Is SRL a Top 5 All Time Great?

[Silencers]

He's top 10 but not in my top 5.

[Jim Jeffries]

You should consult boxrec for an accurate formula for determining ratings, unless of course you want to rate fighters on their ability in which case it doesn't make a difference at all.

Duran is much much more skilled than Ezzard Charles. Im not knocking Ezzard Charles, as he was a great LHW, but comparing him to Roberto Duran in absolute skill level is absolutely absurd.

You must follow Burt Sugars philosophy, because obviously being able to thrash a fighter in a head to head match-up doesn't make you greater than them... wait, yes it does.

Burt Sugar used the same argument against Larry Holmes in claiming that Joe Louis was the greatest heavyweight ever. Larry Holmes said Muhammad Ali would beat Joe Louis. Bert Sugars response... "That doesn't make him greater". Really then Bert, what does? Oh yes, thats right, by your criteria your name has to start with J and end with oe Louis to be the greatest.

I'm sorry, but that is not how it works. To be the best, you have to beat the best. Im sure you have heard that saying, well it holds true in determining ATG status, to be the best, you have to be able to beat everyone that is listed below you. Ezzard Charles would not beat Roberto Duran.

No thanks, Boxrec has Jose Luis Castill ranked as the #4 JWW in the world. And I'm a big Duran fan, but c'mon, are you serious? No Way he could beat a prime Charles.

[shawn_]

LOL, you're just getting silly now. Of course the point is to win, that's what a resume is, a list of names you've beaten. If you've beaten the best, odds are you're a pretty damn good head to head fighter yourself. Charles had a better boxing career as far as quality of opposition beaten than Duran. The goal of fighting is to win, which at the same time [I]is[I] compiling a good resume. You're not making sense with this.


Exxard Charles could not beat Roberto Duran? Charles fought from MW to HW. Duran fought no higher than MW. Charles would brutally stop him. Head to head P4P matchups are pure speculation, and some of the worst kind if you ask me. If you made Charles smaller you'd have to increase his speed and other factos would have to change, etc. Same if you made Duran bigger, too many viariables need to change, which is why I base a fighters's greatness on what they did, rather than what they were capable of doing, as you do. I'd say my method is a bit more reliable.

Locche beat Cervantes and is known as one of the slickest, most skilled defensive fighters of all time. People can make names for themselves based on how they fight as well, just not higher than someone with a Charles-like resume.


Anyone who shuts out Cervantes is no joke. Same thing with Loi beating Ortiz twice, you can see what level someone is by who they beat. Both Charles and Duran were clearly world-class, Charles just proved it more.

I'm going to re-instate my main point though, which is what I want you to focus on when responding..

"Same if you made Duran bigger, too many viariables need to change, which is why I base a fighters's greatness on what they did, rather than what they were capable of doing, as you do."

Obviously you are set in your ways, but Im going to try anyways. p4p match-ups are not that difficult to do. Any decent fight analyst could do it. I have no trouble doing p4p match-ups, and they are far from speculation. The way in which a fight will unfold can be quite reliably determined.

The detriment to biasing fighters based on their record, especially old fighters, is that you have no reference as to the quality of the fighter that showed up. The record does not distinguish between a fighter that took the fight on 1 weeks notice, a fighter that had to lose 100lb on fight week, and a fighter that showed up in top shape. It doesn't account for robberies, broken hands, thrown fights, or shot fighters.

The Ray Robinsons that Carmen Basillio beat was no the same Ray Robinson that Randy Turpin beat, which was not the same Ray Robinson that Jake LaMotta beat. Relying on resumes severely distorts rankings and analysis. Its a fact.

A name and a number is far less informative than a film. Your attempt to argue that ranking fighters based on who they beat rather than how they beat them is appallingly ignorant.

Its the difference between that way in which Floyd Mayweather beat Arturo Gatti and the way in which Carlos Baldomir beat Arturo Gatti.

On paper, they look the same. In reality they were completely different levels of performances.

[Rane-Ex54]

on a side note.....watching ESPN Classic right now, they rank SRL #8 all time best boxer...

[Sweet Pete]

The detriment to biasing fighters based on their record, especially old fighters, is that you have no reference as to the quality of the fighter that showed up. The record does not distinguish between a fighter that took the fight on 1 weeks notice, a fighter that had to lose 100lb on fight week, and a fighter that showed up in top shape. It doesn't account for robberies, broken hands, thrown fights, or shot fighters.

A record doesn't account for that, which is why you have to do the research.

The Ray Robinsons that Carmen Basillio beat was no the same Ray Robinson that Randy Turpin beat, which was not the same Ray Robinson that Jake LaMotta beat. Relying on resumes severely distorts rankings and analysis. Its a fact.

Again, it has to do with research. Obviously Joey Archer's win over Robinson doesn't count for much, just as Pazienza's wins over Duran don't count for much, etc etc. You take me for someone who hasn't done the research and relies on boxrec, which is where you're mistaken.

A name and a number is far less informative than a film. Your attempt to argue that ranking fighters based on who they beat rather than how they beat them is appallingly ignorant.

It's a combo of both. If someone beat much better fighters than someone else, the one guy beating a bunch of lesser in more impression fashion, sorry, I'm not going to rank him above. That is logic.

Its the difference between that way in which Floyd Mayweather beat Arturo Gatti and the way in which Carlos Baldomir beat Arturo Gatti.

On paper, they look the same. In reality they were completely different levels of performances.

OK, which is why I do my rankings on a combo of them all, resume being the highest thing that is taken into account.

Your argument is about how they do it, which is also part of my criteria. I base ATG status on a mixture of:

Resume
In ring performance
Head to head ability

I rank Charles above Duran on the basis of having a better resume and for his size being just as good in comparison with other greats as Duran in a head to head sense.

You rate Duran higher based on in-ring performance. You base your rankings solely on footage rather than what someone accomplished in their career, so I assume you rate Roy Jones the best of all time.

[shawn_]

A record doesn't account for that, which is why you have to do the research.

Again, it has to do with research. Obviously Joey Archer's win over Robinson doesn't count for much, just as Pazienza's wins over Duran don't count for much, etc etc. You take me for someone who hasn't done the research and relies on boxrec, which is where you're mistaken.

It's a combo of both. If someone beat much better fighters than someone else, the one guy beating a bunch of lesser in more impression fashion, sorry, I'm not going to rank him above. That is logic.


OK, which is why I do my rankings on a combo of them all, resume being the highest thing that is taken into account.

Your argument is about how they do it, which is also part of my criteria. I base ATG status on a mixture of:

Resume
In ring performance
Head to head ability

I rank Charles above Duran on the basis of having a better resume and for his size being just as good in comparison with other greats as Duran in a head to head sense.

You rate Duran higher based on in-ring performance. You base your rankings solely on footage rather than what someone accomplished in their career, so I assume you rate Roy Jones the best of all time.

No, my number 1 is Pernell Whitaker.

[Dorian]

not top 5 but definetely top 10

[Sweet Pete]

No, my number 1 is Pernell Whitaker.

Mind if I see your list? Yours is rated on head to head and ring ability solely, whereas I go by different criteria, with resume and accomplishments mixed in. I judge a lot of a fighters greatness on what they accomplished and did in the ring.

[shawn_]

#1) Pernell Whitaker
#2) Willie Pep
#3) Sugar Ray Robinson

As I have said in all of my lists, they do not give medals for 4th place for a reason. Anything beyond #3 is unimportant.

Roy Jones is nipping at Sugar Ray Robinson's heels

[Sweet Pete]

#1) Pernell Whitaker
#2) Willie Pep
#3) Sugar Ray Robinson

As I have said in all of my lists, they do not give medals for 4th place for a reason. Anything beyond #3 is unimportant.

Roy Jones is nipping at Sugar Ray Robinson's heels

Yeah, but this isn't a competition, it's a list. Oh well, if that's the way you do things, it's the way you do things.

Based on head to head and in ring performance I rate Jones, Robinson, and Whitaker at the top.