Very interesting project on rating all qualities of the best heavyweights of all time

I like this sort of thing. I don't think it works, because it's still as subjective as any list, but just more detailed, but I like the idea of ranking fighters' attributes. We should make a heavyweights top trumps. At least with this he sets out good arguments rather than throwing a list together in 5 minutes like most NSBers. Lol, it is true that this guy's second post after posting his list wasn't "Oh yeah, I forgot about Larry Holmes". :lol1:

Put 'em up, put 'em up! Which one of you first? I'll fight you both together if you want. I'll fight you with one paw tied behind my back. I'll fight you standing on one foot. I'll fight you with my eyes closed or you can invite that writer here ...... Why, I'd thrash him from top to bottomus! I'd wrap him up in cellophane! I'd show him who was king of the forest!

Okay... I'll try again. This is a measurement of each individual attribute, with the overall product added up not meaning anything. This is the same guy's all time rankings, which don't resemble what you saw in the original link at all almost: http://coxscorner.tripod.com/divisional_ratings.html And he still has Marciano higher than Bowe because Rocky is listed as just missing his top 10 whereas Bowe isn't. Sigh.

Louis #1? Dempsey #6? Johnson #7? You're right! the guy's a worse idiot than I thought. My apologies to idiots for comparing them to that writer.

Okay... I'll try again. This is a measurement of each individual attribute, with the overall product added up not meaning anything. This is the same guy's all time rankings, which don't resemble what you saw in the original link at all almost: http://coxscorner.tripod.com/divisional_ratings.html Louis #1? Dempsey #6? Johnson #7? You're right! the guy's a worse idiot than I thought.

This is what you meant. LOL! This is the part where this retard shows whether 1) he's a big mouthed idiot who can't back what he says and runs with his tail between his legs OR 2) shows me to be an idiot.

Okay... I'll try again. This is a measurement of each individual attribute, with the overall product added up not meaning anything. This is the same guy's all time rankings, which don't resemble what you saw in the original link at all almost: http://coxscorner.tripod.com/divisional_ratings.html BS! LOL! It means -->-->EVERYTHING<--<--. More speed+more skills+more chin+more everything= you're better. Period. Marciano isn't better than Bowe and Foreman whether on paper or not. The man is a complete idiot.

It is hard to rate fighters across generations. For example he has Jack Johnson as a 10 in defense, and Dempsey as a 10 in power. It is hard for me to believe that fighters from that era would be anything higher then journeymen. The game has evolved so much and improved those guys would be mince meat to todays champions.

No thanks. The guy's an idiot. I took one quick glance and noticed Marciano ranked higher than Foreman and Bowe, both of who would murder Marciano in the first round. Look, in the early 20th Century boxing was alot of white American fighters, alot of whom dodged blacks, and today there are many more fighters from a much larger global pool of talent of blacks(from the USA, Africa and Latin America), Asians and Hispanics-- all of whom are superior boxers than whites. Furthermore, more of today's black boxers utilize their speed so it's much more difficult to beat them today than yesterday. Race is as relevant to this convo as it is comparing long distance runners from the early part of the 20th Century to the time after the East Africans came into the picture. Geez. Here are the ten areas of analysis that he looks at: http://coxscorner.tripod.com/boxchart1.html (The part about footwork sheds some light on whether Mike Tyson was "fleetfooted" or not :lol1:) Here are the results: http://coxscorner.tripod.com/heavyweightchart.html While he looks at the science of what makes a fighter, giving in-depth analysis of every ingredient of a successful fighter, the rankings at the end are not down to a science. That said, I think his rankings based on the scores the fighters got looks pretty good, considering it is rating based... much better than boxrec anyway. This guy definitely is a very knowledgeable fan of the sport... you can tell from the terminology he uses alone, and gives a pretty good account of his historical knowledge base. He also posts questions/comments that were given to him in regards to this project on message boards and through email, along with his answers/defense of his decisions on what ratings to give to who. I highly suggest you give this site a look. It's very interesting. I like this sort of thing. I don't think it works, because it's still as subjective as any list, but just more detailed, but I like the idea of ranking fighters' attributes. We should make a heavyweights top trumps. At least with this he sets out good arguments rather than throwing a list together in 5 minutes like most NSBers.

I didn't read it because I'm an idiot. This is what you meant.

He's ranking Marciano and Holyfield as heavyweights, not #4#. Holyfield whups Marciano too. Rocky was slow and got knocked on his butt by old fighters. Holyfield would do worse to him than he did to Tyson. Okay... I'll try again. This is a measurement of each individual attribute, with the overall product added up not meaning anything. This is the same guy's all time rankings, which don't resemble what you saw in the original link at all almost: http://coxscorner.tripod.com/divisional_ratings.html

I think what he would be saying is that Marciano would be a better fighter than Foreman and Bowe if he were even close to the same size, but... obviously the size difference would be way too much for Marciano to overcome. But, since the rankings at the end have to encompass all the aspects analyzed, it tipped Marciano ahead, even though that gives the opposite impression of what would really happen in those fights. He's ranking Marciano and Holyfield as heavyweights, not #4#. Holyfield whups Marciano too. Rocky was slow and got knocked on his butt by old fighters. Holyfield would do worse to him than he did to Tyson.

No thanks. The guy's an idiot. I took one quick glance and noticed Marciano ranked higher than Foreman and Bowe, both of who would murder Marciano in the first round. Look, in the early 20th Century boxing was alot of white American fighters, alot of whom dodged blacks, and today there are many more fighters from a much larger global pool of talent of blacks(from the USA, Africa and Latin America), Asians and Hispanics-- all of whom are superior boxers than whites. Furthermore, more of today's black boxers utilize their speed so it's much more difficult to beat them today than yesterday. Race is as relevant to this convo as it is comparing long distance runners from the early part of the 20th Century to the time after the East Africans came into the picture. Geez. Like I said, the overall rankings are obviously not going to be accurate. It would be literally impossible to find a way to have certain traits take precedence over certain other traits in certain instances, etc. Too many possibilities and scenarios. I think what he would be saying is that Marciano would be a better fighter than Foreman and Bowe if he were even close to the same size, but... obviously the size difference would be way too much for Marciano to overcome. But, since the rankings at the end have to encompass all the aspects analyzed, it tipped Marciano ahead, even though that gives the opposite impression of what would really happen in those fights.

Here are the ten areas of analysis that he looks at: http://coxscorner.tripod.com/boxchart1.html (The part about footwork sheds some light on whether Mike Tyson was "fleetfooted" or not :lol1:) I highly suggest you give this site a look. It's very interesting. No thanks. The guy's an idiot. I took one quick glance and noticed Marciano ranked higher than Foreman and Bowe, both of who would murder Marciano in the first round. Look, in the early 20th Century boxing was alot of white American fighters, alot of whom dodged blacks, and today there are many more fighters from a much larger global pool of talent of blacks(from the USA, Africa and Latin America), Asians and Hispanics-- all of whom are superior boxers than whites. Furthermore, more of today's black boxers utilize their speed so it's much more difficult to beat them today than yesterday. Race is as relevant to this convo as it is comparing long distance runners from the early part of the 20th Century to the time after the East Africans came into the picture. Geez.