The top 100 boxers in history according to Ring Magazine

[Marchegiano]

Given, to date, most of ring's history they sold ratings and it's not even hidden or controversial to say they did that, who gives a **** what their past 100 years of ratings?

Basically go from what Tex wanted folks to think to what Bob wanted folks to think and little else.

[Marchegiano]

The BHOF has ''eras''
So should lists

The ''fight once a month'' era could not survive in this era.
The quality of opponents are better and no Mob to push a guy through.

ATG lists cannot not exist due to so many variables

You mean a champion fighting a debutant is no longer acceptable?

Yeah, agreed, should be in categories but we don't even separate history properly. John L Sullivan is hardly the first queensburry world champion but we like to put him there anyway.

Sullivan does not belong amongst Tunney

Tunney does not belong amongst Charles

Charles does not belong amongst Spinks

No, I don't think they'd have a hard time in each other's eras. I think they'd fight entirely differently.

Make it real ******, Mayweather, regardless of talent, does not belong next to names like Mendoza. Mayweather knows nothing about a fight to the finish and his entire style depends on their being a scheduled end. He simply does not fight like Money as a BK fighter.

I'm not saying Spinks is better than Charles. I'm saying Spinks fights 12 rounds, charles fights 15, ought to be rated by the rules they fought under not how much your ***** gets wet when you watch.

[QueensburyRules]

- - Watching muffins with bowels in an uproar over historical Ring Ratings...priceless

[mromano]

These all time great lists are so hard for me to give any thoughts to. Ranking guys from different era's is incredibly hard and based on the criteria the Ring used, its even more puzzling. Someone pointed out that Hamed is ranked above MAB, which to me is utterly confusing. I get it, its based on their formula, but how can anyone say that some of the greatest heavyweights in history could match up with fighters from the last 10 years like the Klitchko's or Fury. This same concept applies to all sports, especially the NBA, NFL, NHL where in the 80's-90's the game was played much differently then it is today.

[BodyBagz]

This is true logic right here GREAT POST

Could you imagine the havoc our best present day fighters would have over the pre tv era ?
Our guys are bigger (HW), stronger, more technically sound....
Similar to NFL. We can't really judge present day to the 70's. It's almost a different sport, as was boxing.
They can stand over a guy until they got up, had leather mittens instead of gloves, wrestling was encouraged....

ATGFF is more like it
(FantasyFighters)

[BodyBagz]

You mean a champion fighting a debutant is no longer acceptable?

Yeah, agreed, should be in categories but we don't even separate history properly. John L Sullivan is hardly the first queensburry world champion but we like to put him there anyway.

Sullivan does not belong amongst Tunney

Tunney does not belong amongst Charles

Charles does not belong amongst Spinks

No, I don't think they'd have a hard time in each other's eras. I think they'd fight entirely differently.

Make it real ******, Mayweather, regardless of talent, does not belong next to names like Mendoza. Mayweather knows nothing about a fight to the finish and his entire style depends on their being a scheduled end. He simply does not fight like Money as a BK fighter.

I'm not saying Spinks is better than Charles. I'm saying Spinks fights 12 rounds, charles fights 15, ought to be rated by the rules they fought under not how much your ***** gets wet when you watch.

I think most of us (boxing fans, not fan boys) can agree on the quality of a fighter and their opposition.
Just because 15 rds was done away with doesn't mean our guys couldn't do it.
And those who did go 15 usually looked dead on their feet after 12.
You are way smarter than me so perhaps you know the fatality/serious damage % between the eras ?
Our era seems more damaging.
Credible historians weren't able to critique our guys so how do they know
Same situation when our historians knowledge will be limited to what they lived to see.

If scoring fights is objective, makes sense that lists are too.

[Toffee]

These all time great lists are so hard for me to give any thoughts to. Ranking guys from different era's is incredibly hard and based on the criteria the Ring used, its even more puzzling. Someone pointed out that Hamed is ranked above MAB, which to me is utterly confusing. I get it, its based on their formula, but how can anyone say that some of the greatest heavyweights in history could match up with fighters from the last 10 years like the Klitchko's or Fury. This same concept applies to all sports, especially the NBA, NFL, NHL where in the 80's-90's the game was played much differently then it is today.

It's just a bit of fun.

Whereas people actually take P4P seriously!

[Get em up]

Could you imagine the havoc our best present day fighters would have over the pre tv era ?
Our guys are bigger (HW), stronger, more technically sound....
Similar to NFL. We can't really judge present day to the 70's. It's almost a different sport, as was boxing.
They can stand over a guy until they got up, had leather mittens instead of gloves, wrestling was encouraged....

ATGFF is more like it
(FantasyFighters)

Fantasy fighters is exactly it. The P4P lists and mixing one era with another is impossible. It's all speculation and opinion and we both know how wild that kind of view point can get.

[Marchegiano]

I think most of us (boxing fans, not fan boys) can agree on the quality of a fighter and their opposition.
Just because 15 rds was done away with doesn't mean our guys couldn't do it.
And those who did go 15 usually looked dead on their feet after 12.
You are way smarter than me so perhaps you know the fatality/serious damage % between the eras ?
Our era seems more damaging.
Credible historians weren't able to critique our guys so how do they know
Same situation when our historians knowledge will be limited to what they lived to see.

If scoring fights is objective, makes sense that lists are too.

I'm not saying anything to could and couldn't. This is more do and do not and rounds are just an easy example.

Let's say after 15 rounds you're so beat you can't punch anymore after throwing 1500 punches.

So your limit is about 1500, after that you are a bit ****ed.

if the fight is 12 rounds and you hit 1500 punched in total you must have thrown more punches per round to hit your same goal

If it's 10 you have to throw even more punches a round to hit the same goal.

Pacing per da rules isn't about could and could not, I'm fairly certain most of our smaller guys at least can do 15 rounds and not die of exhaustion I mean Loma and Money and ****, clearly can do another 3. What I am saying is because Mayweather and Loma fight 12s and Tommy Ryan fought 15+ers it's not fair to compare them on in-ring ability because they're not showing you how they would fight under one anothers' rules.

To keep it punches, to say Rocky Marciano would punch more per round under 12 than he did 15 is assumption, better to only compare Rocky to other 15 rounders. To say Mayweather would punch less per round under 15 rounds is assumption, better to compare to other 12rnders.

I am not one of these history guys who always chooses history, not what this is, all I am saying is it shouldn't matter to you if you think the 1920s was better or worse than the 2020s, it's still pretty unfair and forces a lot of assumption.

We all know Marciano today would be fighting dude like Canelo not dudes like Fury. Because dem rules says Marciano can not fight Fury. Hell, so do laws. At over 100lbs size disparity it's hard to even get two true modern HWs sanctioned. Like a 210 vs a 340 is totally okay by sanctioning body rules but Butterbean had a hard time getting commissions to Okay his fights because he was so much heavier than other HWs. It takes just so, so much ****** to put Rocky in the ring with Tyson we ought to not.

[Citizen Koba]

Just to add my voice to the general consensus that comparing fighters between eras inevitably degenerates in to a morass of subjective bullchit... most of what I'd have to say already been covered by Bagz, Rocky, Romano et al.

Thing to do with stuff like this is treat it as a bit of fun or perhaps a starting point for debate... same pretty much goes for all the 'P4P' nonsense too, least IMO.

Guess I like that they at least tried to apply a consistent methodology... don't necessarily make the outcomes any more meaningful than boxrecs but at least you can see how they got to em.