BoxRec

I was viewing your ratings of the "All Time Great Fighters" Heavyweights, and I came to the conclusion that while rating these fighters might be fun .... it is in fact impossible to rate them. An example of this would be to rate one of my all time favorite fighters, Floyd Patterson, rated (4th) in your ratings over the likes of Sonny Liston (14th) who knocked him out twice, as well as George Foreman (19th) and Lennox Lewis (11th) is extremely questionable. Who knows that would have happened if another of my all time favorites fighters Rudell Stitch (173rd) would have lived to fight the great Emile Griffith (3rd)? One can only wonder? According to your website, the ratings are made through calculation made by a computer using boxing records of the fighter as well as his opponent records. Remember the Star Trek episode when Captain Kirk beat the computer? Consequently, a computer can't judge what a human being can do.... Still your ratings are a fun thing to look at and argue yourself with. Boxing Records is a fun site and on of my favorites. What is your take on this?

.....your topic says it all.....rating the all-time greats is impossible....it's fun..but when can't be conclusive----especially when they are rated against each other or in numerical list....i.e. joe jones #5.....al jock itch at #32...mostly a harmless pastime...

















3











...yeah, it's fun but it is impossible...especially when they are rated in a list i.e joe jones #32; sam jock itch # 12...

Agreed. Too many variables involved, especially the deeper you go. It's fun from time to time, though.

I think it's possible to put the fighters into reasonable tiers and then it just becomes a matter of opinion. I'd call it highly subjective more than impossible. There will always be differences of opinion, but I'm quite comfortable saying Sam Langford was greater than Oscar delaHoya. The Boxrec rankings are probably the worst I've ever seen, so that's not the best example.

Also..."rating" them does not account for "anomolies"

And boxing is riddled with such nights. You can fill a book with them.

So yes....on a very strange night.....Carnera could beat Louis.....as he did with Sharkey.


But the odds? Would be Ass...tronomical.


Ass was Baer/Braddock and Tyson/Jimmy D

Louis would never take a dive.

as time goes on and the more i read, i'm beginning to consider sam langford as possibly the best middleweight ever.
of course its impossible to have an accurate list since we have not enough footage of those we suppose to be among the best ever. just a bit of fun and its more of an exercise in allowing other people to have opinions that conflict with our own

You just have to realize that it is never a finished product. You also have to be unbiased towards different eras, weight classes, nations, and individuals.

Some people get caught up in the film problem. How dod you rate fighters that there is little/no film of? You look at their record and take into the circumstances of each fight.
Sometimes is a little film of a fighters is a bad thing. They may have looked far better or worse than their typical fight.

I've come to the conclusion as a fan of the sport that anybody, no matter the weight class, who makes the top twenty could have beaten any one of the top twenty on any given night. The question comes down to, who would win the most matches in a series? That is when it gets difficult, but as stated before, you can make an argument (and a strong one) that anyone in the top twenty could have beaten anyone on that list at any given time.

HomicideHenry wrote:I've come to the conclusion as a fan of the sport that anybody, no matter the weight class, who makes the top twenty could have beaten any one of the top twenty on any given night. The question comes down to, who would win the most matches in a series? That is when it gets difficult, but as stated before, you can make an argument (and a strong one) that anyone in the top twenty could have beaten anyone on that list at any given time.

agree

I agree, it is impossible & purely down to opinions, which are NOT facts BTW.

Saadoffthedeck made a good point about ranking fighters in tiers; that is entirely right, but beyond that, the variables are far too great.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:There will always be differences of opinion, but I'm quite comfortable saying Sam Langford was greater than Oscar delaHoya.

WHAT?



























































































































Just kidding.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Some people get caught up in the film problem. How dod you rate fighters that there is little/no film of? You look at their record and take into the circumstances of each fight.
Sometimes is a little film of a fighters is a bad thing. They may have looked far better or worse than their typical fight.

It's so frustrating talking to someone trying to denigrate a Greb because of 30 seconds of sparring on horrible film. That's something nobody takes into account, the poor quality of the film. The advances in that area are infinite.