BoxRec

Ambling Alp wrote:My complaint is that you have the four guys too far apart. I believe earlier you had Langford #8, Wills at #15, Jeannette at #28 and McVey at #37.
Langford the #8 heavyweight of all time? There are certainly more than 7 fighters who were better than Langford at heavyweight.
Wills is probably a little high at #15, Jeannette is a little low at #28, and McVey is way too low at #37.

The gap between Wills and McVey is very small. There certainly isn't 21 guys not as good as Wills but better than McVey.

The gap between Jeannette and McVey is miniscule. There is no way that there are 8 guys not as good as Jeannette but better than McVey. There might not be one.

On an all-time list the difference between #28 and #37 IS miniscule. There are 12 decades to be considered. Jeanette and McVea are what? ##4 and 5 of the 1900s (behind Johnson, Jeffries, Langford), ##5 and 6 of the 1910s (behind Wills, Dempsey, Langford, Johnson) respectively, I guess.

Now simple maths show that one place difference in a decade makes on average 11-12 places difference over the history of modern heavyweight boxing. I have Jeanette and McVey 9 places apart.

Let me advertise in this context again Brockton's excellent work -- the more I study them the more I like his decade lists, especially the early ones, and I hope he'll produce one for the 1890s too.

http://www.boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... hts+decade

McVey was 2-2 against a prime Harry Wills. That's pretty good.

Sorry but I'm losing patience -- what nonsense this is. McVey was NOT 2-2 against prime Wills. Wills reached his peak not before 1916 when he gained the upper hand over Langford, and that his prime ended in the early 1920s. Read any well informed boxing book or browse the web. Conversely, Mc Vea's peak was around 1911 (incidentally he never gained the upper hand over Langford). I don't wanna sound disrespectful, Alp, but sometimes I wonder whether you know any more about the history of boxing than just counting wins and losses on boxrec.

Langford and Wills should be just inside the top 20, and Jeannette and McVey should be just outside of the top 20.

Why don't you present your list and then we talk. I wonder though whether you would also put Louis, Schmeling, Sharkey, Baer, Carnera, Schaaf, Loughran, Uzcudun, Hamas and King Levinsky really really close together -- after all they all beat each other in various combinations and were the top fighters of their time.

Sometimes two fighters of the same era are so even, such as Jeannette and McVey. They probably should be ranked near each other. Walcott and Charles is another example. Surely, you don't have them 9 spots apart? Or Ellis and Quarry?
Just because a fighter is #4 or #5 in one era doesn't mean that he isn't as good as someone who is #1,2 or 3 in another. Some eras are better in certain weight classes than others. Surely you don't have the top 3 heavyweights of this incredibly weak current era higher than McVey?
Another thing to keep in mind is that in some eras the difference between say the #1 and #2 fighters or the #4 and #5 fighters is very little. In other era there might be a huge drop off. You don't seem to be taking these things into consideration.

Sorry if you are losing patience with the arguement that Wills wasn't in his prime against McVey, but you haven't said much to refute it. In your last post you did claim that Wills wasn't in his prime until 1916 when he had the upper hand against Langford. Did it occur to you that perhaps this was because by 1916 that Langford was declining?

I mentioned why I think Wills was in his prime when McVey beat him in 1914. He wasn't a kid (he was 25) he a fair amount of fighting experience (26 official fights) and he had already proven himself against good competition ( he had already beaten Langford and Jeannette).
Langford did knockout Wills later in 1914, but as most people (including yourself) believe, Langford was the better fighter so that shouldn't be too much of a surprise.

If you truly believe that Wills was green when he lost to McVey, than that has to be a very embarrassing loss for Langford to lose to Wills because that was before McVey fought Wills. Yet you have Langford as the #8 heavyweight of all time.

Your comparison of some fighters of some 1930's fighters (Schmeling, Louis,Schmeling,Sharkey,Baer,Carnera,Schaaf,Loughran,Hamas,and Levinsky) to the Langford-Wills-Langford-McVey group isn't very valid.

Langford-Wills-Jeannette-McVey were all very competitive with each other. They also had fairly even record against other fighters.

In the other group, Louis was far superior. He avenged the loss to Schmeling, din't lose to anyone else near his prime, dominated the others in this group that he fought, and had the best record against others of this group. Levinsky is by far the worst. He had a poor record against the rest and had by far the worst record against other opponents. Some of the rest of the guys are pretty close.

Apparently you feel the need to say that I don't know boxing because I don't agree with you, but I don't feel the need to say that to people that I disagree with.
I tried to find out all of the information that I can ( using boxrec record as a tool, imperfect as it is) and to use logic. The opinions I have on based on this. When others challenge a make a point that I make, I respond to it as clearly as I can. I don't just repeat the same thing over and over, act as if the other person didn't say anything to challenge my point, if they did, and then get impatient that they don't agree with me.

I would be happy to list my all time rankings. How far do you want me to go, Top 25? Top 50? farther?

Ambling Alp wrote:Sometimes two fighters of the same era are so even, such as Jeannette and McVey. They probably should be ranked near each other. Walcott and Charles is another example. Surely, you don't have them 9 spots apart? Or Ellis and Quarry?
Just because a fighter is #4 or #5 in one era doesn't mean that he isn't as good as someone who is #1,2 or 3 in another. Some eras are better in certain weight classes than others. Surely you don't have the top 3 heavyweights of this incredibly weak current era higher than McVey?
Another thing to keep in mind is that in some eras the difference between say the #1 and #2 fighters or the #4 and #5 fighters is very little. In other era there might be a huge drop off. You don't seem to be taking these things into consideration.

Sorry if you are losing patience with the arguement that Wills wasn't in his prime against McVey, but you haven't said much to refute it. In your last post you did claim that Wills wasn't in his prime until 1916 when he had the upper hand against Langford. Did it occur to you that perhaps this was because by 1916 that Langford was declining?

I mentioned why I think Wills was in his prime when McVey beat him in 1914. He wasn't a kid (he was 25) he a fair amount of fighting experience (26 official fights) and he had already proven himself against good competition ( he had already beaten Langford and Jeannette).
Langford did knockout Wills later in 1914, but as most people (including yourself) believe, Langford was the better fighter so that shouldn't be too much of a surprise.

If you truly believe that Wills was green when he lost to McVey, than that has to be a very embarrassing loss for Langford to lose to Wills because that was before McVey fought Wills. Yet you have Langford as the #8 heavyweight of all time.

Your comparison of some fighters of some 1930's fighters (Schmeling, Louis,Schmeling,Sharkey,Baer,Carnera,Schaaf,Loughran,Hamas,and Levinsky) to the Langford-Wills-Langford-McVey group isn't very valid.

Langford-Wills-Jeannette-McVey were all very competitive with each other. They also had fairly even record against other fighters.

In the other group, Louis was far superior. He avenged the loss to Schmeling, din't lose to anyone else near his prime, dominated the others in this group that he fought, and had the best record against others of this group. Levinsky is by far the worst. He had a poor record against the rest and had by far the worst record against other opponents. Some of the rest of the guys are pretty close.

Apparently you feel the need to say that I don't know boxing because I don't agree with you, but I don't feel the need to say that to people that I disagree with.
I tried to find out all of the information that I can ( using boxrec record as a tool, imperfect as it is) and to use logic. The opinions I have on based on this. When others challenge a make a point that I make, I respond to it as clearly as I can. I don't just repeat the same thing over and over, act as if the other person didn't say anything to challenge my point, if they did, and then get impatient that they don't agree with me.

I would be happy to list my all time rankings. How far do you want me to go, Top 25? Top 50? farther?

Fine Alp. To be honest I don't see value in continuing this discussion. However, I would be interested in your top 50 (or top 100?). I posted mine some time ago but I would make some revisons; so if you start a thread with your top 50 I'll add mine.

Cheers,
P