BoxRec

http://www.sports-ratings.com/fights/he ... ating.html


I found this on the net.

Does it sound reasonable?

Does anyone have a list of the fighters who were rated #1 in the world during their careers?

No, it's far from reasonable and I only read the first twelve.

I made it to #66 saw Povotkin above Bugner and gave up (I daresay that will raise some smiles)
Ingemaar is lower

subjective I guess

hope people treat it as such

Nice to see Carnera cracking that top 25.

Bit worried that Dempsey is sneaking into that top 50.

Already puking in my mouth at #20 or so.

coreygardner wrote:http://www.sports-ratings.com/fights/he ... ating.html


I found this on the net.

Does it sound reasonable?

Does anyone have a list of the fighters who were rated #1 in the world during their careers?

The list is a joke.

I stopped at #16, with Frazier rated behind Tunney and Patterson.

Ali's peak win was over Spinks?

Archie Moore, as great as he was, is the #7 all-time heavyweight? Not a chance.

Marciano, as great as he was, is the #2 all-time heavyweight? Uh, no.

Walcott in the Top 10? Sorry, no.

Charles at #6? Sorry, Mr. Charles.

This list, at least through the Top 10, was put together by someone with a serious '50s bias, imo.

Looked a little further, Dempsey is #50.

you're right, he shouldn't crack the top 100.

I thought this was quite ambitius to make a top 500 list BUT anybody can just write down the names of 500 boxers and call it a "list"

for one thing Bob fitzsimmons, Tommy Burns, Marvin Hart, James J Jefferies (at 207!!!) and Jess Willard all of whom are world champions are bellow Brian fornicating Nielsen

I have not looked, but can already see it's bad.

Yancey...to the woodshed with you. Charles at #6 is not insane. And actually is the best call I've seen from these out takes. Granted he usually does not show up that high. But I think a case can be made that is not divorced from sensibility.

Holy crap. How can this be? Only a computer could get it this wrong.

Here are my favorites....some are included to show juxtaposition.

23 Zero Carnera top 25?
35 Zora Foley ten slots under zero?
44 Leon Spinks top 50?
46 Elmer Ray top 50?
48 Jerry Quarry barely top 50?
54 Joe Jeanette not top 50?
98 Michael Moorer just to give context
103 George Chuvalo Seriously not top 100?
123 Nicolay Valuev
152 Brian Nielson This high?
153 Bob Fitzsimmons This is a felony!!!
166 Jimmy Ellis eh...ok maybe but I would say higher.
205 James Jeffries Pleeeease.
290 Boone Kirkland Maybe....
296 Peter Jackson WTF? How did he find his way to the basement?
468 James J Corbett I don't rate him highly, but this guy hates him.

The biggest travesty is John Ruiz at # 190. He should be top ten if not top five.

Well let's face it John has a HUGe advantage over the competition.

The choices for "highest-rated win" are certainly intriguing. Some of them make sense but Sam Langford's best win was Bill Tate when he also beat Harry Wills? Danny Williams' best win was Audley Harrison when he also beat Mike Tyson? Ali's best win was #45 Leon Spinks when he also beat #7, #11, #12, #15, #16, #30 and #35?

Puzzling.

i'm not going to look but with the comments so far i might make the top 250

Looks like the computer used ratings by Ring Magazine according to the months in their journal, which makes this a farce.

Good to see Henry Akinwande make the top ten.

The best thing that can be said about this list is the effort that was put it to it... But having Jack Dempsey outside the top 10-15 is laughable whatever way you choose to measure them.

And Moore is too high.

And that's just for starters.

I can't see any boxing historian or knowledgeable fan regarding this list than anything else than a complete joke.
It looks like something that a non-boxing fan would put together by using a computer.
There are very few signs of actual historical or boxing knowledge here - I'm inclined to think that the boxers who actually are in or around the right spot landed there by coincidence.

This is a shocking list. Once you see. Wlad in top ten you know it's not serious. Wads never beaten a top 30 ranked heavyweight. Wlad and Vitali need to fight each other before either can break into the top 20. The winner would go up. Loser would go right down out of the top 40. As it stands neither top 20.

Curious as to how he got the data that he based this off of. Did he programmatically parse BoxRec for days in order to compile it all?

I can't believe Ken Norton is at #30. After Max Schmelling? It just shows that when ranking best heavyweights of all time, it's impossible to satisfy every fan's opinion. The most accurate, best rankings for heavyweights always have to be broken up into different eras/decades of boxing. You lose intelligibility, and credibility by making a ridiculous list like this. Thanks!

Povetkin