Vitali Klitschko, the last great heavyweight

[JAB5239]

Thanks. Ok, so I can see, that #78 was where a factual challenge was first made by Z:

"You will struggle to name 10 fighters who beat more ring magazine rated guys at heavyweight."

Can we agree, that this is different from who had more wins at HW?

Absolutely.

[QueensburyRules]

There also isn’t a better metric to examine. Sanctioning bodies inherently don’t rank each others champs or often Today fighters aiming for the (insert) belt. Ring, TBRB etc are imperfect but they try to rank a whole class. Look at a few years ago…Josh Taylor’s mando was Khongsong. That was a joke. He wasn’t a number one. He didn’t belong top 20.

- - That's why we have boxrec...

[JAB5239]

- - That's why we have boxrec...

Yes, good old boxrec. So you agree with them rating Holyfield #3, Holmes #5 and Marciano #6 all time, right?

[Marchegiano]

There also isn’t a better metric to examine. Sanctioning bodies inherently don’t rank each others champs or often Today fighters aiming for the (insert) belt. Ring, TBRB etc are imperfect but they try to rank a whole class. Look at a few years ago…Josh Taylor’s mando was Khongsong. That was a joke. He wasn’t a number one. He didn’t belong top 20.

Sure there is. Make a point then make a case for that point. There is no need to rely on corruption riddled committees.

I see people talk about the IBF scandals from time to time with the FBI and all that but I never see anyone bring up stuff like Ring backing Don King's United States Boxing Championships tournament or anything of the sort.

Point is, x beat y and z so I think he's great makes a much better backing than x had y promoter who was in bed with z organization. In my opinion.

[Willow The Wisp]

Yes, good old boxrec. So you agree with them rating Holyfield #3, Holmes #5 and Marciano #6 all time, right?

Well some might, maybe Holyfield's family? Where BoxRec falls down is in it's all-time ranking algorithm.
Heavyweights All-Time:
1. Ali 2. Louis 3. Lewis. 4. Patterson......Patterson!?
Now listen, I'm a huge fan of Floyd Patterson, but, um, yaaaa.

Jersey Joe Walcott over Geroge Foreman?
Nikolai Valuev over Harry Wills?
Jack Dempsey no. 18 and Ingemar Johansson no. 19???
John Ruiz over Sam Langford, George Chuvalo and Joe Jeanette?
Lee Savold over Gerry Cooney, Earnie Shavers and Joe Bugner?
Bruce Wood**** over Arturo Godoy, Michael Dokes, Luis Ortiz and Joe Joyce?
Fres Oquendo over George Godfrey, Tony Tubbs, Mac Foster and Tommy Farr?

....on an on like that ad nauseum.

I know that company and quite a bit about how they get their amazing work done.
I was a stage II editor for John Sheppard as a part time hobby from 2004, and I'm here to tell you that even now, there is no thought whatsoever put into the all-time ranking feature, but if ever called upon I would consider taking up the challenge, now retired. Maybe. I'm happily busy.

I would race (!) to point out that the current real-time ratings are a different animal completely, and IMO are generally very very good. As good as anyone's. Even as good as those fussed over at my old stomping grounds at The Ring, Boxing Illustrated and World/International/Big Book cum KO.

[JAB5239]

Well some might, maybe Holyfield's family? Where BoxRec falls down is in it's all-time ranking algorithm.
Heavyweights All-Time:
1. Ali 2. Louis 3. Lewis. 4. Patterson......Patterson!?
Now listen, I'm a huge fan of Floyd Patterson, but, um, yaaaa.

Jersey Joe Walcott over Geroge Foreman?
Nikolai Valuev over Harry Wills?
Jack Dempsey no. 18 and Ingemar Johansson no. 19???
John Ruiz over Sam Langford, George Chuvalo and Joe Jeanette?
Lee Savold over Gerry Cooney, Earnie Shavers and Joe Bugner?
Bruce Wood**** over Arturo Godoy, Michael Dokes, Luis Ortiz and Joe Joyce?
Fres Oquendo over George Godfrey, Tony Tubbs, Mac Foster and Tommy Farr?

....on an on like that ad nauseum.

I know that company and quite a bit about how they get their amazing work done.
I was a stage II editor for John Sheppard as a part time hobby from 2004, and I'm here to tell you that even now, there is no thought whatsoever put into the all-time ranking feature, but if ever called upon I would consider taking up the challenge, now retired. Maybe. I'm happily busy.

I would race (!) to point out that the current real-time ratings are a different animal completely, and IMO are generally very very good. As good as anyone's. Even as good as those fussed over at my old stomping grounds at The Ring, Boxing Illustrated and World/International/Big Book cum KO.

I respect your opinion, and I'm not even knocking boxrec per say.... but let's nit pretend it's OK to use one set of rankings over another. Queenie will blast the positions of Holyfield and Holmes but uphold the positions of others. It's all opinion of course, but let's not use boxrec as a standard when you will fight tooth and nail about the inclusion of certain fighters.

I use the IBRO rankings often, but they're not the end all. In particular I don't rate Dempsey as hight as the IBRO or most, but that's my opinion. If you want to debate (not talking about you) than try to show some consistency. I have a hard time buying anything from anyone who flip flops and alters their own standards to win an argument.

[Marchegiano]

I respect your opinion, and I'm not even knocking boxrec per say.... but let's nit pretend it's OK to use one set of rankings over another. Queenie will blast the positions of Holyfield and Holmes but uphold the positions of others. It's all opinion of course, but let's not use boxrec as a standard when you will fight tooth and nail about the inclusion of certain fighters.

I use the IBRO rankings often, but they're not the end all. In particular I don't rate Dempsey as hight as the IBRO or most, but that's my opinion. If you want to debate (not talking about you) than try to show some consistency. I have a hard time buying anything from anyone who flip flops and alters their own standards to win an argument.

Yeah, that's pretty much the crux of why I don't like ratings boards. People say oh this one's fair though, or the best of them, or whatever, and then when the situation's changed they'll be citing some other board or acting like they respect official ratings.

If you're always going to agree with ring even when you don't really agree, you'll put away your feelings to evangelize theirs, then it's fine really.

I can certainly respect the idea that the real ratings are all that matter regardless of body flaws as well. to be honest sticking to and respecting ABC ratings takes some balls too because everyone knows they are garbage.

IBRO or TBRB, as long as you don't change your tune when it suits you I won't try to talk you out of respecting their ratings.

I meant you as a rhetorical while I typed this, not necessarily you but anyone.


One last thing though. I think the fighters themselves get a **** end of things when fans overrate fake ratings. Because they really don't have much choice but to appease the bodies. TBRB, Ring, and IBRO do not sanction fights they just judge them. It's a bit like a fantasy league run wild. Should you fight X because he's rated highly by Ring and you know fans will say how many top ten Ring ratings did you beat or should you fight Y because beating Y gets you closer to a title or is the mando or whatever body bull is going on.

That's not as big a deal as the flip flopping though because the best guys are rated somewhere by at least one of the four bodies and at least one of the fantasy league ratings boards.

[Dr. Z]

Cliff is right, no doubt. So how many ranked wins is that for Vits now, 7?

If you correctly count Soils it is more than that! Cliff admits the internet rated Soils then but he told me he did not check the month of the fight, or all issues before that time when wrote the article. Later he claims he has all ring magazine articles but can't snap a photo of it with his I-phone to confirm the month and the rating in print. Really? He doesn't know how to do that? Well, I can't make him. If he says he can't do it, but my 10 year old can well...

Fell free to go against my memory, and two sources on the web that proved Soils was in fact ring rated when Vitali beat him. Cliff is not a bad guy. I view him pragmaically and do not hold his belligerent comment against him.

[JAB5239]

If you correctly count Soils it is more than that! Cliff admits the internet rated Soils then but he told me he did not check the month of the fight, or all issues before that time when wrote the article. Later he claims he has all ring magazine articles but can't snap a photo of it with his I-phone to confirm the month and the rating in print. Really? He doesn't know how to do that? Well, I can't make him. If he says he can't do it, but my 10 year old can well...

Fell free to go against my memory, and two sources on the web that proved Soils was in fact ring rated when Vitali beat him. Cliff is not a bad guy. I view him pragmaically and do not hold his belligerent comment against him.

Your memory means nothing, especially considering your lack of integrity. I'll side with Cliff here as his work and his word are respected. And it really doesn't matter does it? There are still more than 10 fighters with more Ring ranked wins.

[Dr. Z]

Your memory means nothing, especially considering your lack of integrity. I'll side with Cliff here as his work and his word are respected. And it really doesn't matter does it? There are still more than 10 fighters with more Ring ranked wins.

That was not the bet I offered! You can side with Cliff, he agrees with me that Soils was ranked at the time ( on line says ) and claims to have the ring magazine issues but can not prove a photo of them with his phone which is very easy to do today! Prove this in print he will not do. Ask him to do so. Considering the amount of time he spent on the issue you have to wonder why.

Enough talk on that. We know fighter like Ali or Louis have more ring magazine ranked wins but this was not the bet I offered.