Interesting video of fighters ranking thru decades

[Tom Cruise]

Light Heavyweights



Middleweights

[Ray Corso]

I prefer my eye test to consider greats taking into account their skill levels and willingness to win.
Using this exercise imagine if Ali didn't have his prime unjustly taken away from him by the government!

I prefer Louis's technique over Ali but Ali did things unconventional and no one has duplicated his approach.

Ray

[The Old LefHook]

Interesting, but the system used has glaring inherent weaknesses that could and should be easily corrected. The decades approach is misleading and results in absurdities, such as Hill being rated higher than Jones. In addition, it gives no useful information.

The video maker should have thrown away his demarcations of decades. Show the years and just add up the points without any reference to decades. This ranks the participants in exact order and adds no misinformation of its own. The author had a good idea but lacked some of the details of correct implementation in his vision.

[Hnnnggg]

An interesting study. Since the data set used in the analysis was based on somewhat subjective rankings, do you guys find that the overall ranking per division coincided with your actual ranking of fighters by skill? It would make an interesting thought experiment on whether or not the sport as a whole evolves to produce better fighters as the years progress. My thinking is that it does not

[OctoberRed]

An interesting study. Since the data set used in the analysis was based on somewhat subjective rankings, do you guys find that the overall ranking per division coincided with your actual ranking of fighters by skill? It would make an interesting thought experiment on whether or not the sport as a whole evolves to produce better fighters as the years progress. My thinking is that it does not

No, it doesn't. Current example is when Chocolatito was ranked at number one in every division he was in, but there were better skilled fighters.

[JAB5239]

An interesting study. Since the data set used in the analysis was based on somewhat subjective rankings, do you guys find that the overall ranking per division coincided with your actual ranking of fighters by skill? It would make an interesting thought experiment on whether or not the sport as a whole evolves to produce better fighters as the years progress. My thinking is that it does not

I agree. Belts and rankings can and have been carried according to promoters. I do believe it puts a lot of things in perspective though. I don't think it was ever intended as a greatest fighter list as much as a tool to use to weigh options from different times.

[Tom Cruise]

You can only take these rankings for what they are. Its just an interesting way to look at who was the most dominant and consistent of their eras. It threw up some surprises for me such as Max Schmelling, who I knew was a very good fighter and Champion, being that highly rated for so long.

Would love to have a look at who beat the most Ring ranked fighters, maybe weighting them like Rummy has in these vids, and see who comes out on top. Maybe one day when i have a bit of time.

That wouldnt be perfect either, looking at how lowly someone like Ezzard Charles was rated, and the lack of much recognition for weight climbers like Billy Conn, both of whom were unbelievably good in their day. But it could be interesting to look at nonetheless.

[OctoberRed]

You can only take these rankings for what they are. Its just an interesting way to look at who was the most dominant and consistent of their eras. It threw up some surprises for me such as Max Schmelling, who I knew was a very good fighter and Champion, being that highly rated for so long.

Would love to have a look at who beat the most Ring ranked fighters, maybe weighting them like Rummy has in these vids, and see who comes out on top. Maybe one day when i have a bit of time.

That wouldnt be perfect either, looking at how lowly someone like Ezzard Charles was rated, and the lack of much recognition for weight climbers like Billy Conn, both of whom were unbelievably good in their day. But it could be interesting to look at nonetheless.

Shame that Golden Boy bought Ring as now they aren't worth much of anything.

[Anthony342]

Shame that Golden Boy bought Ring as now they aren't worth much of anything.

Yeah, seems like TBRB should be the standard now. They just gotta make and be able to hand out championship belts.

[BattlingNelson]

Really puts into context the level of dominance for guys like Ali and Louis (and Wlad having now finished the video).

Ali basically beat every single fighter on the 60's and 70's lists, and comfortably topped them both.

Louis also beat most of the fighters on the 30's and 40's lists, and was obviously astonishingly dominant in the 40's.

That final list of total points has some flaws as a 'greatest HW's' list, buts its excellent for looking at the most dominant or most consistent HW's of all time.

Great and interesting way to break things down. Ive watched some Rummy's corner before, enjoy his videos.

Yes. Ali's dominance is noticeable. It's also worth noting that there's a couple of misses for say Larry Holmes.