Best way to rank a fighter?

[JAB5239]

--- I've indicated in many past posts over these many years the difficulty of making fights and obtaining title shots, but then you just want to put up a front of the Hue & Cry.

It's very difficult if youre the Ks, and damn near impossible to keep the mass of titles Wlad held.

Git thee over yerself, I compared upon multiple timelines of development for an objective, comprehensive comparison.

All you offer is "I think," probable code for "I drink."

By relevant numbers, by many measures Josh is ahead of the greats, only lacking the hardest mistress to please, Longevity...listen and learn...

I seem to recall a poster who called himself HvyweightBlogger, or something like that. He had all sorts of twisted and off the wall ways to analyze fighters. It was quite ridiculous and comical. Is that you?

[QueensburyRules]

--- Tyson would be there on his record alone.

Historical impact for hand in hand with longevity, ie near impossible to ascertain in the moment. When the fighters are fighting, they are two decades from the HOF as young men. Nobody was putting Big George in the HOF until his comeback.

[JAB5239]

I think I've stated before the criteria I use when ranking fighters in my heavyweight thread. I must say though having briefly read through this thread haven't seen anyone mention historical impact. I think that must count for something, not the first or most important criteria by any means but for me personally I do use it.

A good example is Mike Tyson, I have him in my top ten (quite low if I remember correctly it's been a few years since I posted regulary). But I think if it wasn't for the impact he had on the sport and still has then maybe he wouldn't be in there.

Great to see you posting again! And I agree historical impact certainly plays a part.

Here is a thread I made some time ago you might be interested in. In fact, I'm going to copy and paste it in this section.

https://www.boxingscene.com/forums/s...d.php?t=612001

[Bundana]

--- Tyson would be there on his record alone.

Historical impact for hand in hand with longevity, ie near impossible to ascertain in the moment. When the fighters are fighting, they are two decades from the HOF as young men. Nobody was putting Big George in the HOF until his comeback.

Hmm... I wonder why that is?

Could it have something to do, with him not being eligible for induction until the Class of 2003?

[-CANE-]

Great to see you posting again! And I agree historical impact certainly plays a part.

Here is a thread I made some time ago you might be interested in. In fact, I'm going to copy and paste it in this section.

https://www.boxingscene.com/forums/s...d.php?t=612001

Thanks, I checked that thread out. Really liked the list.

[QueensburyRules]

There were top all time lists by various pubs that never included George. Also small HOFs that never took off like the one Louis was inducted into during his last month on this planet.

George is a newcomer to top heavy lists whereas the dempseys and Louis were immediately enshrined by public acclamation.

[Anthony342]

Resume-Who they beat and at what point in their careers did it happen.

Longevity-Time spent on top/number of title defenses

Other than that, I rank with a keyboard, sometimes with a pen and paper.