How often to you overhaul your rankings?

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 06 Oct 2006, 09:23

Dec, interesting post that should stir a great deal of debate.

I constantly tweak my rankings, but haven’t done any overhauls since I first laid out my spreadsheet format for assessing head to head on one worksheet and skill on another worksheet. Each is then combined on a third worksheet, giving the final ranking. Kind of…

I’m a huge Jimmy Young fan and now have him ranked in my top 30 all-time. While I think 16 may be a bit high, at his best he was nearly un-hittable and it’s hard to imagine any HW in history having an easy fight with him. I really don’t think the Foreman fight was close, although the scores were close. It was competitive, but Young really controlled the beast in that fight, and for all the excuses given by Foreman fans, the George that stepped in the ring with Young was finely conditioned and very well prepared.

I also understand your respect for Byrd, who is a skilled fighter with a great heart. But I think the flaws exposed in the first half of the Vitali fight, as well as against Wlad and even the Big O (when Byrd was abit past his prime) tell me that he would have had problems against fighters with an educated jab. Of course, historically that’s a pretty short list of HWs.

Should be an interesting thread.

sockdolager · Post by **sockdolager** » 06 Oct 2006, 09:39

Here is a clip of the 5th rnd of the Byrd Ibeabuchi fight. That left hook/uppercut was thunderous! 2:15 seconds in if you want to see the shot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jTGymMrvxU

As to your question, I really have only started to compile lists over the last year or so but I have changed them around a bit based on seeing new footage and reading more about fighters.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 06 Oct 2006, 09:41

I've been thinking about this myself. I have managed to get myself 5 basic categories.

Skill
Heart
Physical talent
Achievement
Longevity

In each of these categories I've tried to find sub categories.

Skill

Jab
Defence
Footwork
Inside fighting
Outside fighting
Finishing
body punching

Heart

Ability to come from behind and win
Survival instinct when hurt
Response to adversity

Physical Talent

Size (includes reach)
hand speed
foot speed
punching power
stamina
endurance
chin
suscpetibility to cuts
recuperative powers

Achievement

Who they fought
The results
How they performed when losing
titles held (not counting alphabet titles as this skews the ratings)
How they performed when inexperienced.
How they performed when over the hill
Historical significance

Longevity

How long were they at the top

That's where I'm at so far. I am open to anything I've missed. I then need to find a way to weight the categories (e.g. who you fought should score more than how susceptible to cuts you are).

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 06 Oct 2006, 09:50

I revise my rankings whenever I'm swayed by an argument that is better than mine--I hope, at least.

As for Dec's post, I take issue with several things but first and foremeost with the Byrd ranking. It's incomprehensible to me how Dec can rank Byrd highly because of a "win" over an injured fighter who quit, but who had outboxed Byrd with one arm for most of the fight. The Vitali "win" was a fluke, it simply doesn't count.

Byrd could have been a very good light-heavyweight, but he chose to slug it out with the big guys and there he was never competitive at the highest level -- not even in this relatively poor era. Vlad made potato mash out of him twice in performances as dominating adn humiliating as they come, Vitali schooled him with one arm, limited slugger Ikeabuchi took him out cold, and Byrd couldn't even beat over-the-hill Golota and second- or third-rate McCline and Oquendo convincingly. On the plus side, one could argue in favor of points win against Holyfield, but Holy was miles over the hill and also severly injured, so this one doesn't count either. This leaves a narrow win over one-punch fighter David Tua, who lost 0-12 rounds to Lewis but managed to grab 4 or 5 rounds against the alleged master-boxer Byrd.

To make a long story short: this is not a resumee of a fighter who should be anywhere near the top 50 ATG, probably not even top 100. The heavyweight Byrd was always an abberation. As said, he could probably have done well at other weight classes that he chose to shun, presumably for financial reasons. Fair choice, but it also means that he wasted the chance to enter boxing history as more than a footnote.

Cheers,
P

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 06 Oct 2006, 09:59

pundit wrote:To make a long story short: this is not a resumee of a fighter who should be anywhere near the top 50 ATG, probably not even top 100.

I've got Byrd at 58.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 06 Oct 2006, 10:04

Decagon wrote:One time, Harold Lederman said that Chris Byrd was a better boxer than Jimmy Young. As far as pure boxing goes, he was. The two are about equal in my book, with Young having the better skills, and Byrd putting the skills together a little better.

And Lederman has to be right yeh??.

... can you see Byrd beating George Foreman??>.

... to rate Byrd as good as Young is pure nonsense!... take a look at their opposition for Christsakes!...

8)

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 06 Oct 2006, 10:09

pundit wrote:I revise my rankings whenever I'm swayed by an argument that is better than mine--I hope, at least.

As for Dec's post, I take issue with several things but first and foremeost with the Byrd ranking. It's incomprehensible to me how Dec can rank Byrd highly because of a "win" over an injured fighter who quit, but who had outboxed Byrd with one arm for most of the fight. The Vitali "win" was a fluke, it simply doesn't count.

Byrd could have been a very good light-heavyweight, but he chose to slug it out with the big guys and there he was never competitive at the highest level -- not even in this relatively poor era. Vlad made potato mash out of him twice in performances as dominating adn humiliating as they come, Vitali schooled him with one arm, limited slugger Ikeabuchi took him out cold, and Byrd couldn't even beat over-the-hill Golota and second- or third-rate McCline and Oquendo convincingly. On the plus side, one could argue in favor of points win against Holyfield, but Holy was miles over the hill and also severly injured, so this one doesn't count either. This leaves a narrow win over one-punch fighter David Tua, who lost 0-12 rounds to Lewis but managed to grab 4 or 5 rounds against the alleged master-boxer Byrd.

To make a long story short: this is not a resumee of a fighter who should be anywhere near the top 50 ATG, probably not even top 100. The heavyweight Byrd was always an abberation. As said, he could probably have done well at other weight classes that he chose to shun, presumably for financial reasons. Fair choice, but it also means that he wasted the chance to enter boxing history as more than a footnote.

Cheers,
P

Good to see someone else here with some sense!...

I would rate Jimmy Ellis well above Byrd to name just one... who did Byrd ever cleanly beat??... to say that Byrd used his skills better than Young is absurd in the extreme... next we'll be hearing that he was better than Tunney etc!... :( 8)

amongst the all time heavies Byrd is scraping the bottom!...

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 06 Oct 2006, 10:10

Decagon wrote:Ezzard, but how important are those criteria when they don't win their owner's matches?
Cesar Bazan was huge for a lightweight, but he never used his height to his advantage.

Mike Tyson had a lot of heart in defeat, but never showed heart in winning a fight.

George Foreman had a lot of skill, but he often threw it away in the heat of the battle.

Rocky Marciano was susceptible to cuts, but he never lost a fight on cuts.

Okay, good points, they are factors which I hope when weighted correctly will balance out. Marciano could be cut so it was a weakness. But he's not going to score as low as Henry Cooper. But it's possible that over 1,000 fights Marciano is more liekly to get hindered by a cut or beaten because of a cut than Ali is.

In terms of the Foreman example I obviously have missed the Ring intelligence category off so thanks for that.

Tyson showed some heart in defeat but also captiualted at times and would go into his shell when hurt. The heart he showed in the Lewis defeat is worth a few points, maybe if he'd have been in with a lesser fighter it might have helped him turn it around. I guess all I can do is make as honest an attempt as I can.

What I like about the category approach is that I can pump in my marks and the process decides who is ranked highest. It's hardly definitive but then waht is???

I have been spurred on by John L's methodology and I wanted to come up with a different approach. i'd really like to put a list together and have everyone here rank them but it's probably practically impossible.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 06 Oct 2006, 10:59

Decagon wrote: For me, ranking fighters isn't about an article in a magazine that gets you X-amount of dollars; it's a way of life.

Great line. It means a lot to me too. These gusy put it on the line and they deserve as good as an appreciation as we can muster.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 06 Oct 2006, 11:28

The Great John L wrote:
pundit wrote:To make a long story short: this is not a resumee of a fighter who should be anywhere near the top 50 ATG, probably not even top 100.
I've got Byrd at 58.

I haven't ranked until 58...

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 06 Oct 2006, 12:22

Decagon wrote:So, I guess you haven't ranked the Bitschko brothers yet, right?

Right. They are not in my top 30, this is as far as I got.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 06 Oct 2006, 12:40

Decagon wrote:I'd laugh at anyone who had either of them in their top 50. Here are a few ideas I've toyed with, but dropped:
Ranking Harry Greb over Gene Tunney at 175

Ranking Harry Greb in the top 3 at 175

Ranking Jersey Joe Walcott at 175

Not ranking Rocky Marciano in the top 10 at heavyweight

Not ranking Rocky Graziano in the top 40 at middleweight (actually a good idea)

Not ranking Ray Robinson in the top 5 at middleweight

Not ranking Carlos Monzon in the top 30, pound-for-pound

Ranking Michael Spinks #2 at light heavyweight

Ranking Michael Spinks in the top 20 at heavyweight

Not ranking Floyd Patterson in the top 30 at heavyweight

Not ranking Eder Jofre in the top 10, pound-for-pound

Not ranking Jimmy Wilde the #1 flyweight

Comparing modern fighters like Chang and Lopez with Wilde

Ranking Roberto Duran or Henry Amrstrong in the top 40 at 160

Not ranking Julio Cesar Chavez in the top 10 at 135

Ranking Pernell Whitaker over Willie Pep, pound-for-pound

Ranking Sandy Saddler in the top 10, pound-for-pound

Ignoring all tall fighters

Ranking Henry Armstrong #1 at 126, 135 and pound-for-pound

Ranking Joe Louis #1 at heavyweight

Ignoring almost every fighter who was in his prime before the Walker Law

Hitting fighters pretty hard for using the upright, English stance

Jack Sharkey in the top 10 at heavyweight

Jack Johnson all over the place

Gene Tunney over Jack Dempsey

Sam Langford not a top-30 heavyweight
You might say, "no," to all of these, but I've enjoyed considering them.

Well soem fo these seem sensible enough to me. I actually adhere to some of them. Other than your Sharkey line the one that sticks out for me is Mike Spinks as a top 20 HW - no chance...

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 06 Oct 2006, 12:49

Decagon wrote:So, I guess you haven't ranked the Bitschko brothers yet, right?

Its funny how you run down Vitali, yet he was the only decent fighter Byrd ever beat!... and that was by injury!... and you rate Byrd higher than Young!!!....

I'd hate to see your ratings when you havent been working on them!!!... 8)

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 06 Oct 2006, 12:55

Decagon wrote:Right now I have Spinks at #21 at heavyweight. He wins 8 out of 10 against Sam Langford.

I rank a lot of contenders from the 1970s and alpha champions above Mike Spinks at HW. Maybe I should try putting somethign down formally and see whre he comes out.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 06 Oct 2006, 12:58

Decagon wrote:I'd laugh at anyone who had either of them in their top 50.

Vitali in the top 50: probably (at the low end). Vlad in the top 50 once he calls it a career: possibly. Byrd in top 50: hell no.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 06 Oct 2006, 12:59

Here's one I'm considering... Emile Griffith as the #2 welterweight. He has a great record and beat quality opposition. Some fo his fights are just over 147 but are clsoe enough for me to count (ie 149).

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 06 Oct 2006, 13:04

if you rank jersey joe walcott at 175lb, then u might as well rank ali at 175lb, because both were full fledged heavyweights there whole career and the only time both weighed under 175lb was when they were under 18 years old.

walcott was a heavyweight his whole career. even when walcott was tangling with tiger jack fox in 1938, walcott was weighing 190lb.

dec,

marciano did not almost lose to charles. he came close to losing on cuts to charles, big difference. marciano beat the shit out of charles and he would have done the same if charles had given marciano a title shot in 51(i think ezz's camp wanted no part of marciano in 1951).

my opinion is you can only hold cuts against a fighter if they actually lost a fight due to cuts. rocky marciano never did, so it cant be held against him. jose napoles did about 3 times, so this should get held against him.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 06 Oct 2006, 13:06

bryd at 23 is a ridiculous ranking. he struggled vastly in the weakest era in heavyweight history......top 50 probably but nowhere near top 25.

i think jimmy young was in a whole different class than bryd.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 06 Oct 2006, 13:08

dec ranking byrd at 23 but not ranking floyd patterson in top 30 heavyweight is ridiculous man. patterson would have killed bryd.

Jack Sharkey in the top 10 at heavyweight

you love sharkey dont you. i rank my man jersey joe over sharkey, i think jersey joe would have beat sharkey and i think better of walcotts accomplishments, legacy.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 06 Oct 2006, 13:23

Decagon wrote:The weakest eras were the 1930s and the 1950s.

yea right buddy. chris bryds era was far weaker.

the 1950s had

sonny liston
floyd patterson
rocky marciano
jersey joe walcott
ezzard charles
archie moore
joe louis
harold johnson
eddie machen
cleveland williams
roland lastarza
clarence henry
zora folley
ingemar johannsen
nino valdez
earl walls
bob baker
bob satterfield
rex layne
mike dejohn
harold carter
johnny summerlin
young jack johnson
tommy hurricane jackson
coley wallace
kid mathews
don cockell
heinz neuhas
and many more

thats a strong decade

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 06 Oct 2006, 13:50

Decagon wrote:The weakest eras were the 1930s and the 1950s.

you're joking?.... Byrds era is was far weaker than the 30s and 50s... I dont see any Listons, Marcinaos, Williams or Pattersons etc going around....

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 06 Oct 2006, 14:23

silkov wrote:
Decagon wrote:The weakest eras were the 1930s and the 1950s.

you're joking?.... Byrds era is was far weaker than the 30s and 50s... I dont see any Listons, Marcinaos, Williams or Pattersons etc going around....

30s are the second best era after the 70s in my book.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 06 Oct 2006, 16:36

pundit wrote:
silkov wrote:
Decagon wrote:The weakest eras were the 1930s and the 1950s.

you're joking?.... Byrds era is was far weaker than the 30s and 50s... I dont see any Listons, Marcinaos, Williams or Pattersons etc going around....
30s are the second best era after the 70s in my book.

They're certainly superior to the 90s by some way... but then how do you argue with someone who denegrates Cleve Williams??...

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 06 Oct 2006, 16:37

Decagon wrote:Cleveland Williams? Come on.

Byrd wouldnt have lasted 3 rounds with Williams... your problem is you know much less about boxing than you think you do...

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 06 Oct 2006, 19:43

Decagon wrote:
silkov wrote:
Decagon wrote:Cleveland Williams? Come on.
Byrd wouldnt have lasted 3 rounds with Williams... your problem is you know much less about boxing than you think you do...
Hey, Cleveland Williams was a pretty good fighter, but he wouldn't have beaten Byrd in three.

No, more like 2... first time he hit him clean... and Cleve had fast hands as well...