How do you rank fighters?

[Sam Donald]

I've always wondered how many of you rank fighters.. I dont usually post on the history section but I have a look around occasionaly. I notice some bizarre p4p lists here recently.

So, do you rank fighters by accomplishments and who they beat or in a fantasy type way. Where fighter A from 1930s beats fighter B from 1990s because of ...............

Or both?

I rank fighters by accomplishments and who they beat.. ranking fighters in fantasy fights is bias and unfair.

Edit: ranking fighters in fantasy fights they may win or lose is bais and unfair.. thats just opinions. Accomplishments and names on resume are facts.

[TheGreatA]

Agreed. To a certain extent I judge a fighter based on his skill and ability, as long as film exists. It's subjective, but I have enough belief in my ability to analyze fights that I can decide whether the boxer and his opponents were truly top class or not. For example I'll give more credit to a middleweight who excelled in the tough 1960's than the relatively weak middleweight division of today. I do not believe that Sebastian Sylvester is anywhere near the level of Joey Archer even though both were in the top 5.

Accomplishments are most important, since they are the most objective way to judge a fighter upon, as long as you know what you're looking at. If you don't know much about, say, the 1930's era of bantamweights (which is no shame certainly), you can easily be led to believe that the fighters around then weren't any good. Thus it can get troubling also.

[Obama]

I only look at h2h when the ratings are too close to call.

[Red Rebel]

accomplishment & quality of opposition.
for tie breakers I just look on their impact on the sport.

[TBear]

One rule I used over the years on "who they beat" is what the fighter did after they beat them.
Example: Gerry Cooney beating Ken Norton, Ron Lyle and Jimmy Young as opposed to Alexis Arguello who many fighters that went on to win a world title after he beat them, Bazooka Limon, Bobby Chacon, Cornelius Boza Edwards, Rolando Navarrete, Jose Luis Ramirez, Ruben Olivares, Ray Mancini......

I mean Memo Ayon beat Sugar Ray Robinson but only went 15-8 as a pro and Robinson was in his 40's. A great win he can tell his grand kids about but it doesn't make him a great fighter so there is more to who they beat than just that.

[Sam Donald]

I only look at h2h when the ratings are too close to call.

i agree with this

[StarshipTrooper]

I use ability and traits tempered by resume. Showing those abilities against tougher competition is weighted heavier than showing them against weaker competition. My belief is that a number of factors have to be considered and that there is no one "magic bullet" factor that tells the whole story.

Poet

[Megamasterking]

Hand speed, footwork, chin, ability to adapt to different situations, stamina, will to win, pro jab vs amateur jab, who were the opponents, and finally some boxers were close to unbeatable, so these boxers must be considered Legends. Very hard for someone to see all this if you have never fought in a ring with a good or pro boxer. For exemple: People who thought that Dawson would have an easy fight against Pascal just don't know enough about boxing to make a real P4P list. Personnaly as a boxer with 30 years of experience, i said it would be a close fight and i just couldn't predict the winner... how did i knew that ? Dawson was overrated: fighting grandpa's... Pascal was underrated: Even if he won against Diaconu with a separated shoulder, they have put the shoulder back into place three times during the fight...