Best way to rank a fighter?

[JAB5239]

So what is the best way to rank a fighter?

Should it be by weight class?

Should it be by resume?

Head to Head standings?

Head to Head accomplishments?

Is it skillset?

Who beat who and when?

Should there be a combination of these things to determine greatness?

I was going to put a poll up, but that's way to easy. What's your criteria to determine greatness? How do you come to your conclusions?

Myself? I look at resume first. I don't care what you think about ability. If one man can impose his will over others without looking pretty.....so be it. Second... timeframe...when did they beat certain fighters and who did they beat? Pretty self explanatory.

Third....skills. this (trying to be objective) ranks higher at different times. But in boxing, nothing really changes except how we look at skills. I feel some differentiate, and others just jump on the he said she said. To me, a subtleness has been lost in boxing, especially heavyweight boxing. I won't get into it now, but the size mongering is hilarious to me. That of course is MY opinion. What's yours? Overall all and altogether?

[QueensburyRules]

--- Lot of factors go into my evaluation, not the least in noting the IBRO top 20 heavily favors sluggers who come to fight with notable marshmallows Pep and Greb who came to fight, FIGHT being the keyword here.

[DuckAdonis]

How they beat their opposition is important to me...and even if they lose, how did they Lose? Was it a very close fight, did they get dominated, just get caught with 1 shot...it all matters

[Bundana]

Personally, I believe resume should count very heavily when discussing a boxers "greatness".

Head-to-head speculation against fighters from other eras is of little importance to me. For the simple reason, that if you're the best in your own time... how can we reasonably ask for more than that?

Also, how can we possibly compare a Greb head-to-head with a modern middleweight like, say, GGG? Especially since we have never seen Greb fight! It doesn't make sense, because we really have no idea, who would prevail in a fight between the two.

What we DO know, is that Greb had a resume no modern boxer could hope to equal. Same goes for SRR, who of course also is right up there, when we're talking about greatness.

This doesn't mean, that modern boxers are no good… but when it comes to "greatness", they clearly must take a back seat to quite a few of the old-timers. Imo.

[BKM-]

Best way to rank them is to look at how well they did in their own time. Resume first and foremost. Then you compare how well the different greats did in their own time. But you also have to consider how good that era was in terms of skills and how many great fighters there were around. So one guy had a long reign in a weaker era against weaker fighters, another guy had a short reign but against all great fighters. The latter could still be greater. It's complicated.

One of the worst ways to rank fighters is by using hypothetical H2H matchups.

[QueensburyRules]

--- H2H should be one of the minor considerations given how much the Open division has grown over the centuries +.

Tom Sayers, Bobby Fitz, and Sam Langford are certified top P4Pers, but stand no chance against Lewis, the Ks, and Josh.

[BKM-]

--- H2H should be one of the minor considerations given how much the Open division has grown over the centuries +.

Tom Sayers, Bobby Fitz, and Sam Langford are certified top P4Pers, but stand no chance against Lewis, the Ks, and Josh.

That's exactly right.

[Eff Pandas]

I think ranking guys is a impossibility in any real way. Its just a fun lil thing to do. And whatever your strongest stances are are likely to be the things that drive guys up or down your rankings. All in all its meaningless & I've trended away from doing it in recent years cuz it seems odd & a child-like hobby. I tend to leave the rankings to TBRB & other ranking sites & I don't take them very seriously in general.

[Tom Cruise]

Resume above all imo

If someone who I don’t rate highly keeps getting high level wins, then it’s me who is wrong. The proof is in the pudding.

The tricky part is judging how those wins stack up all time. That’s where things get subjective and you look at things and as an era try and judge its strength. The best example of that for me is Wlads era, and I give him massive credit for dominating for that long, but to me the challengers look like crap in the ring.

[Tom Cruise]

Personally, I believe resume should count very heavily when discussing a boxers "greatness".

Head-to-head speculation against fighters from other eras is of little importance to me. For the simple reason, that if you're the best in your own time... how can we reasonably ask for more than that?

Also, how can we possibly compare a Greb head-to-head with a modern middleweight like, say, GGG? Especially since we have never seen Greb fight! It doesn't make sense, because we really have no idea, who would prevail in a fight between the two.

What we DO know, is that Greb had a resume no modern boxer could hope to equal. Same goes for SRR, who of course also is right up there, when we're talking about greatness.

This doesn't mean, that modern boxers are no good… but when it comes to "greatness", they clearly must take a back seat to quite a few of the old-timers. Imo.

Perfectly put.

Greatness =\= the best.

Arguing who is the best is impossible without a time machine. Greatness is earned and quantifiable to a point.