PULLING RANK - The Highest Rated Boxers of All Time

it's factual. And go back to college to read. WE ARE NOT MEASURING FIGHTERS. IT'S A LIST OF FACTS :doh:

Why do some people go to college?

 

I don't get the reaction. Its an interesting list. Never seen anybody take the time out to try something like this either. I'm saving it for reference.

 

Then the points system is skewed. Being the best in your division, or the champ in your division, should count. Instead, Kelly Pavlik, for this month would get the same amount of points as someone named Sebastian Sylvester. We're not even counting who the alphabets have ranked.

Credit to the writer for compiling the data, but he did a terrible job at implementing all that data into a proper ratings system. And that's the most critical piece of the puzzle... and that's where he failed terribly.

I could use the WBO ratings as the basis for all my ratings and back it up by saying my ratings are based off of 'FACTS' provided by a ratings comittee of a major sanctioning body, but that doesn't make it right.

Now if he used each individual position each month for each fighter....we'd be talking about some detailed ratings.

But when you're missing all time great fighters and claim that you're just basing the ratings off of "facts," then those "facts" are wrong.

 

The point system is not skewed. It isn;t intending to reward the resumes of fighters, only their rankings. Its as simple as that.

Anything other than what he is done and its something altogether different.

 

It rewards a fifth ranked fighter, like sylvester, the same amount as Kelly Pavlik. Does that make sense?

Anything other than what he has done is something altogether better and properly done.

 

It does make sense because that was exactly what was intended. Can you change it to get what YOU want out of it? Of course. But that doesn't seem to be what the writer was trying to do.

"Better" and "Properly done" are words you think suit the changes. Thats fine. But you must recognise that it's something different then and your own bias enters into it. Thats whats good about this. It's simply a report on rankings. It makes no claim that fighter A is better than fighter B. That territory is reserved for us fans who think we know everything.

 

:bears: FINALLY SOMEBODY GETS IT.

 

I'm not saying to add bias, I'm saying to be more detailed in the rankings. Instead, mediocrity gets rewarded the same as greatness.

What I'm saying is that the #1 position should be rewarded more than the #5 position and so on and so forth. Then we'd have less retarded ratings. Then we'd be basing it off of real facts and will make all the research worthwhile.

Instead, all time great fighters aren't even on the list.

 

Let me make this simpler for people to understand.

Roberto Duran was in the WBO and Ring Mag top 10 lightweights 7 times
Might Joe Blow was in the WBO and Ring Mag top 10 lightweights 8 times

Joe Blow ranks higher. Is Joe Blow better? Who cares. That's not the point. I'm simply reporting facts.

C

 

Why do all-time great fighters need to be on the list? It's not a ranking of all-time great fighters. Its a ranking of MOST RANKED FIGHTERS. Jesus Arben, you're not an idiot, so stop reading and typing like one. :nono:

 

T-Rex :bears:

 

I think I understand what he's saying. But it would probably only change the order of the same people on the list.

 

:: Not you too. If you do that, whats he point of making a list like this in the first place?

 

I'm not afraid to admit that I really only read the rankings without actually reading the lead-up part.

 

It's poorly compiled reasearch, plain and simple.

Three people don't think so after five or so pages of responses, so I don't think I'm being an idiot here.

 

Who the hell are you to call it poorly compiled research? Can you dispute the facts? If not, what its your basis for complaining? That you think you know better?

I think three people bothered to read the article and can appreciate the task he undertook to get a response. Unless you can prove he is incorrect, you should probably STFU instead of acting like an asshole about it.

 

Joe Blow was ranked 10 and Duran was ranked 6 throughout eight and seven months respectively. Is Joe Blow better? No.

According to the author's standards, the rankings are fine, but the standards make for incomplete rankings.

 

I already did dispute his "facts." If Fighter A is the best middleweight in the world for 10 months, and fighter b is the fifth best middleweight in the world for 10 months, they would be even according to the list. Does that make sense?

And who am I to dispute it? A loyal reader. A colleague. A friend of the publisher's.

 

You're completely mising the point. He makes NO CLAIM as to who the better fighter is. WHat his list does is rank fighters according to length and nothing more. If they tie, they tie. Thats it. You putting one over the other in the event of a tie, means you're introducing a response to the number of the rank. That isn't his goal. His is a simple 1+1 = 2 system. It works for what it is, as long as you aren't expecting it to be something else.

Thats what you guys are doing here. And dude, I don't care if you're the King of England, you can't trash the list unless you can prove it's false. :blobbox:

 

A "Ranking List" like this is totally useless in anything but creating controversy and arguments.

And I guess in retrospect it was a recipe that all of us can agree was "Mission Accomplished"........

 

Think of it like compiled data, more than a list. This has no input from the writer, other than his name attached to the top of the article.

 

Arben,

Please read what Tam wrote. The author makes no claim who is better.

C

 

Then a better title woulda been..."Rankings,..what do they prove?"

 

That would be fitting if the writer's goal was to expose rankings, to justify his own point about their uselesness. Again, this is just data. Like how many hits Paul O'Neil had with 1 man on and one out, while facing a left hander who throws a breaking pitch 57% of the time on the first pitch.

Data. Take whatever use from it you wish.

 

But his results are very incomplete and inaccurate...

 

I thought it was sort of cool - read the intro and figured out where it was going and what is was about. Seems to be more a statistical reflection of longevity than anything else, I never saw it as an opinion piece at all.


However, the Tracy Callis list was quite lousy except that it got the pound-for-pound all time No. 1 candidate correct. :clap:

 

maybe those defending this list should read the lead up again.

"With that in mind, which boxers throughout history have been the most “successful?â€￾ Who are the most highly rated boxers of all time? "

This is not the thesis of someone looking to simply present data.


"Also, some rankings listed boxers who had no business-or maybe it was business-being in the top ten. But those boxers, and there were many, didn’t stick around for long"

Yet Sven Ottke, Johnny Tapia, and other random WBO champs are being rewarded on this list.

The point is, the writer has set up very weak straw man arguments for why people would doubt the list, and attempts to bolster its credibility.

If it was as simple as showing the data, there would be none of this argumentation and the title wouldn't be

"The Highest Rated Boxers of All Time"

 

TRACY CALLIS IS THE BEST. HE HAS THE MOST UNBIASED LIST OF P4P.

 

I agree.

:bears:

 

Man, "Successful" is in inverted commas and the other bit mentions the most highly RATED boxers. Therefore I got nothing bent out of shape as regards my own opinions as, unless I've misinterpreted it entirely, this isn't an opinion piece.