How can you rank a fighter when you dont have a list?

Collapse
Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Larry the boss
    EDUCATED
    Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
    • Jan 2011
    • 90798
    • 6,419
    • 4,473
    • 2,500,480

    #1

    How can you rank a fighter when you dont have a list?

    To many posters on here try to place boxers in certain spots and can not even name 100 boxers yet alone have a real list. where does this train of thinking come from? Boxing has a rich history and all I see people post on here is about the same boxers over and over again then have the nerve to think they can place them in history.HOW MANY POSTERS ON HERE CAN MAKE A TOP 50 ALL TIME GREAT LIST WITH SOMETHING TO BACK IT UP WITH?
  • Larry the boss
    EDUCATED
    Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
    • Jan 2011
    • 90798
    • 6,419
    • 4,473
    • 2,500,480

    #2
    ??????????????????????????

    Comment

    • REDEEMER
      Banned
      Unified Champion - 10,00-20,000 posts
      • Oct 2018
      • 11820
      • 1,336
      • 1,008
      • 153,574

      #3
      You're in the wrong section and asking this forum to list 50 fights and give a reason behind it when they dont even give reasons for most posts in articles they don't read is a big ask because it requires some thinking and time to do it ,if the OP didnt do one why would others follow up on it ? Ranking guys today would have no correlation to what you asking anyway ,one doesn't have to do with the other from decades back.

      Comment

      • Smash
        Undisputed Champion
        Unified Champion - 10,00-20,000 posts
        • Nov 2008
        • 16338
        • 6,601
        • 7,978
        • 21,172

        #4
        even if u have watched lots of fighters from different ereas as much as u can its tought to compare them anyway, oh this guy beat this guy and this guy beat this guy, u still gona have your bias and not many get away from that at the end of the day

        Comment

        • techliam
          Caneloweight Champion
          Super Champion - 5,000-10,000 posts
          • Apr 2012
          • 5526
          • 371
          • 23
          • 42,424

          #5
          You can work from the top, as well as from the bottom Larry

          I see what you’re saying, in that people generally make it up as they go along. Especially when they say top 50 ATG or something. I’m guessing it’s just a quick calculation of tiers in their heads

          But you can quite easily say that fighter x is top 20 because I can only think of up to 19 fighters better. That doesn’t need an entire list to justify

          Comment

          • boliodogs
            Undisputed Champion
            Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
            • May 2008
            • 33358
            • 824
            • 1,782
            • 309,589

            #6
            Originally posted by larryx...
            To many posters on here try to place boxers in certain spots and can not even name 100 boxers yet alone have a real list. where does this train of thinking come from? Boxing has a rich history and all I see people post on here is about the same boxers over and over again then have the nerve to think they can place them in history.HOW MANY POSTERS ON HERE CAN MAKE A TOP 50 ALL TIME GREAT LIST WITH SOMETHING TO BACK IT UP WITH?
            absolutely true and I have been saying this for years. Just about nobody has a top 50 list of all time greats all neatly written down in order from the best on down. Only magazines or ESPN does that. Most have no list at all and 10 boxers would probably be the longest list I am a big boxing fan with no lists at all and I think most fans have no lists.

            Comment

            Working...
            TOP