Ranking justifications

[Bundana]

But back to the purpose of this thread: Is it defendable to rate Holyfield and Holmes as low as 18th and 19th all-time among heavyweights?

Well, an answer to such a question can only be subjective - but personally I find it VERY difficult to name 17, that I would rate higher.

I, too, would be interested in seeing someone produce such a list!

[BattlingNelson]

But back to the purpose of this thread: Is it defendable to rate Holyfield and Holmes as low as 18th and 19th all-time among heavyweights?

Well, an answer to such a question can only be subjective - but personally I find it VERY difficult to name 17, that I would rate higher.

I, too, would be interested in seeing someone produce such a list!

Difficult for sure, but probably possible within reason as far as Holyfield is concerned. I don’t have a list myself, but given the fact that lists are subjective, one can choose to put a lot of weight into losses and (alleged) steroid abuse. That could put Holyfield way down. Holmes? I have a very hard time seeing any argument for him being that low.

[Bundana]

Difficult for sure, but probably possible within reason as far as Holyfield is concerned. I don’t have a list myself, but given the fact that lists are subjective, one can choose to put a lot of weight into losses and (alleged) steroid abuse. That could put Holyfield way down. Holmes? I have a very hard time seeing any argument for him being that low.

Yeah, I agree… it would be easier to make a case for Holyfield to be ranked as low as #18, than it is to have Holmes in 19th place. That is pretty hard to defend, imo.

[QueensburyRules]

This is so true!

And we can also add claims such as: The forgotten art of feinting, the forgotten art of body punching, the good trainers are dying out and with them knowledge that is forever disappearing into thin air, today's boxers wouldn't be able to go 15 rounds, etc.

There's no end to the unsubstantiated claims that are being put forward by posters to denigrate the present - in an attempt to make themselves look like knowledgeable "experts".

- -Let's be clear on this, Ali and the Ks almost never went to the body, and backed up in straight lines breaking fundemental rules.

Note I have never claimed to be an expert who too often are exposed in spectacular upsets and shamed.

I put forth HBO Jellyman as the poster child of button down boxing expertise in full fail freefall.

[QueensburyRules]

But back to the purpose of this thread: Is it defendable to rate Holyfield and Holmes as low as 18th and 19th all-time among heavyweights?

Well, an answer to such a question can only be subjective - but personally I find it VERY difficult to name 17, that I would rate higher.

I, too, would be interested in seeing someone produce such a list!

- -Mr Field touted as the best trained hvy in history has a 28-10-2 record at heavy with more title losses than any heavy in history. Nobody close.

I do weary of beating up single beltholder Holmes who has a record of 0-5 against fighters holding a title they won in the ring. Rocky shamed hisself to boot.

Rate them as U wish, jus sayin'!

[Marchegiano]

I was going to have a crack at it. I think both are respectable top fives, but, it's a fun challenge to try to get 17 or so respectable names ahead of Holmes and Real Deal. As I typed one out though it reminded me of a list I'd seen authored by a respected boxing historian, Mike Paul. So rather than struggling to place them both at 18 or below, I'm sharing a list of twenty that ends with Holyfield and is from a respected source.

Mike Paul's top twenty has Evander even lower. Holmes is in a respectable slot, but Evander's quite low.

1. Louis
2. Ali
3. Jeffries
4. Marciano
5. Lewis
6. Liston
7. Tunney
8. Tyson
9. Holmes
10. Foreman
11. Frazier
12. Dempsey
13. Johnson
14. Fitzsimmons
15. Baer
16. Charles
17. Sharkey
18. Jackson
19. Langford
20. Holyfield

[Bundana]

Correct me if I'm wrong… but wasn't Paul's list computer-generated?

[Marchegiano]

Correct me if I'm wrong… but wasn't Paul's list computer-generated?

Yes, I probably should have noted that but I don't know anything about the programing so I was a little bit hoping someone else could explain more about the list and would if I posted it.

I can't explain the list Bud, I lack the knowledge for that post.

So outside of just saying computer I can give no background or atmosphere or anything else interesting, not even why he made his list.

[Marchegiano]

This is so true!

And we can also add claims such as: The forgotten art of feinting, the forgotten art of body punching, the good trainers are dying out and with them knowledge that is forever disappearing into thin air, today's boxers wouldn't be able to go 15 rounds, etc.

There's no end to the unsubstantiated claims that are being put forward by posters to denigrate the present - in an attempt to make themselves look like knowledgeable "experts".

I did just point it out in the Wlad-Bowe thread but you might actually have something enlightening to say about it and it does pertain to this post. I just wanted to preamble to be clear I'm just being curious, not trying to start an argument or be disrespectful to you in anyway.



Wladimir Klitschko punched himself in the face. He then lost to Tyson Fury who had also punched himself in the face.

For the most part I've said boxers box the way they do because of the eras they live in and those era feature certain styles because of the atmosphere surrounding it.

Grossly oversimplified; bare knuckle didn't feature a lack of defense because the men were too ****** or too slow but rather because in their time it was not manly to retreat. The only manly form of defense was guard and parry and such, not moving and eluding.


That said, I have to say I've been part of this boxing is not what it used to be narrative myself, well, in the HW division I have anyway.

You have guys who don't do what their grandads did. I can forgive this and write it off as era specific stylization. Lots of times when they do actually do stuff that's more than basic punching and positioning it looks pretty bad from the outside. I can justify that by saying well they are larger than Ali and Holmes and such, but, when they punch themselves in the face....when more than one, when the best of the best of an era punches themselves in the face, that's harder for me to ignore.

Maybe I'm just ignorant and the great Joe Louis did punch himself, but, I don't know of any other era where this was a thing and I think that's because the last time HW boxing was so limited was when the *******s controlled boxing and filmed fights were not as common. What I mean to say is the last time guys were bad enough to think maybe they socked themselves film wasn't there to capture it.

Seems pretty telling. They are mostly out of shape. They are mostly basic fighters with very little range in their skill sets and when they try to be more than basic they tend to look a bit ass and if you deny all that what do you tell yourself when the man punches himself then loses and the new man is a man who punches himself too? **** happens? Too much into a funny anecdote? Or maybe the HWs today are over exaggerated bums.

[Bundana]

Yes, I probably should have noted that but I don't know anything about the programing so I was a little bit hoping someone else could explain more about the list and would if I posted it.

I can't explain the list Bud, I lack the knowledge for that post.

So outside of just saying computer I can give no background or atmosphere or anything else interesting, not even why he made his list.

My point is, that you can't rank boxers by computer. No matter how good your intentions, and how much work you put into it, it simply doesn't work.

BoxRec has tried several times with new (supposedly improved) algorithms - but each time the result is terrible. In their most recent try, they have a fine fighter like Fighting Harada in 636th place P4P all-time... and Bob Fitzsimmons at #2407!