Give Us All Your Top-10 Light-Heavyweight All-Timers List...

[Barn]

Sure. Firstly, I don't rank based on resume alone. My primary consideration is ability after which I adjust for resume; ie. two fighters that are close in ability the one with the better resume gets ranked higher as he showed those abilities against tougher competition. My primary concern in rankings is ultimately "who was the better fighter?" Another way to look at it is if you took all those fighters that are under consideration and had them all fight each other 10 times how would the final won-loss standings shake out? This is different from pure h2h matchups because as you well know triangle theories don't work in boxing. It's more a matter of how a given fighter does against the entire field rather than how he does h2h against a particular opponent.

Poet

Nice, it's just there is no way Roy Jones makes Top 10 based on resume alone in my opinion but, with abilities taken into play and your fight prediction method I can see Roy being ranked there as he is a tough fight for almost anyone.

[StarshipTrooper]

Nice, it's just there is no way Roy Jones makes Top 10 based on resume alone in my opinion but, with abilities taken into play and your fight prediction method I can see Roy being ranked there as he is a tough fight for almost anyone.

No way he gets in on resume.

Poet

[SCtrojansbaby]

There is enough footage of them and their opponents to gauge their ability.

On a separate note, how can you rank everything on H2H ability ?, it doesn't work just because A fighter can beat B fighter and B fighter can beat C does not mean that A can beat C, it's too flawed to rank on H2H alone. Also, how anyone can have Maske in top 10 Light Heavies is beyond me, is it because he's in your era and you're disregarding all the past ones that you haven't seen or done any research on?, I guess that's why you think he's so great.

Not talking about Foster so much as that wasn't long ago. but guys from 50s and earlier

link me to five fights of the guys in your top 10 from the 50s and before . and link me to 3 other fights of those 5 opponents. I would say that is the ABSOLUTE BARE MINIMUM that I would need to see to rank someone. NOT HIGHLIGHTS BUT ACTUAL FULL FIGHTS.

[StarshipTrooper]

Not talking about Foster so much as that wasn't long ago. but guys from 50s and earlier

link me to five fights of the guys in your top 10 from the 50s and before . and link me to 3 other fights of those 5 opponents. I would say that is the ABSOLUTE BARE MINIMUM that I would need to see to rank someone. NOT HIGHLIGHTS BUT ACTUAL FULL FIGHTS.

I would suggest you run a search in the Video Trading Block section instead of getting others to do your homework for you. It's not like you're going to find it bereft of fights from the 1950s.

Poet

[SCtrojansbaby]

All I am saying is its ******ed to rank guys based on the 3 full fights on youtube and what the writers from Ring mag say.

[NChristo]

Not talking about Foster so much as that wasn't long ago. but guys from 50s and earlier

link me to five fights of the guys in your top 10 from the 50s and before . and link me to 3 other fights of those 5 opponents. I would say that is the ABSOLUTE BARE MINIMUM that I would need to see to rank someone. NOT HIGHLIGHTS BUT ACTUAL FULL FIGHTS.

I'm not here to do your research for you, there's plenty of fights of Loughran, Charles, Moore, Tunney, a few of Conn's but none of Greb and not so much of Langford unless you're willing to spend time looking, however their achievements speak for themselves.

Search yourself.

Why from the 50s and earlier exactly ?.

[StarshipTrooper]

All I am saying is its ******ed to rank guys based on the 3 full fights on youtube and what the writers from Ring mag say.

All I'm saying is it's ******ed to assume that YouTube vids are all anyone has seen of them. It's also ******ed to dismiss the educated views of respected boxing historians regardless of whether those views are printed in Ring Magazine or any other publication. Their views > the views of a typical boxing fan.

Poet

[SCtrojansbaby]

All I'm saying is it's ******ed to assume that YouTube vids are all anyone has seen of them. It's also ******ed to dismiss the educated views of respected boxing historians regardless of whether those views are printed in Ring Magazine or any other publication. Their views > the views of a typical boxing fan.

Poet

It doesn't have to youtube, link to the *******.

Its just ******ed to rank guys who retired before you were born and haven't seen fight more then 3x. The only reason you think so highly of them is because you havn't seen them fight these guys are known as boxrec legends.

[StarshipTrooper]

It doesn't have to youtube, link to the *******.

Its just ******ed to rank guys who retired before you were born and haven't seen fight more then 3x. The only reason you think so highly of them is because you havn't seen them fight these guys are known as boxrec legends.

Yeah, and quality boxing only started with your birth :rolleyes9: Are you THAT seriously self-centered that you think everything ****** in the world before you got there?

Poet

[Wild Blue Yonda]

While I do understand your sentiment, Trojan, I will say that looking at Harry Greb's record, for instance, & saying one cannot deduce he deserves to be ranked amongst the greatest fighters of all-time is akin to saying no one can be sure Tyrannosaurus Rex was a big animal, since no one has seen one alive.

Greb's record is as clear a picture as a T-Rex's skeleton. To re-iterate, I do get where you're coming from --- when you get down to the specifics of rating one man over another, you have got to be increasingly careful the less you have seen of a fighter.