Champion vs. Champion: Who did the best against the best?

[Kball15]

Thanks. It's fun for me because it is what it is. A Boxing bell curve. It's not meant to argue definitively who the best were; it's just a good tool that really illuminates what we know about some great ones while shedding light on some forgotten old warriors.

yea well its pretty accurate in places. Like, if asked some real historians and experts and what not, theyd more or less agree you know?

im just lookin over the page and its ******ic. lol. almost overwhelming theres so much good stuff on there u know?

thanks a ton for doing this, what a great idea.

[crold1]

Thanks a lot bro. There's a snag here or there (and I'm still ironing this out for errors all the time) but it's close enough for this effort.

[crold1]

One other thing K...this has allowed me to vreate a living database to track going forward as new guys are inducted to the HOF withouyt lineal titles and as new champions emerge. Fun fun fun (for a boxing nerd like moi anyways)

[DLT]

Me personally as being a fan of boxers I hate the fact that you give people extra for KO's. I understand you taking off extra for getting KO but I dont think a fighter should get extra for the KO. Its not fair to give a guy point just because he's a different kind of fighter then the other guy. He may not be anywhere near as good but still gets the extra credit. The boxer may win 4 fight against guys and gets 4pts but the other guy might go 2-2 against those same guys and still get 4pts just because he KO the 2 guys in his wins. I just dont think thats fair, e****ally when your talking about a sport where people change classes all the time. Guys like RJ came from 160 while some of the other guys started at 175

[crold1]

Hey, Pete Rose's hit records was never as hallowed as the home run record for a reason. I see your point though and it's fair. I just went another way with it.

[crold1]

Another thing: modern fighters suffer in these comparisons anyways because they don't fight as often but they still do quite well; in the fourth part of the series you'll see that Roy scores well because he never lost to a lineal champion or non-lineal champion HOFer.

[DLT]

Another thing: modern fighters suffer in these comparisons anyways because they don't fight as often but they still do quite well; in the fourth part of the series you'll see that Roy scores well because he never lost to a lineal champion or non-lineal champion HOFer.

Plus its only 12 rounds when back in the day it was 15 and longer. Alot of guys use to get KO after the 12th round

[crold1]

And a lot of fights from 1890-1920 were six rounds (Ketchell-Langford comes to mind); or ten (Dempsey-Tunney I & II). rounds have been varied. Fighters who fought more also accumulated many more losses on average and suffered more KOs on average. Of over 400 total fighters examined, the median score was four and there are a LOT of fours.

[crold1]

Bump for fun.

[LondonRingRules]

Roy scores well because he never lost to a lineal champion or non-lineal champion HOFer.

** Roy never held a "lineal" title. He did beat a few HOF types and was the dominant fighter for 10 yrs and one of the most dominant ever in history.

Titles of any kind are really quite often bogus. There is no uniformity in boxing and many good fights never get made unlike other sports where the best end up having to face each other sooner or later. Just because a fighter holds a "lineal" title doesn't make him the best in his division.

Classic example is Leon Spinks who might've been maybe the 20th best heavy of his era at his peak, and I'm being generous here. More than a few didn't even believe Ali was the best at that point.

Anyway, your thread is supposed to be in the boxing history forum.