BoxRec

Inspired by the Tyson, 13th, vs Holy, 14th, debate:

P4P:
Greb 2, Tunney 20
Langford 6, JJohnson, 19
Duran 7, SRLeonard 12
Moore 12, Charles 17
Dempsey 18, Tunney 20

Fly:
Wilde 1, Villa 2

Banty:
Jofre 1, Harada 10

Feather:
Pep 1, Saddler 2

Middle:
Greb 1, Flowers 12

LH:
Moore 1, Charles 2

Heavy:
Louis 1, Rocky 5, Charles 17
Ali 2, Holmes 5
Dempsey 4, Tunney 11
Langford 15, Wills 18
Corbett 19, Fitz 20

IBRO rankings of course and plenty more examples, but these the most obvious.

Discuss.............

Mosley would probably get the all-time nod over Forrest --- interesting, because unlike many other instances, there weren't really any serious extenuating circumstances (past-prime, bad time in one's career, etc.) in or near their respective peaks, as well as in the amateurs, Forrest owned Mosley. About the most you could detract from the wins is to say Mosley peaked as a Lightweight, & Welter was Forrest's natural division. Even that's shaky, given Mosley's scintillating form as a 147lber, circa 1999-2002.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Mosley would probably get the all-time nod over Forrest --- interesting, because unlike many other instances, there weren't really any serious extenuating circumstances (past-prime, bad time in one's career, etc.) in or near their respective peaks, as well as in the amateurs, Forrest owned Mosley. About the most you could detract from the wins is to say Mosley peaked as a Lightweight, & Welter was Forrest's natural division. Even that's shaky, given Mosley's scintillating form as a 147lber, circa 1999-2002.

- Checking in on the Oscar/Shane debate, looks like Oscar is ranked higher by this forum than Shane in spite of losing twice.

i always thought mosley was better than DLH who is over-rated IMO

Mosley didn't beat De La Hoya twice, any more than Ali beat Norton twice. Fight II, 2003, was a patent robbery. Hearns-Barkely fits the bill as another instance, btw.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Mosley didn't beat De La Hoya twice, any more than Ali beat Norton twice. Fight II, 2003, was a patent robbery. Hearns-Barkely fits the bill as another instance, btw.

- Always gonna be patent robberies as long as there is no coherent, uniform way to judge a bout.

Hate to be "glib" about it, but my way of scoring diminishes the effects of hairsplitting close rounds and awards fights to clear winners. At any rate, Oscar pretty well balanced out by controversial decisions he wins and loses. Nobody doubt's Shane's losses save the Forrest rematch which should've properly been ruled a no contest, suspension of both "fighters" along with a fine if the ref wasn't going to DQ the lot.

Re: Rankings. Not surprising. A fighter has a great career at a particular weight and loses to a younger fighter who doesn't go on to have as great a career. Or, in the case of Moore-Charles, the higher ranked fighter loses earlier in his career and then goes on to greatness. Or in the case of Jofre-Harada, one fighter has a huge homeowner advantage in a place where hometown fighters almost never lose decisions.
Take Duran-Leonard. They split when Leonard was in or near his prime and Duran was 29 and had moved up in weight after a career as possibly the most dominating lightweight in history. Both went on to win other titles, with Leonard having the bigger "name" wins over Hearns and Hagler. By the time they fought again, Duran was old and fat and pretty much done.
Charles was a great fighter but he never got the chance for the lt. heavy title. Moore was a legendary, long-time champion. Re: Charles- Louis. Louis was an old man by the time they fought. Same with Louis-Rocky.
If conquerors were always ranked ahead of the fighters they vanquished, Trevor Berbick would be ranked ahead of Ali and Ralph Jones would be ranked ahead of Sugar Ray Robinson