If Wilder loses...

[Master]

How many times did you mention bum?

For Christ sake I am not covering for Wilder, he fights "those guys" alright. It's just I think your perspective is blinded.

Do you understand the concept of irony?

Yes @Master,

I DO see the conundrum here.

Wilder is NOT the standard that ALL the boxers in the HW division have elevated themselves by.

He is a project to see if this method can work.

Personally I don't like it. I think something should be done as you climb the rankings so that you are unable to climb higher until you BEAT higher ranked fighters.

That makes intuitive sense. That way you can make your extra small cash by pasting these guys left and right but forcing you to step it up if you wanna crack the big time.

Moorer got a title shot without ever fighting a top 10 fighter.

[Max Power]

How many times did you mention bum?

For Christ sake I am not covering for Wilder, he fights "those guys" alright. It's just I think your perspective is blinded.

Do you understand the concept of irony?

Yes @Master,

I DO see the conundrum here.

Wilder is NOT the standard that ALL the boxers in the HW division have elevated themselves by.

He is a project to see if this method can work.

Personally I don't like it. I think something should be done as you climb the rankings so that you are unable to climb higher until you BEAT higher ranked fighters.

That makes intuitive sense. That way you can make your extra small cash by pasting these guys left and right but forcing you to step it up if you wanna crack the big time.

Moorer got a title shot without ever fighting a top 10 fighter.

Yeah but that sort of thing I'm not that concerned about and guys jumping up form lower divs is what confuses it.

Moorer was a champion boxer before he entered the division.

Guys from Cruiser and Light Heavy etc fought all there bums IN those divisions, then they pretty much jump right in with quality opponents when they hit heavy. It's how it is.

Guys who've always fought heavy like Wilder start right at the bottom. Except it's pretty clear that by 30 fights, Moorer's competition had significantly more quality than Wilder's.

Basically I have no problem with a boxer circumventing the rankings somewhat if they have been a champion boxer in a lower div first and then built up.

[Master]

Remember Vaughan Bean? He got a shot and I do not know how other than having the right connections ie Don King.

[Max Power]

Remember Vaughan Bean? He got a shot and I do not know how other than having the right connections ie Don King.

Point noted.

In every era, opponents have gotten shots who never actually worked for it.

I don't care about guys like Haye and Moorer who were champs in lower divs.

But it has occurred in all eras.

I concede. You have me here.

CONCLUSION: I think there can be applied a fair as fair can be formula of ranking fighters according to the quality of the opposition they fight with regards purely to their own era, no nostalgic comparisons necessary. And I think it should be implemented.

And I also credit you too @Master with hitting the nail on the head why it is not applied.

MONEY! And the powers that be (i.e. King) that put it up.

In other words the rankings systems are corrupt.

Someone recently right here was trying to tell me how Boxrec had it right with a "fair points system" LOL I forget the poster but of course I disagree.

All I can say is that I disagree with bum-busting as a method to reach the top. Whether they are modern or not!

In fact I'll give you another concession.

Even though I don't consider the cruiser opponents of guys like Norton or Liston as valid HW opponents when comparing today (I view Wilder as having a better record) I acknowledge that against the criteria of their day, these WERE valid HW opponents and if treated as such, their records are in fact better!

Relatively speaking, Wilder is a worse bum-buster than Liston and Norton!

You have me reduced here to merely a weight argument!

[Master]

I would not call Liston or Norton a bum.

What is your definition for a bum?

[Max Power]

I would not call Liston or Norton a bum.

What is your definition for a bum?

Norton and Liston WERE bum busters by definition that most of their REAL HW (200+) opponents had lost more than a quarter of their fights.

If you consider their sub 200+ opponents in their records (of which their records were significantly or even largely composed) then their records are inflated to be better against modern HW boxers records.

The reason this distinction IS important in a cross era comparison is that TODAY if they were to box, that portion of their record would be considered part of their cruiser record (one in which they were HW's fighting CW's hence had a significant weight advantage which they would not be permitted nowadays.

It's only when you put CW back to CW and delete bums that you can make an accurate HW comparison between eras.

To put it another way, if you want to include olden days boxers cruiser records as valid HW records (as they were then) then that's fine, but you THEN have to include guys like David Haye's entire career as a valid HW career too (as it was then) and all of his opponents. It then becomes very clear how much better quality opponents Haye fought, beat and how many he KOed than these guys.

You cannot have it both ways!

I simplify all this by deleting all bums and cruisers off records when making such a comparison. In my opinion, you must!

[Master]

That was the weights at those times. Your definition is nonsense. If you followed your logic then Wlad would be considered a bum in 40 years. Ridiculous.