Boxing Grading School

[Ezzard]

Barry

What are the sub-criteria for In-Ring skills?

Here are some ideas...

Size (long reach - probably more salient when looking at the Heavyweights)
Jab
Power
Chin (how easy they were to stun, drop and KO)
Stamina (how long could they keep up a fast pace; did their eprformance drop off significantly in a fight)
Defence
Durability (prone to cuts and swellings; how likely they are to recover after being hurt)
Footwork
Hand speed
Accuracy
Ring Intelligence (can they adapt; do they pick the rigth strategies; can they adopt different styles)
Heart
Consistency (did they turn up for some fights out of shape or unfocused...especially during their prime years)

[Goodnight, Irene]

It's a very good list Ezz wrote up, but I would dispute using Jab as a criterion. I mean, if you include a punch, you have to include them all, IMO. The jab is intentionally not the best weapon of many fighters --- no individual punch should constitute a criterion for rating a fighter, IMO. Size, too. I don't think you can really turn that into a criterion, even if, like a good jab, it may impact the fight. I mean, what are you gonna do? Give someone an 8.5/10 for, "Size?" LOL.

[Goodnight, Irene]

The point of this thread is for every poster be able to express just how they accurate rate a boxer.

The criteria being used:

In-Ring Skills (also acknowledge their vulnerabilities as a fighter: weak chin, weak stamina, etc.)

Resume

Head-to-Head Match-Up "Strength"

You can either post an overall grade using these three points of criteria or you can break it down and explain why said person deserves your rating.

I'll start with the decade of fighters that just passed us (2000-2009, since it's freshest in our mind) and then we can work our way back in history.

If their career starting before 2000, that's fine. I'm going to be posting fighters that were in top form during those years (I don't want you to grade that person during those years, just overall). For example: I'm going to leave out Mike Tyson, because he wasn't any where near top form, but, I'll include MAB, because even though he faded towards the second half of the decade, he still had great years during 2000-2004. If a fighter's career is still going (either still during their prime or at the tail-end of their career) just either go with how things are as of this day, or how their prime years were.

I'll start with five names, then after they've received a good amount of feedback. Then I'll go with five more.

They are:

Lennox Lewis

Roy Jones Jr.

Oscar De La Hoya

Kosta Tszyu

Erik Morales

I will use Ezz's criteria (sans jab & size) on an out-of-10 scale. 1 is weak, 5 is average, 10 is supreme. For those fighters who hopped classes, I will grade them at what I feel were their best weights. Those are Jones (SMW), De La Hoya (JWW), & Morales (FW).

Lennox Lewis...

Power: 8
Chin: 4
Stamina: 5
Defense: 8
Durability: 3
Handspeed: 5
Accuracy: 8
Ring Intelligence: 9
Heart: 5

Roy Jones...

Power: 8
Chin: 6
Stamina: 8
Defense: 9
Durability: 7
Handspeed: 10
Accuracy: 9
Ring Intelligence: 8
Heart: 5

Oscar De La Hoya...

Power: 10
Chin: 7
Stamina: 7
Defense: 7
Durability: 7
Handspeed: 9
Accuracy: 8
Ring Intelligence: 4
Heart: 8

Kostya Tszyu...

Power: 8
Chin: 7
Stamina: 8
Defense: 4
Durability: 8
Handspeed: 7
Accuracy: 9
Ring Intelligence: 7
Heart: 7

Erik Morales...

Power: 7
Chin: 9
Stamina: 9
Defense: 5
Durability: 10
Handspeed: 7
Accuracy: 7
Ring Intelligence: 6
Heart: 10

[Ezzard]

It's a very good list Ezz wrote up, but I would dispute using Jab as a criterion. I mean, if you include a punch, you have to include them all, IMO. The jab is intentionally not the best weapon of many fighters --- no individual punch should constitute a criterion for rating a fighter, IMO. Size, too. I don't think you can really turn that into a criterion, even if, like a good jab, it may impact the fight. I mean, what are you gonna do? Give someone an 8.5/10 for, "Size?" LOL.

Jab is very important at HW but perhaps not so important at the lower weights.

Again I'd put size in at HW because all other things being equal size is an advantage.

[Goodnight, Irene]

It's a very good list Ezz wrote up, but I would dispute using Jab as a criterion. I mean, if you include a punch, you have to include them all, IMO. The jab is intentionally not the best weapon of many fighters --- no individual punch should constitute a criterion for rating a fighter, IMO. Size, too. I don't think you can really turn that into a criterion, even if, like a good jab, it may impact the fight. I mean, what are you gonna do? Give someone an 8.5/10 for, "Size?" LOL.

Jab is very important at HW but perhaps not so important at the lower weights.

Again I'd put size in at HW because all other things being equal size is an advantage.

Size is an advantage, but how are you going to assign a score to it?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

You can't and you shouldn't.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Right.

[Ezzard]

You can't take this too serious...

And you'd have to compare fighters in their own era...

I mean how high can guys score on stamina and durability when they only fight 2 12-rounders a year?

Also, I once did a thread on who had the fastest hands and, other than the usual greats, most people picked fighters like Camacho, Taylor, Leonard, Mayweather, Jones, etc...all fighters from recent times...

Now, you can't tell me people are getting quicker naturally.