PULLING RANK - The Highest Rated Boxers of All Time

I don't really see any problems with the lists.

Look pretty accurate to me.

Plus, there's a Taras Bidenko mention. That deserves extra credit.

 

haha, way to go Cupey. ::

 

It's Monday Morning yet U're ALREADY Drinking, Huh???...


REED::

 

I wish I was.

Instead, I'm just faking it til Double shows up.

 

At least Tracy Callis was awful in a really funny kind of way. This is just wrong.

Take this down Cupey.

 

Well, with him, you obviously knew his agenda.

With this writer....well, he just seems stupid.

 

first of all, there is very little opinion in the list from the author. This is a list that he compiled overtime from all of the other lists that already exist. He just simply created a point system. He doesn't agree with the list 100%, but the list is what it is. If Ray Leonard was in the p4p list of all of the magazines and sanctioning bodies for 3 years and Felix Trinidad was in there for 4-years, then Tito would be rated high. That's how it works.

C

 

Chris Henry should be #1 at light heavy.

 

Right, at least with Callis he just turned off his TV once Color came into being.

With this guy, there's no pinpointed bias, just an overwhelming lack of common sense

 

Which makes it a terribly flawed system that should have been re-done to begin with. Just because something fits some sort of points system somewhere doesn't make it ok to take seriously.

 

Thats objectively dumb.

Ray Leonard holds wins over Hearns, Hagler, Duran...all of whom are ranked higher on the P4P lists as well as ranked for divisions.

Its just a very poorly crafted thing, regardless of criteria.

 

There is very little here dumb. Can you please read the details before in the article before you continue to speak. If I compile a list based off of the sanctioning bodies and magazines, it's simply facts. I don't have to agree with them. The fact is that these guys were on p4p lists or in sanctioning bodies Top whatever longer than Leonard. That can't be disputed. Do you want a copy of the work to back it up?

Do I have Leonard over these guys? I have them all about the same.

 

So Instead of ADMIRING Leonard for his INCREDIBLE Body of Work (N Such a LIMITED Amount of Fights), U're PENALIZING him???:dunno: ...N about 40 Fights, Leonard has an ALL-TIME GREAT Resume...His Career is about QUALITY over Quantity...

DeLa was Probably Ranked Loooooooooonger than Leonard as Well...Doesn't Mean He Should B Ranked HIGHER...

ANY "Points System" that Completely NEGLECTS Leonard @ 147, Pryor @ 140, Whittaker @ 135 or Floyd @ 130 CANNOT B Taken Seriously, Cupey...This Article Basically SHITS on the Merits of Using the "Points System"...It BELITTLES it's Own Criteria...


REED

 

to make it easier for those who didn't read it to understand what it ACTUALLY SAYS IN THE ARTICLE:

Each time a boxer appeared in the top five, title or not, they were awarded an equal amount of points. Fighters ranked from 6 to 10 received a lower score. I only tabulated scores for the top 5 when it came to junior divisions. Extra credit was given to those who contended in more than one weight division. No credit was awarded to fighters who were inactive; be it for military service or for those doing a bid.

That's it. Not much wiggle room here except giving extra credit for fighting in more than one division. It's a simply tally of information available. You could do it too if you took the time to go through all of the magazine and sanctioning body rankings and the results would be the same.

Cupey

 

i get what cupey is saying, but the rhetoric question here is, was it really necessary to spend time and compiling such list that everyone would pretty much shit on? ::

 

agREED.

I see Cupey's point, and knew it was Jose's basis for providing the list (not that they're HIS rankings, just pointing out how fighters rated according to various sources through the years), which is why I merely read and moved on without discsussing. Most of the posts in the thread clearly overlooked the criteria for the rankings, and are mistaking it for the writers opinions. If anything, it shows how little time some regarded ATG's spent in a particular weight class, which frankly seems to be from where most of the disputes originate.

That said, the overall product looks incomplete, and poorly edited (if even edited at all) to boot. The system itself used to ranking them is severely flawed. To say someone ranked top 5 for, say 20 months will rank higher overall than a guy who was #1 for 18 months but then dropped from the rankings for whatever reason, is a recipe for disaster, since you're awarding the same amount of monthly points regardless of where in the Top 5 they resided.

The lists are a good idea in theory, as it removes subjectivity, not unlike Cliff's system behind (our) rankings. But THAT system works far better because it's based, for the most part, on merit. This isn't, it's merely buying into the suggestion that past/present rankings were on the up and up and not even partially (if not completely) dripping with corruption.

 

The POINT is, the END RESULT is Definitely FLAWED, Cupey...& It's FLAWED Because the Scoring System ITSELF is FLAWED...

Again, Holyfield Wasn't Ranked AT ALL @ Crusier...McCallum Wasn't Ranked AT ALL @ 154...Leonard Wasn't Ranked AT ALL @ 147...Whittaker Wasn't Ranked AT ALL @ 135...Floyd Wasn't Ranked AT ALL @ 130...

Do U NOT See a PROBLEM There???:dunno: ...If REED were Writing a An Article & Devised a Scoring Sytem to "Prove" Something, he'd have to RETHINK Using that Scoring System...

ANY Time U're Using a "Points System" that NEGLECTS that Many GREAT Fighters N the Divisions they're Probably BEST Known for, there's a PROBLEM...



REED

 

Good post. I understand that there is a system in place. The moral of the story, however, is the fact that the system he uses is complete ass.

 

LOL Personally I wouldn't have been able to accomplish this task. It tooks months of compiling. This guy named Goodrich has done similar things regarding strange facts of boxers. It takes a lot of energy and there is little reward in doing so. It's one of thoese things that you read and say "damn, who had that much free time" hahahahahaha. But he just had a kid so I guess he had free time at home. It was cool to see, but if it was a real p4p list of opinion everybody knows TITO WOULD BE #1 IN EVERY DIVISION.

C

 

Well there is your problem Reed. Jose isn't trying to prove anything. He's just compiling data. We both know that Holy would probably be #1 or #2 in our lists. But apparently it didn't work out that way when you tally up the ratings from all sources.

C

 

cupey's all time list would take about 5 seconds to compile.

1. tito
2 - rest. ? :dunno: i dont watch boxing

::

 

THAT'S IT!

TRACY CALLIS

Boxing fans have varied opinions as to which fighters were the greatest of all-time. Younger fans prefer the modern fighters. Older fans prefer the old timers. Other fans have mixed and more diversified views.

Those who favor the modern fighters argue that the men have gotten bigger, faster, and stronger over the years. They also point out that techniques have improved with the passing of time.

Those who favor the fighters of the earlier years contend that the men grew up in tougher times and were "hungrier," more rugged, better disciplined, and better conditioned.

I do not believe that all fighters and athletes necessarily get better with the passing years. Athletes do get bigger, faster, and stronger over time. Techniques improve too. But, that does not mean they are better. Different periods of history impart certain attitudes and practices due to the "temper of the times" and the conditions under which the people live. Athletic skills are affected by mental conditioning and discipline as well as physical attributes and techniques. Consequently, performance peaks and ebbs in different periods of history and fighters are better in some periods than they are in others.

It is my definite belief that different periods of history produced better fighters than other periods, but the very best fighters of all-time from any era could fight with each other on a competitive and "near-equal" basis.

In these rankings, I have included a man in several weight classes if I believe him to be among the greatest at that weight. For what it's worth, here is one man's opinion.

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=1><TBODY><TR><TD style="WIDTH: 295px" vAlign=top> Heavyweights:

[SIZE=+0]1. Jim Jeffries
2. Jack Johnson
3. Jack Dempsey
4. Joe Louis
5. Muhammad Ali
6. Gene Tunney
7. Jim Corbett
8. Sonny Liston
9. Rocky Marciano
10. Larry Holmes[/SIZE][SIZE=+0]
[/SIZE]</TD><TD style="WIDTH: 295px" vAlign=top>

Cruiserweights:

1. Jack Johnson
2. Jack Dempsey
3. Joe Louis
4. Gene Tunney
5. Jim Corbett
6. Rocky Marciano
7. John L. Sullivan
8. Peter Jackson
9. Bob Fitzsimmons
10. Tom Sharkey​

</TD></TR><TR><TD style="WIDTH: 295px" vAlign=top>

Light Heavyweights:​

1. Gene Tunney
2. Bob Fitzsimmons
3. Ezzard Charles
4. Sam Langford
5. Philadelphia Jack O’Brien
6. Harry Greb
7. Kid McCoy
8. Michael Spinks
9. Archie Moore
10. Bob Foster ​

</TD><TD style="WIDTH: 295px" vAlign=top>Middleweights:

1. Bob Fitzsimmons
2. Stanley Ketchel
3. Philadelphia Jack O’Brien
4. Harry Greb
5. Sugar Ray Robinson
6. Nonpareil Jack Dempsey
7. Kid McCoy
8. Tommy Ryan
9. Roy Jones Jr.
10. Mickey Walker ​

</TD></TR><TR><TD style="WIDTH: 295px" vAlign=top>

Welterweights:​

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Nonpareil Jack Dempsey
3. Kid McCoy
4. Tommy Ryan
5. Joe Walcott
6. Henry Armstrong
7. Sugar Ray Leonard
8. Mickey Walker
9. Tommy Hearns
10. Jack Britton
</TD><TD style="WIDTH: 295px" vAlign=top>

Lightweights:
​

[SIZE=+0]1. Benny Leonard
2. Joe Gans
3. Roberto Duran
4. Henry Armstrong
5. Aaron Pryor
6. Jack McAuliffe
7. Packey McFarland
8. Barney Ross
9. Tony Canzoneri
10* Pernell Whitaker
10* George "Kid" Lavigne​

* Tied​

[/SIZE]</TD></TR><TR><TD style="WIDTH: 295px" vAlign=top> Featherweights:

1. Henry Armstrong
2. Jem Driscoll
3. Terry McGovern
4. Alexis Arguello
5. Willie Pep
6. Abe Attell
7. George Dixon
8. Sandy Saddler
9. Johnny Dundee
10. Kid Chocolate
</TD><TD style="WIDTH: 295px" vAlign=top> Bantamweights:

[SIZE=+0]1. Terry McGovern
2. Eder Jofre
3. Jimmy Barry
4. George Dixon
5. Pete Herman
6. Carlos Zarate
7. Ruben Olivares
8. Panama Al Brown
9. Kid Williams
10. Johnny Coulon[/SIZE]
</TD></TR><TR><TD style="WIDTH: 295px" vAlign=top>

Flyweights:
​

[SIZE=+0]1. Jimmy Barry
2. Jimmy Wilde
3. Pascual Perez
4. Pancho Villa
5. Fidel LaBarba
6. Frankie Genaro
7. Benny Lynch
8. Midget Wolgast
9. Johnny Buff
10. Peter Kane ​

​

[/SIZE]</TD><TD style="WIDTH: 295px" vAlign=top> Pound-For-Pound:

[SIZE=+0]1. [SIZE=+0]Bob Fitzsimmons
2. Sugar Ray Robinson
3. Nonpareil Jack Dempsey
4. Sam Langford
5. Charley Mitchell
6. Henry Armstrong
7. Stanley Ketchel
8. Jack Dempsey
9. Philadelphia Jack O’Brien
10. Harry Greb [/SIZE][/SIZE]
</TD></TR><TR><TD style="WIDTH: 295px" vAlign=top>
</TD><TD style="WIDTH: 295px" vAlign=top>
</TD></TR><TR><TD style="WIDTH: 295px" vAlign=top>
</TD><TD style="WIDTH: 295px" vAlign=top>
</TD></TR><TR><TD style="WIDTH: 295px" vAlign=top>
</TD><TD style="WIDTH: 295px" vAlign=top>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>​

 

WOW!!!...

This List just MIGHT B WORSE...


REED::

 

agREED

Johnny Coulon and Pete Herman are ranked way too low. :nono:

 

The cruiserweight list is classic.

 

the system is poppycock.

Did anyone check the math on this...in addition to the horrendous outcome?

 

from the author:

THERES NOTHING TO DEBATE. ARTICLE'S TITLE IS HIGHEST RATED-NOT GREATEST. JOHNNY NELSON WAS A TOP 10 CRUISERWEIGHT FROM 1989 UNTIL 2005. EVANDER HOLYFIELD WAS FROM 1985 UNTIL 1988. THATS WHY NELSON IS RATED HIGHER. HOWEVER, HOLYFIELD IS IN THE TOP 20 POUND FOR POUND BUT NELSON ISNT EVEN IN THE TOP 100. FLOYD PATTERSON WAS IN THE TOP 10 AT HEAVYWEIGHT FROM 1956 UNTIL 1972-FEW CAN MATCH THAT. SUGAR RAY LEONARD WAS RATED AT WELTERWEIGHT FOR ONLY 4 YEARS.
JUST LIKE IN THE NFL-REGARDLESS OF WHO YOU THINK IS THE GREATEST RUNNING BACK-CURTIS MARTIN HAS PROBABLY RUSHED FOR MORE YARDS.

SO, WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH IT OR NOT- LIKE IT OR NOT- EVEN IF YOU THINK ITS STUPID- THATS THE WAY IT IS.

 

So those who argued that the purpose of this article was to provoke a debate were, in fact, wrong? :dunno:

 

well said. This isin't debatable

 

its worthless then?...on top of being a ludicrous way to measure fighters.

I think we should have another article that ranks fighters on the number of different adjectives Jim Lampley ever used during one of their fights.

1) Oscar
2) Oscar
3)
...
100) Trinidad