, almost everyone would say that it was a bad team. Because losses count. All the games count, not just the ones againsdt the best teams or the best fighters. The truly great fighters are great time after time regardless of the quality of the opponent.
Likewise in every fight, win,lose or draw near a fighters prime count. Exceptions should be made for things like horrible decisions beyond a fighters control. A fight who fights a great fight against a great fighter but comes up a little short should be impressive should get some respect.
A fighter should get credit for beating a great fighter, but should lose credit for losing, and the worse the opponent that they lose to; the more it should count against him.

Another different philosophy is how to evaluate a fight in which one guy is winning, but the other guy comes back to win by kncokout.
I strongly believe that the guy who won the fight should get much more credit. (Not as much credit as he would get if he had dominated the fight, but certainly more credit than the guy that lost.)
While the loser shouldn't be criticized as much as he should criticized if he got dominated the whole fight, he should get criticized. I believe that in some cases you give guys way too much credit for losing a fight that he was winning.

The last major philosphy I wanted to address is this criticism of using the boxrec database as a resource of evaluating fighters. I think it would be silly not to use it. You have so much information right at your fingertips. No, it it's not complete and KO8 or UD10 doesn't tell the whole story of a fight. Still it tells you a lot. Film and reading about fights can be valuable too. They each have their strengths but their limitations as well. With film, is that many fights simply aren't available for many fighters. It's natural to over value the fights of a guy that you do see. If you only saw Trinidad's fights with Joppy or Mayorga, you may think he was awesome. If you only saw Trinidad against Hopkins or Wright you probably wouldn't think he was any good at all.
I love reading about boxing as well. However, you are dependent upon the knowledge and biases of the writer.
I believe that you have to use all of the information that you have available (and be willing to listen to other people) to evaluate a fighters career. Do I use the boxrec database? Guilty as charged.

Now for the specific comments that you make:
I am impressed with Bowe's career. I would rate him higher if he would have fought and beat Lewis and/or Tyson. Nevertheless he had a great career. I did see a lot of his fights and in most of them he was impressive.
What other Bowe fights have you seen besides Holyfield and Golota?
I agree that outside of Holyfield, I don't think that any one of Bowes wins were particularly great.
However, if you add them each up, Donald,Tubbs,Cooper,Hide,Seldon,Coetzer, Biggs, without slipping up once and add them to the Holyfield fights, that is pretty good.

I don't think Tubbs was past it when Bowe beat him. Donald was in his prime when Bowe beat him, but was 38 and way over the hill when Klitschko beat him. I do give Klitschko a little credit for Hide, like I do with Bowe.
I believe that the excuse for Baer's losses are weak; and I can't imagine you giving Bowe some slack if he would lost. You don't want to count Baers loss becasue there is some controversy whehter or not it was an exhibition? Yet you keep giving Greb credit for supposedly getting the best of Dempsey in sparring.
Walcott's losses to Maxim and Layne isn't something that should happen to a someone ranked as the one of the top 20 heavyweights of all time. This has to be weaken Walcott's case for being ranked so high.
I wanted to make point about Charles losses. You are now saying that Charles was past his primes against Vlades,Layne, and Johnson?
If you feel that way, then Valdes has no business being in the top 100. Throughout his overrated career, he lost fight after fight. Without his win over charles, his career is pretty mediocre. It's either a big win for Valdes, and this something that should be held against Charles, or if Charles was opver the hill the win wasn't a big win for Valdes. You can't have it both ways.

Also wanted to make a comment about Bowe not fighting anyone but Bowe and golota in your top 100(techinically he did beat thomas and dokes but I don't count these since they over the hill). first of all, you yourself have now said that tubbs probably should have made it. If Bowe would have lost to either Seldon or Donald, they would both be considered a lot higher and many people would have have made the top 100. By winning, Bowe actually kept them out of the top 100.
On the other hand, Charles losing to Layne and Valdes helped make them in the top 100. It's doubtful that many people would think that they were worthy if they hadn't beaten charles. Even Harold Johnson may not have made it if he hadn't beaten Charles.
Sharkey lost some many fights to lesser fighters it's almost shocking. He certainly would have fought a way to lose to some of the guys that Bowe beat.

I had the "alphabet soup boys of the 1980's" clustered closely together because they were so even. They each had their highs and lows. You could pretty much shuffle them around in almost any order. Maybe they could be ranked a little lower, but they are all deserving to be in the top 100.

Martin at #68 is Leotis Martin. He had some nice wins before his eye injury. Maybeat #68 I was a little too sympathetic, but I believe he is certainly in the top 100.

I didn't rate Peter Jackson higher becasue there isn't a lot to go on. A win over Corbett would have helped. I'm not confdent that he would have been one of the top 4 or 5 heavyweight in the teens which was a better era. The #1 guy of one era isn't necessarily better than the #1 of another.
You mentioned Tommy Gibbons and I agree that he could have made it.

As for not giving the 1930's heavyweights enough credit- Well I did include Schmeling,Sharkey,Baer,Braddock,Carnera,Schaaf,Uzcudun, Gains and Farr.
Why did I rate Ray but not more fighters from the 1940's? Because he lost a lot less frequently than guys who who didn't make it from that era.

I don't think I was too tough on the 1950's fighters. I did include Layne and La Starza, (both borderline picks) Moore,Harold Johnson, Machen,Folley, and Williams for the late 1950's. And of course champions Charles,Walcott,Marciano,Patterson,Johannson, and Liston. Thats 12 guys. They were all better than Valdes,Baker, and Satterfield. These guys simply lost way too much. Clarence Henry almost made it.
I don't expect you to agree with everyhting, but I thought that I should explain.

Ambling Alp wrote:Wanted to respond to some comments from Pundit;
First of all, we each some different philosophies which often leads us to disagree.
I completely disagree about ranking fighters almost entirely on their best performances. All fights near a fighters prime should be considered. Let me an analogy;
If a football team beats both of the teams in the Super Bowl and a couple of playoff teams , but goes 4-12, almost everyone would say that it was a bad team. Because losses count. All the games count, not just the ones againsdt the best teams or the best fighters. The truly great fighters are great time after time regardless of the quality of the opponent.
Likewise in every fight, win,lose or draw near a fighters prime count.

This is no valid anlogy. The main reason why I focus mostly on wins is because the circumstances for fighters at least up to the 1920s (and for black fighters at least up to the 1940s) were so different from today. This accounts largely for their higher number of losses.

In other words: if one weihgts losses as heavily as you do, one necessarily over-appreciates the carefully pampered records of modern heavyweights (Bowe is a prime example) and necessarily underrates fighters who fought under incomparably tougher circumstnaces over long stretches of their careers (such as Walcott) or for their entire careers (such as Bivins, Oma, Murray)

As for consistency, it's FAR more important that a fighter proves outstanding ability several times -- and I have noone in the top 20 who did not do so -- than that he keeps the record clean. And in this regard Bowe's resumee is simply rather thin.

Another different philosophy is how to evaluate a fight in which one guy is winning, but the other guy comes back to win by kncokout.
I strongly believe that the guy who won the fight should get much more credit.

Well, in the end that's what I believe too. I have Marciano above Walcott although Walcott was winning the fight till the knockout. Had Walcott won that one my rating might have been reversed. And I would have Sharkey even higher had he finished the job in 1927 against Dempsey, rather than throwing it away.

The last major philosphy I wanted to address is this criticism of using the boxrec database as a resource of evaluating fighters. I

No, of course there is nothing wrong with this. Sometimes it just seems though as if you rattled off boxrec results fairly mechanically, with a heavy emphasis on the number of losses, but without much knowledge about the story behind the results.

Now for the specific comments that you make:
I am impressed with Bowe's career.

Let's Bowe rest in peace. We've said everything that can be said. I don't convince you, you don't convince me: #14 seems definitely way too high; too many accomplished champs who have done great (rather than OK) things repeatedly end up below Bowe in your ratings.

I believe that the excuse for Baer's losses are weak;

These are no excuses; this is simply Max Baer's story. He could have been much more sueccesful had he been more focussed and consistent. He himself said so, his brother said so (the less gifted but more consistent Buddy), his opponents said so. When Baer was totally focussed, as against Schmeling or Carnera, he was awesome.

In fact, there are parallels with Bowe. Also Bowe had arguably the potential to achieve more and over longer periods. But he ended up having only a couple of really good fights. It's no coincidence that I rate Baer and Bowe right next to one another.

Yet you keep giving Greb credit for supposedly getting the best of Dempsey in sparring.

This was only an illuastration about Greb's abilities. The rumor has it that Dempsey's manager was considering giving Greb a shot before the sparring but that he changed his mind thereafter.

However, look at Greb's record against grown heayweights 1918-21 -- Miske, Meehand, Brennan, Renault -- there is easily enough to rate him in the top 60. If Greb had "only" been an outstanding middleweight people wouldn't rate him top 5 pfp AT.

Walcott's losses to Maxim and Layne isn't something that should happen to a someone ranked as the one of the top 20 heavyweights of all time.

Let's avoid pointless repetitions. I disagree and told you why.

This has to be weaken Walcott's case for being ranked so high.
I wanted to make point about Charles losses. You are now saying that Charles was past his primes against Vlades,Layne, and Johnson?

Yes. Of course.

If you feel that way, then Valdes has no business being in the top 100.

Well, even a post-prime Charles gave Marciano two very tough fights. Beating him in 1953 (before Marcinao) is not nothing (although there is little doubt in my mind that the result would have been different in the late 1940s). Thereafter Valdes destroyed the favored Hurrican Jackson in an eliminator, and he won the final eliminator against Moore on some peoples' scorecard.

That's why I put him in the top 100 -- at #94. But you know what? I don't insist on Valdes in the top 100. #94 is borderline anyway.

If Bowe would have lost to either Seldon or Donald, they would both be considered a lot higher and many people would have have made the top 100. By winning, Bowe actually kept them out of the top 100.

That's a weird argument -- you could say this about evey opponent of Bowe, and actually about almost every opponent of a fighter rater rated in the top 20 or 30.

If Pete Rademacher would have beaten Pattterson he would probably be in the top 100. If Luis Angel Firpo would have dethroned Dempsey, surely he would be in my top 100, too. If Peter McNeeley would have beaten Tyson.... well, maybe not this one.

On the other hand, Charles losing to Layne and Valdes helped make them in the top 100.

Now I'm confused. Where is the alleged inconsistency? They did beat (post-prime) Charles. Donald did not beat Bowe (and neither Klitschko).

Sharkey lost some many fights to lesser fighters it's almost shocking. He certainly would have fought a way to lose to some of the guys that Bowe beat.

Maybe. So what? As discussed umpteenth times, this doesn't seem a very compelling reason for me to rate him very much down. He did too many impressive things when he came in focussed. Also, Sharkey fought much more frequently than Bowe, which by itself increases the likelihood of losses.

I didn't rate Peter Jackson higher becasue there isn't a lot to go on. A win over Corbett would have helped.

Actually many contemporary observers thought that Jackson had beaten Corbett, even though the fight was offially declared a draw.

I'm not confdent that he would have been one of the top 4 or 5 heavyweight in the teens which was a better era. The #1 guy of one era isn't necessarily better than the #1 of another.

First, Jeanette's and McVey's peak is more in the 1900s than in the 1910s. Second, how do we know? Jackson gave the best heavyweihgt of the 19th century all he could handle, and for years he was the world's most avoided heavyweight. That should qualify him for a high rating.

As for not giving the 1930's heavyweights enough credit- Well I did include Schmeling,Sharkey,Baer,Braddock,Carnera,Schaaf,Uzcudun, Gains and Farr.

You have them in but rather low.

Cheers,
P

I will just say that I often find your reasoning baffling (as apparently as you do mine)and will leave it at that. We use different criteria when evaluating fighers and will often come to different conclusions.

This is my first post so I hope it's not any kind of breach of etiquette jumping in like this. Firstly ,I am bowled over at the extent to which you guy's know your history and I would like to make it clear that I am not nearly as well informed as any of you. I would struggle to compile a list of a hundred heavyweights period, much less be able to sift all of them into a chart that measured the significance of their achievements in boxing.

After browsing through the shortlists I must confess, I'm still none the wiser as to the criteria that they adhere to. As the era's have progressed I'm of the opinion that boxers in general have got bigger and better. Try as I might, I just cannot envisage Joe Louis or Rocky Marciano being able to cope with a Mike Tyson or a Lennox Lewis or even a Sonny Liston. So I'm sort of assuming that the lists aren't based on who would beat who.

Speaking of Liston I noticed that he is in the upper echelons of these tables ( which I agree with) yet he only had one successful defence of the heavyweight strap before capitulating to Ali, so I must conclude that the duration of title reign isn't a critical factor either. Is it the impact these men had on the sport as a whole or personal preference?

Hope the questions in this post don't come across as conceited, it's just this is a very interesting thread, and I would like to better understand it.

Tony3

dempseyfire wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:Wanted to respond to comments from dempseyfire and meisinger
Dempsey fire- Sharkey losing to Shcucco,Levinsky,Maloney and Kennedy. All of these guys had several losses on their records with few notable wins outside of their wins over Sharkey. Sharkey also had the draw with Heeney and Walker. Imagine the criticism Bowe would have gotten if he would had a draw against a guy who was really a middleweight. To a lesser extent, Charles, Walcott, and Baer all slipped up as well. Bowe deserves some credit for not slipping up one time.

As for Charles losing to Valdes and Johnson, well that had to count against him. I'm beginning to think that Valdes is one of the most overatted fighters in history. He lost time after time throughout his career. Often to fighters that no one thinks was that good. Take out his win over Charles and what is so special about his career? I think that Valdes was roughly even with several of the guys mentioned that Bowe beat.
Losing to Johnson isn't a huge embarrassment for Charles. However, this the kind of fight that a guy who is considered one of the top 20 heavyweights of all time should win. It has to count against him to some degree.

meisinger- why did I have Carl Williams and Leon spinks in there?
Spinks deserves some credit for winning the title (albiet against a far his primeAli) He did perform well in that fight. He also had a couple of other decent wins over Evangelista and Mercado, before his career fell apart.
Williams really had a lot of bad luck. He outboxed Holmes and should have won the title. He won at least 10 rounds in one of the worst robberies in heavyweight title history. If he would have gotten the decison over Holmes, not many people would not think he wasn't one of the best 100. Williams also could have gotten the against Witherspoon; it was very close. He also easily beat Berbick.

Both Williams and Spinks are borderline picks. There are at least a dozen guys that didn't make the top 100 that could have made it instead of the last guys that did make it.

Ray Mercer had to be the top 100. I can see why at first glance you might not be impressed with Mercer. Sub par performances against Holmes,Wilson, and Ferguson should be held against him. However, he should gotten at least a draw against a prime Lennox Lewis in a very good fight. He also gave Holyfield a lot of trouble in a good fight. He had some nice wins over guys like Damiani and Morrison.

I see what you're saying, but I think you have to account for how the fight game was back then as opposed to now. Guys like Bowe were VERY carefully handled and managed from the very beginning of their careers, esp. since he was the leading American Olympic HW. The preparation, oversight, matchmaking, and training period before fights that Bowe enjoyed just did not exist in the 1920s and 30s.

Look at Sharkey's record: He lost to Quentin Rojas 9 days after beating Young Jack Johnson. He faced an 80 fight veteran and very good fighter in Charkey Weinert in his 12th professional fight . . he lost to Bud Gorman 17 days after beating King Soloman.

In comparison, Riddick Bowe in his 12th fight was facing the likes of Art Card and Charles Woolard. He fought often vs these scrubs but once he stepped up the level of competition (say the Thomas fight) he was getting at LEAST a month's rest between fights, usually more.

And you are saying Charles should be docked pts b/c he lost to Layne and Johnson (and the latter was recognized as a robbery) . . Bowe had only 44 fights as a professional . . .Charles at the time of these fight basically had DOUBLE the # of fights (Walcott had over 70) . . . Bowe couldn't even continue his career b/c he got his brains scrambled in his 43rd and 44th fights vs perennial loser Andrew Golota.

If he fights after Golota, you better believe he loses to guys a lot worse than Rex Layne.

Hell, after reviewing my own argument, I can't see how you could possibly rate Bowe above Charles, Baer and Walcott (and I'll concede Sharkey but I still think the Boston Gob should be higher)

I agree that fighters back then usually had less preparation. they usually fought a lot more, sometimes with not a lot of notice.
However, what the opponents of Sharkey, Baer, Charles, and Walcott? Didn't their opponents often have to take fights against these guys with little time since their last fight as well?
It's not like Sharkey,Baer,Charles, Walcott would usually take a fight with little preparation and their opponents had a lot more time.

Look at it the other way. Bowe often had a lot of time to train. But, usually his opponents did as well.

Actually, I would also say that it can be an advantage to fight frequently. These days, fighters now a days usually don't fight enough to stay sharp, especially once they hit the big time. It's easier to stay sharp by fighting a lot. Assuming that a fighter didn't hurt his hand or had a cut or something like that, it's good to not have a lot of time between fights.

I do agree that a fighter who had say 80 fights is going to have more off nights than a guys who has say 40.

I also agree that their is some truth about fighters on their way up in the last couple of decades being well managed. No question about it. On the other hand, I believe that fighters in the last 20-30 years are more scrutinized than than the old timers. Bowe's subpar perfornances against Golota (in fights that he did technically win). It's like that way with everyone now. People will pick one or two fights (or even 1 or two rounds) of a career and talk about it at nausem. On the other hand, losses that old timers had often seem to be swept under the rug.

I do believe that a lot of old timers often fought more tomato cans after they made it to the top. Baer is a prime example.

I am not one of those people who thinks fighters are better in recent time. Their have been bad,mediocre,good, great fighters in every era. I do believe in this instance that Bowe is better than several fighters that were ranked a head of him.

As for Sharkey specifically, no I don't count the losses to Rojas and Weinert against him. They had too much experience for him at that stage in his career.
Yes it was only had 17 days after his last fight that Sharkey lost to Gorman. Still, should he have been able to beat a guy like that anyway? Do you really believe that Bowe would have lost to Gorman in that situation? Shouldn't an all time great win this fights anyway?
the losses to Shucco,Levinsky, Maloney,Kennedy and draws with Shucco, Heeney,Walker are just too much.

Why do I think Bowe was better than Charles,Walcott,Baer, and Sharkey?
I think overall, he looks better on tape. He had good power, great speed and mobility for a big man, a lot of heart, a good chin, a good jab, and better than Holyfield at fighting inside. He really had no major weaknesses.

I believe that if Bowe fought as he typically did, he would beat any of the 4 head to head.
I believe that Bowe would have beaten anyone that these guys beat.
I don't believe anyone of them would have beat a prime Holyfield.
If Bowe had to fight their opponents under their circumstances, I don't believe he would have lost as often as they did.
If they fought Bowe's exact competition,(even given Bowe's well managed career) I believe they would have all lost more than 1 fight.

Ambling Alp wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:Wanted to respond to comments from dempseyfire and meisinger
Dempsey fire- Sharkey losing to Shcucco,Levinsky,Maloney and Kennedy. All of these guys had several losses on their records with few notable wins outside of their wins over Sharkey. Sharkey also had the draw with Heeney and Walker. Imagine the criticism Bowe would have gotten if he would had a draw against a guy who was really a middleweight. To a lesser extent, Charles, Walcott, and Baer all slipped up as well. Bowe deserves some credit for not slipping up one time.

As for Charles losing to Valdes and Johnson, well that had to count against him. I'm beginning to think that Valdes is one of the most overatted fighters in history. He lost time after time throughout his career. Often to fighters that no one thinks was that good. Take out his win over Charles and what is so special about his career? I think that Valdes was roughly even with several of the guys mentioned that Bowe beat.
Losing to Johnson isn't a huge embarrassment for Charles. However, this the kind of fight that a guy who is considered one of the top 20 heavyweights of all time should win. It has to count against him to some degree.

meisinger- why did I have Carl Williams and Leon spinks in there?
Spinks deserves some credit for winning the title (albiet against a far his primeAli) He did perform well in that fight. He also had a couple of other decent wins over Evangelista and Mercado, before his career fell apart.
Williams really had a lot of bad luck. He outboxed Holmes and should have won the title. He won at least 10 rounds in one of the worst robberies in heavyweight title history. If he would have gotten the decison over Holmes, not many people would not think he wasn't one of the best 100. Williams also could have gotten the against Witherspoon; it was very close. He also easily beat Berbick.

Both Williams and Spinks are borderline picks. There are at least a dozen guys that didn't make the top 100 that could have made it instead of the last guys that did make it.

Ray Mercer had to be the top 100. I can see why at first glance you might not be impressed with Mercer. Sub par performances against Holmes,Wilson, and Ferguson should be held against him. However, he should gotten at least a draw against a prime Lennox Lewis in a very good fight. He also gave Holyfield a lot of trouble in a good fight. He had some nice wins over guys like Damiani and Morrison.

I see what you're saying, but I think you have to account for how the fight game was back then as opposed to now. Guys like Bowe were VERY carefully handled and managed from the very beginning of their careers, esp. since he was the leading American Olympic HW. The preparation, oversight, matchmaking, and training period before fights that Bowe enjoyed just did not exist in the 1920s and 30s.

Look at Sharkey's record: He lost to Quentin Rojas 9 days after beating Young Jack Johnson. He faced an 80 fight veteran and very good fighter in Charkey Weinert in his 12th professional fight . . he lost to Bud Gorman 17 days after beating King Soloman.

In comparison, Riddick Bowe in his 12th fight was facing the likes of Art Card and Charles Woolard. He fought often vs these scrubs but once he stepped up the level of competition (say the Thomas fight) he was getting at LEAST a month's rest between fights, usually more.

And you are saying Charles should be docked pts b/c he lost to Layne and Johnson (and the latter was recognized as a robbery) . . Bowe had only 44 fights as a professional . . .Charles at the time of these fight basically had DOUBLE the # of fights (Walcott had over 70) . . . Bowe couldn't even continue his career b/c he got his brains scrambled in his 43rd and 44th fights vs perennial loser Andrew Golota.

If he fights after Golota, you better believe he loses to guys a lot worse than Rex Layne.

Hell, after reviewing my own argument, I can't see how you could possibly rate Bowe above Charles, Baer and Walcott (and I'll concede Sharkey but I still think the Boston Gob should be higher)

I agree that fighters back then usually had less preparation. they usually fought a lot more, sometimes with not a lot of notice.
However, what the opponents of Sharkey, Baer, Charles, and Walcott? Didn't their opponents often have to take fights against these guys with little time since their last fight as well?
It's not like Sharkey,Baer,Charles, Walcott would usually take a fight with little preparation and their opponents had a lot more time.

Look at it the other way. Bowe often had a lot of time to train. But, usually his opponents did as well.

Actually, I would also say that it can be an advantage to fight frequently. These days, fighters now a days usually don't fight enough to stay sharp, especially once they hit the big time. It's easier to stay sharp by fighting a lot. Assuming that a fighter didn't hurt his hand or had a cut or something like that, it's good to not have a lot of time between fights.

I do agree that a fighter who had say 80 fights is going to have more off nights than a guys who has say 40.

I also agree that their is some truth about fighters on their way up in the last couple of decades being well managed. No question about it. On the other hand, I believe that fighters in the last 20-30 years are more scrutinized than than the old timers. Bowe's subpar perfornances against Golota (in fights that he did technically win). It's like that way with everyone now. People will pick one or two fights (or even 1 or two rounds) of a career and talk about it at nausem. On the other hand, losses that old timers had often seem to be swept under the rug.

I do believe that a lot of old timers often fought more tomato cans after they made it to the top. Baer is a prime example.

I am not one of those people who thinks fighters are better in recent time. Their have been bad,mediocre,good, great fighters in every era. I do believe in this instance that Bowe is better than several fighters that were ranked a head of him.

As for Sharkey specifically, no I don't count the losses to Rojas and Weinert against him. They had too much experience for him at that stage in his career.
Yes it was only had 17 days after his last fight that Sharkey lost to Gorman. Still, should he have been able to beat a guy like that anyway? Do you really believe that Bowe would have lost to Gorman in that situation? Shouldn't an all time great win this fights anyway?
the losses to Shucco,Levinsky, Maloney,Kennedy and draws with Shucco, Heeney,Walker are just too much.

Why do I think Bowe was better than Charles,Walcott,Baer, and Sharkey?
I think overall, he looks better on tape. He had good power, great speed and mobility for a big man, a lot of heart, a good chin, a good jab, and better than Holyfield at fighting inside. He really had no major weaknesses.

I believe that if Bowe fought as he typically did, he would beat any of the 4 head to head.
I believe that Bowe would have beaten anyone that these guys beat.
I don't believe anyone of them would have beat a prime Holyfield.
If Bowe had to fight their opponents under their circumstances, I don't believe he would have lost as often as they did.
If they fought Bowe's exact competition,(even given Bowe's well managed career) I believe they would have all lost more than 1 fight.

Well, we will have to just disagree on that one. I think, at their very best, Baer, Charles, Walcott, and Sharkey all beat Bowe and Holyfield, except I'd favor Evander to beat Max via a hard fought decision.

Bowe had no weaknesses? How about his COMPLETE neglect of defense!! Neither Evander or Bowe had good defenses, and that equated to exciting fights as both had excellent offensive skills at their best. Walcott, Charles, and Sharkey all would have been much harder for Riddick to hit clean than Evander, and they were just overall better boxers-better at countering, feinting, use of angles, timing, pacing etc

I'm a big Holyfield fan, but the more I watch of him . . the more I understand that in terms of real "all time great" boxing skills, he was really lacking. He overcame this with pretty good conditioning and an all time great heart, but compared to the likes of Walcott and Charles he was just not in their league skill-wise. More exciting, for sure, but not as skilled. Besides Tyson, who (as in, top level opponent) did Holyfield really outbox? He edged Bowe in the rematch mainly b/c Bowe got tired from the excess flab, Mercer was outjabbing him until he got tired, Moorer have him fits until his chin let him down, Dokes was giving him hell until he got tired, Bean made him look awful, Stewart gave him a very hard time, as did old Holmes and Foreman.

He never was able to handle a strong left jab (BIG weakness when pitting him in fantasy fights vs other GREAT heavyweights) and was fairly easy to counter.

Holyfield was great though and boy what I'd give to see a prime Evander clean up today's HW mess!

Wow. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Once again though with Holyfield, we see a modern fighter scrutinized in fights that he won. What about the fights that the old time greats lost? Did they win all of their fights easily?

tony3 wrote:This is my first post so I hope it's not any kind of breach of etiquette jumping in like this. Firstly ,I am bowled over at the extent to which you guy's know your history and I would like to make it clear that I am not nearly as well informed as any of you. I would struggle to compile a list of a hundred heavyweights period, much less be able to sift all of them into a chart that measured the significance of their achievements in boxing.

After browsing through the shortlists I must confess, I'm still none the wiser as to the criteria that they adhere to. As the era's have progressed I'm of the opinion that boxers in general have got bigger and better. Try as I might, I just cannot envisage Joe Louis or Rocky Marciano being able to cope with a Mike Tyson or a Lennox Lewis or even a Sonny Liston. So I'm sort of assuming that the lists aren't based on who would beat who.

Speaking of Liston I noticed that he is in the upper echelons of these tables ( which I agree with) yet he only had one successful defence of the heavyweight strap before capitulating to Ali, so I must conclude that the duration of title reign isn't a critical factor either. Is it the impact these men had on the sport as a whole or personal preference?

Hope the questions in this post don't come across as conceited, it's just this is a very interesting thread, and I would like to better understand it.

Tony3

On average the heavyweights have gotten bigger, but not necessarily better. At a certain point, a fighter's size is no longer an advantage and a later point it's a disavantage. There are so many other things to factor in such as speed,power,stamina, heart,chin, defense, jab, etc that goes into the making of a great fighter.
I can't speak for everyone else, but I do honestly think Joe Louis would have beaten everyone head to head more often than not,except for Ali.

As for as Liston had only having one title defense; A long title reign is impressive. However Liston is a unique case. He was probably the best heavyweight for a few years before he ever got a title shot. He beat the other contenders (Machen,Williams,Folley) before he won the title. When he finally did get a title shot, he destroyed the champion, Floyd Patterson to win the title and then did the same in their rematch. He lost the title to the greatest heavyweight champion of all time, which isn't so bad.
Consequently he is pretty highly regarded.

Ambling Alp wrote:Wanted to respond to some comments from Pundit;
First of all, we each some different philosophies which often leads us to disagree.
I completely disagree about ranking fighters almost entirely on their best performances. All fights near a fighters prime should be considered. Let me an analogy;
If a football team beats both of the teams in the Super Bowl and a couple of playoff teams , but goes 4-12, almost everyone would say that it was a bad team. Because losses count. All the games count, not just the ones againsdt the best teams or the best fighters. The truly great fighters are great time after time regardless of the quality of the opponent.
Likewise in every fight, win,lose or draw near a fighters prime count. Exceptions should be made for things like horrible decisions beyond a fighters control. A fight who fights a great fight against a great fighter but comes up a little short should be impressive should get some respect.
A fighter should get credit for beating a great fighter, but should lose credit for losing, and the worse the opponent that they lose to; the more it should count against him.

Another different philosophy is how to evaluate a fight in which one guy is winning, but the other guy comes back to win by kncokout.
I strongly believe that the guy who won the fight should get much more credit. (Not as much credit as he would get if he had dominated the fight, but certainly more credit than the guy that lost.)
While the loser shouldn't be criticized as much as he should criticized if he got dominated the whole fight, he should get criticized. I believe that in some cases you give guys way too much credit for losing a fight that he was winning.

The last major philosphy I wanted to address is this criticism of using the boxrec database as a resource of evaluating fighters. I think it would be silly not to use it. You have so much information right at your fingertips. No, it it's not complete and KO8 or UD10 doesn't tell the whole story of a fight. Still it tells you a lot. Film and reading about fights can be valuable too. They each have their strengths but their limitations as well. With film, is that many fights simply aren't available for many fighters. It's natural to over value the fights of a guy that you do see. If you only saw Trinidad's fights with Joppy or Mayorga, you may think he was awesome. If you only saw Trinidad against Hopkins or Wright you probably wouldn't think he was any good at all.
I love reading about boxing as well. However, you are dependent upon the knowledge and biases of the writer.
I believe that you have to use all of the information that you have available (and be willing to listen to other people) to evaluate a fighters career. Do I use the boxrec database? Guilty as charged.

Now for the specific comments that you make:
I am impressed with Bowe's career. I would rate him higher if he would have fought and beat Lewis and/or Tyson. Nevertheless he had a great career. I did see a lot of his fights and in most of them he was impressive.
What other Bowe fights have you seen besides Holyfield and Golota?
I agree that outside of Holyfield, I don't think that any one of Bowes wins were particularly great.
However, if you add them each up, Donald,Tubbs,Cooper,Hide,Seldon,Coetzer, Biggs, without slipping up once and add them to the Holyfield fights, that is pretty good.

I don't think Tubbs was past it when Bowe beat him. Donald was in his prime when Bowe beat him, but was 38 and way over the hill when Klitschko beat him. I do give Klitschko a little credit for Hide, like I do with Bowe.
I believe that the excuse for Baer's losses are weak; and I can't imagine you giving Bowe some slack if he would lost. You don't want to count Baers loss becasue there is some controversy whehter or not it was an exhibition? Yet you keep giving Greb credit for supposedly getting the best of Dempsey in sparring.
Walcott's losses to Maxim and Layne isn't something that should happen to a someone ranked as the one of the top 20 heavyweights of all time. This has to be weaken Walcott's case for being ranked so high.
I wanted to make point about Charles losses. You are now saying that Charles was past his primes against Vlades,Layne, and Johnson?
If you feel that way, then Valdes has no business being in the top 100. Throughout his overrated career, he lost fight after fight. Without his win over charles, his career is pretty mediocre. It's either a big win for Valdes, and this something that should be held against Charles, or if Charles was opver the hill the win wasn't a big win for Valdes. You can't have it both ways.

Also wanted to make a comment about Bowe not fighting anyone but Bowe and golota in your top 100(techinically he did beat thomas and dokes but I don't count these since they over the hill). first of all, you yourself have now said that tubbs probably should have made it. If Bowe would have lost to either Seldon or Donald, they would both be considered a lot higher and many people would have have made the top 100. By winning, Bowe actually kept them out of the top 100.
On the other hand, Charles losing to Layne and Valdes helped make them in the top 100. It's doubtful that many people would think that they were worthy if they hadn't beaten charles. Even Harold Johnson may not have made it if he hadn't beaten Charles.
Sharkey lost some many fights to lesser fighters it's almost shocking. He certainly would have fought a way to lose to some of the guys that Bowe beat.

I had the "alphabet soup boys of the 1980's" clustered closely together because they were so even. They each had their highs and lows. You could pretty much shuffle them around in almost any order. Maybe they could be ranked a little lower, but they are all deserving to be in the top 100.

Martin at #68 is Leotis Martin. He had some nice wins before his eye injury. Maybeat #68 I was a little too sympathetic, but I believe he is certainly in the top 100.

I didn't rate Peter Jackson higher becasue there isn't a lot to go on. A win over Corbett would have helped. I'm not confdent that he would have been one of the top 4 or 5 heavyweight in the teens which was a better era. The #1 guy of one era isn't necessarily better than the #1 of another.
You mentioned Tommy Gibbons and I agree that he could have made it.

Why did I rate Ray but not more fighters from the 1940's? Because he lost a lot less frequently than guys who who didn't make it from that era.

Now, I hold Violent Ray in very high regard and rank him at #30, which is higher than anyone around here that I know of other than SuzieQ, but I have to say, a major reason he didn't lose very often is that he didn't have very many fights against top-level opposition. He had an extremely impressive 50-fight winning streak, but only two of those fights were against real big-name opponents. By contrast, for example, after his first 15 pro fights, Jimmy Bivins never went more than five fights without facing a top contender for the rest of his career of over 110 total bouts. If Ray had been fighting top opponents as often as Bivins, he no doubt would have lost considerably more often than he did with the schedule he actually fought- again, I have a very high opinion of Ray and consider his record very impressive, but I'm trying to say that you shouldn't then go and discount guys like Bivins on the basis of their superficially-less-impressive win-loss ledgers.
And on a side note about Ray's relatively built-up record, in large part, that was not his fault. I've read that during his big run in '44-46, Louis, Mauriello, Oma, Thompson, Nova, Baksi, etc. all turned down contracts to fight Ray and that he was being flagrantly dodged. It's also true that some of the guys he was beating during his streak, while not top contenders themselves, were good enough they had beaten and troubled a lot of top contenders(Perk Daniels had recently beaten Turkey Thompson and Hatchetman Sheppard, Sid Peaks had wins against Bivins and Lee Q. Murray, Art McAlpine had just given Pat Comiskey hell, etc.), and so it's very impressive that he was able to completely dominate these guys and go through them without suffering any upset losses while fighting as often as he did. See the thread B.B. posted yesterday about Ray for some articles I've dug up relating to these matters.

Marciano Frazier wrote: Now, I hold Violent Ray in very high regard and rank him at #30, which is higher than anyone around here that I know of other than SuzieQ, but I have to say, a major reason he didn't lose very often is that he didn't have very many fights against top-level opposition. He had an extremely impressive 50-fight winning streak, but only two of those fights were against real big-name opponents. By contrast, for example, after his first 15 pro fights, Jimmy Bivins never went more than five fights without facing a top contender for the rest of his career of over 110 total bouts. If Ray had been fighting top opponents as often as Bivins, he no doubt would have lost considerably more often than he did with the schedule he actually fought- again, I have a very high opinion of Ray and consider his record very impressive, but I'm trying to say that you shouldn't then go and discount guys like Bivins on the basis of their superficially-less-impressive win-loss ledgers.
And on a side note about Ray's relatively built-up record, in large part, that was not his fault. I've read that during his big run in '44-46, Louis, Mauriello, Oma, Thompson, Nova, Baksi, etc. all turned down contracts to fight Ray and that he was being flagrantly dodged. It's also true that some of the guys he was beating during his streak, while not top contenders themselves, were good enough they had beaten and troubled a lot of top contenders(Perk Daniels had recently beaten Turkey Thompson and Hatchetman Sheppard, Sid Peaks had wins against Bivins and Lee Q. Murray, Art McAlpine had just given Pat Comiskey hell, etc.), and so it's very impressive that he was able to completely dominate these guys and go through them without suffering any upset losses while fighting as often as he did. See the thread B.B. posted yesterday about Ray for some articles I've dug up relating to these matters.

Just another example why counting losses is an inept way of compiling a ranking. Btw, I hold Elmer in high regard, too (#32).

pundit wrote:

Marciano Frazier wrote: Now, I hold Violent Ray in very high regard and rank him at #30, which is higher than anyone around here that I know of other than SuzieQ, but I have to say, a major reason he didn't lose very often is that he didn't have very many fights against top-level opposition. He had an extremely impressive 50-fight winning streak, but only two of those fights were against real big-name opponents. By contrast, for example, after his first 15 pro fights, Jimmy Bivins never went more than five fights without facing a top contender for the rest of his career of over 110 total bouts. If Ray had been fighting top opponents as often as Bivins, he no doubt would have lost considerably more often than he did with the schedule he actually fought- again, I have a very high opinion of Ray and consider his record very impressive, but I'm trying to say that you shouldn't then go and discount guys like Bivins on the basis of their superficially-less-impressive win-loss ledgers.
And on a side note about Ray's relatively built-up record, in large part, that was not his fault. I've read that during his big run in '44-46, Louis, Mauriello, Oma, Thompson, Nova, Baksi, etc. all turned down contracts to fight Ray and that he was being flagrantly dodged. It's also true that some of the guys he was beating during his streak, while not top contenders themselves, were good enough they had beaten and troubled a lot of top contenders(Perk Daniels had recently beaten Turkey Thompson and Hatchetman Sheppard, Sid Peaks had wins against Bivins and Lee Q. Murray, Art McAlpine had just given Pat Comiskey hell, etc.), and so it's very impressive that he was able to completely dominate these guys and go through them without suffering any upset losses while fighting as often as he did. See the thread B.B. posted yesterday about Ray for some articles I've dug up relating to these matters.

Just another example why counting losses is an inept way of compiling a ranking.

Yes, it's really pretty silly to compare the records of guys like Bivins and Murray with the records of modern fighters on a 1:1 win-loss basis and declare them inferior. In Bivins' 114 professional fights, he had around two dozen against Hall-of-Famers.
Bivins' win-loss record in the time period from early 1946 through mid 1949, for example, comes to the very ugly total of 17-10. But who were the losses to? Respectively, they were against: Walcott, Murray, Charles, Charles, Murray, Moore, Moore, Charles, Maxim, and Moore! Note that Bivins also beat all of those men except for Walcott. He faced Moore five times, Charles five times, Murray six times, Sheppard four times, Bettina three times, Christoforidis three times, Pastor twice, Maxim twice, Mauriello twice, Walcott, Louis, Burley, etc.- and all this while consistently fighting on a near once-a-month basis and having as many as 20 fights in a year!
Could you reasonably expect him to come out of something like that with a pristine win-loss average? If the top heavyweights right now were fighting once a month and facing each other four or five times over the course of their careers, what do you think their win-loss records would come out looking like?

I hope I didn't give the impression that I am just going by win loss record records. Quality of competiton has to be looked at very closely. I rated many fighters with inferior winning %'s over fighters with higher winning %'s.

The quality of the opponents that a fighter beat should be a major factor when evaluating him.

It's silly not to include losses and poor perfomances when comparing fighters. You do have to keep in mind to who the losses were to. For example, when evaluating Ken Norton's career, his close loss to Larry Holmes certainly doesn't hurt his ranking. If anything, it raised his sock. He showed that he was almost as good (at least on that occasion) as an all time great.
One the other hand, Ray Mercer's loss to Jessie Ferguson hurts his ranking because it was a loss to a fighter that was pretty ordinary.
Some of the fighters were talking about previously, (especially Jack Sharkey) has several losses to fighters that were very ordinary.

A fighter that never or seldom lost to an ordinary fighter should get some credit for that. Likewise a fighter that has several losses to ordinary fighters should have this counted against him.
Of course the amount of fights that a fighter has should be taken into consideration. For example, it's certainly more impressive to have only 3 bad losses in 100 fights as its to have 3 in 30 fights.

In virtually every other sport I can think of, losses count. You don't just throw out losses /bad performances as if they never happened. Wins,losses,draws,good performances, bad performances, they all should get factored in.

A fighter should be evaluated for the body of work when he was close to prime, not just by the highlights.

Ambling Alp wrote:I hope I didn't give the impression that I am just going by win loss record records. Quality of competiton has to be looked at very closely. I rated many fighters with inferior winning %'s over fighters with higher winning %'s.

The quality of the opponents that a fighter beat should be a major factor when evaluating him.

It's silly not to include losses and poor perfomances when comparing fighters. You do have to keep in mind to who the losses were to. For example, when evaluating Ken Norton's career, his close loss to Larry Holmes certainly doesn't hurt his ranking. If anything, it raised his sock. He showed that he was almost as good (at least on that occasion) as an all time great.
One the other hand, Ray Mercer's loss to Jessie Ferguson hurts his ranking because it was a loss to a fighter that was pretty ordinary.
Some of the fighters were talking about previously, (especially Jack Sharkey) has several losses to fighters that were very ordinary.

A fighter that never or seldom lost to an ordinary fighter should get some credit for that. Likewise a fighter that has several losses to ordinary fighters should have this counted against him.
Of course the amount of fights that a fighter has should be taken into consideration. For example, it's certainly more impressive to have only 3 bad losses in 100 fights as its to have 3 in 30 fights.

In virtually every other sport I can think of, losses count. You don't just throw out losses /bad performances as if they never happened. Wins,losses,draws,good performances, bad performances, they all should get factored in.

A fighter should be evaluated for the body of work when he was close to prime, not just by the highlights.

Alp, I reckon this is really a philosophical issue and there is no "right" or "wrong". You prefer it one way and have your reasons, I prefer it another way and have mine. I rate fighters mostly by what they could to in their prime, you rate them by some kind of average performance. Put differently: when I ask myself "who was better X or Y" I think of "who was better when they both brought their A game". While you seem to think of "who was better on average", "who would have won more often if they would have met repeatedly in their careers, in good as well as bad times".

I contest though that average-ranking would be the normal method of evaluating sporting "greatness" as opposed to prime-ranking. Especially in individual sports the opposite seems the case. Tennis players, for example, are typically ranked by how many Grand Slams they won and by how much they dominated the game at their best. By contrast, we do not rank them by how often they lost matches in the second or third round -- noone would even bother to check that. If tennis player X and Y would have played each other 7 times, and X beat Y 3 times in a Grand Slam final while Y beat X 4 times in the early rounds of smaller tournaments, most definitely would we consider X the greater player (everything else equal).

Or take track and field: say X and Y are both 100 meter sprinters and race each other 7 times. X beats Y 3 times but his wins come at Olympics and World Championships and he sets a couple of world records in the process. Y beats X 4 times at smaller meetings with unspectacular times. X would definitely come out on top in the all-time ratings.

Cheers,
P

I find Pundit's tennis anaolgy interesting. It should be noted that to win a major tennis tournament, a player has to be consistent. (At least enough to win 7 straight matches). Sometimes the opponents in the early rounds aren't that tough, but you still have to play them and beat them. Often a player will look great in early round matches but will falter and lose in the later rounds. It's not really that important if a player looks great in the first few rounds but falls apart in the 4th round or the quarterfinals. If boxing was set up like tennis, a fighter like Jack Sharkey wouldn't be winning many majors.
Often the player that wins the tournament had some close matches along the way,but he wins. A great tennis player can't afford to be too sloppy against the lower players. He takes everty match seriously regardless of the opponent, as a boxer should. I apologize to non-tennis fans for going on at length about this.

I pretty much agree with what Decagon said. A great performance in a losing effort should count for something, but often people do go too far.

The Tiberi-Toney is a different situation. Tiberi clearly deserved the decision. this is more impressive than a fighter who gave Toney a tough fight, but legitimately lost.

umm nino valdez beat some good fighters besides ezzard charles....guys like mike dejohn, harold carter, johnny summerlin, karel sys, don cockell, hurricane jackson, heinz neuhas, james j parker, all good fighters. charles was past it and out of shape but still dangerous when valdez won in 1953


charles losses to rex layne and harold johnson were robberies IMO.

Ambling Alp wrote:I find Pundit's tennis anaolgy interesting. It should be noted that to win a major tennis tournament, a player has to be consistent. (At least enough to win 7 straight matches). Sometimes the opponents in the early rounds aren't that tough, but you still have to play them and beat them. Often a player will look great in early round matches but will falter and lose in the later rounds. It's not really that important if a player looks great in the first few rounds but falls apart in the 4th round or the quarterfinals. If boxing was set up like tennis, a fighter like Jack Sharkey wouldn't be winning many majors.
Often the player that wins the tournament had some close matches along the way,but he wins. A great tennis player can't afford to be too sloppy against the lower players. He takes everty match seriously regardless of the opponent, as a boxer should. I apologize to non-tennis fans for going on at length about this.

I pretty much agree with what Decagon said. A great performance in a losing effort should count for something, but often people do go too far.

The Tiberi-Toney is a different situation. Tiberi clearly deserved the decision. this is more impressive than a fighter who gave Toney a tough fight, but legitimately lost.

The Tiberi fight clearly counts against James, but you have to put it into context . .Toney had not taken the weight off properly and was not at the top of his game. At the top of his game he won very close dooks vs McCallum and Reggie Johnson.

Does Tiberi ever beat Mike or Reggie, or should be ranked ahead of those two? I know McCallum and Johnson have other things in their favor but just saying, it depends on the situation and the state of the fighters as well.

Ambling Alp wrote:I find Pundit's tennis anaolgy interesting. It should be noted that to win a major tennis tournament, a player has to be consistent.

A tennis player has to be consistent for a couple of weeks; but not for an entire career as you ask for your boxing rankings.

A tennis player can lose 50 times in the first round and still be an ATG if he wins 3, 4 Grand Slams. Andrew Agassi, for example, was dreadful at various stages of his career, dropped several times out of the top 100, and yet noone ranks him down in the AT ratings because of that. MOst people would have him in the top 10 nonetheless, and why? Because at his best he was awesome.

At his best, Agassi's game was as good as Sampras. However, Sampras was by far the more consistent of the two, and won many more majors and is considered a better player.

At his best, Safrin is as good as just about anyone. Yet he hardly ever reaches that level and many other players are considered better who can't reach Safrin highest level of play.

Nastase at his best would be considered a better player than say Wilander. However, Wilander was much more consistent and won many more majors.
Is there a tennisrec.com?

Ambling Alp wrote:At his best, Agassi's game was as good as Sampras. However, Sampras was by far the more consistent of the two, and won many more majors and is considered a better player.

At his best, Safrin is as good as just about anyone. Yet he hardly ever reaches that level and many other players are considered better who can't reach Safrin highest level of play.

Nastase at his best would be considered a better player than say Wilander. However, Wilander was much more consistent and won many more majors.
Is there a tennisrec.com?

The thing is, if you count Agassis LOSSES rather than his great wins you'll never rank him anywhere.

Btw, Agassi even at his best was not as good as Sampras. The fluency and versatility of Sampras' style may be compared to Federer and Laver, but hardly to anyone else in modern tennis history.

Defeats do matter but I think it has to be put in perspective. As fans we want to see the best match ups. Most would agree that moving up in weight and losing to a bigger fighter should not be as damning.

Also, do we rate a fighter higher for having not fought dangerous opponents or for having faced them and lost?

Would Roy Jones fighting and losing to DM hurt his standing more than Jones not fighting him (just using this as an example)? If you think the answer is yes then you're tacitly supporting the way promoters manipulate records, avoid dangerous fights for their fighters and help alphabet organisations gain a foothold.

I agree that the defeats have to be put in perspective. ie Jose Napoles losing to Carlos Monzon is quite different than if he had lost to another welterweight. Losing to Monzon certainly should have no bearing when rating him as a welterweight.

That is an interesting question about what is worse ducking the best or losing to the best?
I would say ducking the best is worse. It is important to know for certain if a fighter actually "ducked" an opponent. Sometimes it's hard to tell.

In the case of Jones and DM, both guys seemed very wary of fighting each other. It was obvious that DM was the best opponent for Jones and vice versa. They had about 6 years to fight and it never happened. It was a shame because had they fought each other we would have had a much better idea how good they each were. As result, neither should be rated as high as the truly legendary lightheavyweights.