The Top Twenty Heavies

[ryanman]

It's still not solid enough for me. Unfortunately for the sake of this thread, cold hard facts can sometimes be lost on me simply because they are only relevant to their own era's. Which is why IMO, you have to leave room for speculation simply because the ballpark has and always will change.
Ken Norton who went 1-4 against the other major players of his era, is a hall of famer yet Donnavan Ruddock isn't.

Why? Because Ken Norton beat a past prime and somewhat overrated Muhammad Ali.

I do realise Sly was inducted in a non-fighting capacity but I'm allowed artistic licence because i was making a good point with it

See I agree & disagree Jim. I personally believe that Norton is more than worthy in the same way I consider guys like Winky Wright & Jose Luis Castillo to be locks were I to have a vote. Norton was competitive with all the best guys he fought with the exception of Foreman, whose power he just couldn't handle (no shame there).

However, what this exposes is the problem in ranking people based on some kind of Top Trumps system. I'm also of the belief that it's far easier for these older guys to get in based off the fact they don't have to deal with every second of their careers being analysed meticulously. We simply see their best bits & trust individual interpretations of how good they are, which may be subject to hyperbole. I mean that's all good, but based off press interpretations of his last 3 fights you could be led to believe that Sergio Martinez is one of the greatest Middleweights of all time. The difference is we can view those fights ourselves & make our own judgements.

I also agree that to a point the HoF is subjective. Should a win over Barry McGuigan or Ingemar Johannson be worth more than a win over Genaro Hernandez or Masao Ohba when I consider the latter pair to be more talented fighters & with comparative or better resumes?

I think having some criteria is great, but at the end of the day, what you see with your own eyes is equally important. HOW someone performs/wins/loses is just as important to me. Regardless of how many different factors are used to try & define it, at the end it's all just opinion.

My Top 20

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Jack Johnson
3. Joe Louis
4. Joe Frazier
5. Larry Holmes
6. Jack Dempsey
7. George Foreman
8. Lennox Lewis
9. Jim Jeffries
10. Evander Holyfield
11. Mike Tyson
12. Rocky Marciano
13. Sonny Liston
14. Sam Langford
15. Gene Tunney
16. Ezzard Charles
17. Floyd Patterson
18. Ken Norton
19. Wlad Klitschko
20. Max Schmeling

The bold is bullspit that you keep repeating. Just because you haven't read in detail multiple accounts of older greats and their fights doesn't mean they don't exist. Just because you haven't watched the extensive footage available on most of these guys doesn't mean others haven't. The idea that TODAY's men are under more scrutiny is crazy. The sport has shrunk dramatically in terms of observation and observers.

How can one not have criteria? How in the hell do you do your rankings? Pulling names outy of hats?

Having said that, that's not a bad list. Except I don't know how one can "use their eyes," watch footage of both Johnson and Louis, and rank Johnson higher.

The fact is it is just YOUR criteria. Your criteria is not the criteria that everybody must follow. You select your criteria, hence it has inherent bias. You can't argue with that. Also, you come across as quite patronising. Just my opinion.

Oh, and just to parody your last sentence - How can you use YOUR own eyes and have Langford ahead of Lewis? Ok, you will say you don't rely on your eyes but your own criteria (as if only a moron would trust their own eyes), but your criteria seem very bendy.

[marbleheadmaui]

It's still not solid enough for me. Unfortunately for the sake of this thread, cold hard facts can sometimes be lost on me simply because they are only relevant to their own era's. Which is why IMO, you have to leave room for speculation simply because the ballpark has and always will change.
Ken Norton who went 1-4 against the other major players of his era, is a hall of famer yet Donnavan Ruddock isn't.

Why? Because Ken Norton beat a past prime and somewhat overrated Muhammad Ali.

I do realise Sly was inducted in a non-fighting capacity but I'm allowed artistic licence because i was making a good point with it

See I agree & disagree Jim. I personally believe that Norton is more than worthy in the same way I consider guys like Winky Wright & Jose Luis Castillo to be locks were I to have a vote. Norton was competitive with all the best guys he fought with the exception of Foreman, whose power he just couldn't handle (no shame there).

However, what this exposes is the problem in ranking people based on some kind of Top Trumps system. I'm also of the belief that it's far easier for these older guys to get in based off the fact they don't have to deal with every second of their careers being analysed meticulously. We simply see their best bits & trust individual interpretations of how good they are, which may be subject to hyperbole. I mean that's all good, but based off press interpretations of his last 3 fights you could be led to believe that Sergio Martinez is one of the greatest Middleweights of all time. The difference is we can view those fights ourselves & make our own judgements.

I also agree that to a point the HoF is subjective. Should a win over Barry McGuigan or Ingemar Johannson be worth more than a win over Genaro Hernandez or Masao Ohba when I consider the latter pair to be more talented fighters & with comparative or better resumes?

I think having some criteria is great, but at the end of the day, what you see with your own eyes is equally important. HOW someone performs/wins/loses is just as important to me. Regardless of how many different factors are used to try & define it, at the end it's all just opinion.

My Top 20

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Jack Johnson
3. Joe Louis
4. Joe Frazier
5. Larry Holmes
6. Jack Dempsey
7. George Foreman
8. Lennox Lewis
9. Jim Jeffries
10. Evander Holyfield
11. Mike Tyson
12. Rocky Marciano
13. Sonny Liston
14. Sam Langford
15. Gene Tunney
16. Ezzard Charles
17. Floyd Patterson
18. Ken Norton
19. Wlad Klitschko
20. Max Schmeling

The bold is bullspit that you keep repeating. Just because you haven't read in detail multiple accounts of older greats and their fights doesn't mean they don't exist. Just because you haven't watched the extensive footage available on most of these guys doesn't mean others haven't. The idea that TODAY's men are under more scrutiny is crazy. The sport has shrunk dramatically in terms of observation and observers.

How can one not have criteria? How in the hell do you do your rankings? Pulling names outy of hats?

Having said that, that's not a bad list. Except I don't know how one can "use their eyes," watch footage of both Johnson and Louis, and rank Johnson higher.

The fact is it is just YOUR criteria. Your criteria is not the criteria that everybody must follow. You select your criteria, hence it has inherent bias. You can't argue with that. Also, you come across as quite patronising. Just my opinion.

Oh, and just to parody your last sentence - How can you use YOUR own eyes and have Langford ahead of Lewis? Ok, you will say you don't rely on your eyes but your own criteria (as if only a moron would trust their own eyes), but your criteria seem very bendy.

Geeze, OBVIOUSLY on the bold. But seomeone must HAVE criteria to determine such a list. You seem dismissive of the very CONCEPT of criteria. {Now THAT was patronising)

I NEVER said I don't rely on my own eyes. I questioned what you were seeing with yours in placing Johnson over Louis. What do you see in Johnson that you don't see in Louis for example> What do you see in Louis that you don't see in Johnson? Relying solely on ones eyes requires an arrogance that I just don't have. I don't know about you, but my eyes often lead to incorrect or questionable conclusions. I often find the views of others illuminating.

As for my criteria being Bendy? I agree. Now find me one that is MORE objective and I'll happily use that one.

[ryanman]

It's still not solid enough for me. Unfortunately for the sake of this thread, cold hard facts can sometimes be lost on me simply because they are only relevant to their own era's. Which is why IMO, you have to leave room for speculation simply because the ballpark has and always will change.
Ken Norton who went 1-4 against the other major players of his era, is a hall of famer yet Donnavan Ruddock isn't.

Why? Because Ken Norton beat a past prime and somewhat overrated Muhammad Ali.

I do realise Sly was inducted in a non-fighting capacity but I'm allowed artistic licence because i was making a good point with it

See I agree & disagree Jim. I personally believe that Norton is more than worthy in the same way I consider guys like Winky Wright & Jose Luis Castillo to be locks were I to have a vote. Norton was competitive with all the best guys he fought with the exception of Foreman, whose power he just couldn't handle (no shame there).

However, what this exposes is the problem in ranking people based on some kind of Top Trumps system. I'm also of the belief that it's far easier for these older guys to get in based off the fact they don't have to deal with every second of their careers being analysed meticulously. We simply see their best bits & trust individual interpretations of how good they are, which may be subject to hyperbole. I mean that's all good, but based off press interpretations of his last 3 fights you could be led to believe that Sergio Martinez is one of the greatest Middleweights of all time. The difference is we can view those fights ourselves & make our own judgements.

I also agree that to a point the HoF is subjective. Should a win over Barry McGuigan or Ingemar Johannson be worth more than a win over Genaro Hernandez or Masao Ohba when I consider the latter pair to be more talented fighters & with comparative or better resumes?

I think having some criteria is great, but at the end of the day, what you see with your own eyes is equally important. HOW someone performs/wins/loses is just as important to me. Regardless of how many different factors are used to try & define it, at the end it's all just opinion.

My Top 20

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Jack Johnson
3. Joe Louis
4. Joe Frazier
5. Larry Holmes
6. Jack Dempsey
7. George Foreman
8. Lennox Lewis
9. Jim Jeffries
10. Evander Holyfield
11. Mike Tyson
12. Rocky Marciano
13. Sonny Liston
14. Sam Langford
15. Gene Tunney
16. Ezzard Charles
17. Floyd Patterson
18. Ken Norton
19. Wlad Klitschko
20. Max Schmeling

The bold is bullspit that you keep repeating. Just because you haven't read in detail multiple accounts of older greats and their fights doesn't mean they don't exist. Just because you haven't watched the extensive footage available on most of these guys doesn't mean others haven't. The idea that TODAY's men are under more scrutiny is crazy. The sport has shrunk dramatically in terms of observation and observers.

How can one not have criteria? How in the hell do you do your rankings? Pulling names outy of hats?

Having said that, that's not a bad list. Except I don't know how one can "use their eyes," watch footage of both Johnson and Louis, and rank Johnson higher.

The fact is it is just YOUR criteria. Your criteria is not the criteria that everybody must follow. You select your criteria, hence it has inherent bias. You can't argue with that. Also, you come across as quite patronising. Just my opinion.

Oh, and just to parody your last sentence - How can you use YOUR own eyes and have Langford ahead of Lewis? Ok, you will say you don't rely on your eyes but your own criteria (as if only a moron would trust their own eyes), but your criteria seem very bendy.

Geeze, OBVIOUSLY on the bold. But seomeone must HAVE criteria to determine such a list. You seem dismissive of the very CONCEPT of criteria. {Now THAT was patronising)

I NEVER said I don't rely on my own eyes. I questioned what you were seeing with yours in placing Johnson over Louis. What do you see in Johnson that you don't see in Louis for example> What do you see in Louis that you don't see in Johnson? Relying solely on ones eyes requires an arrogance that I just don't have. I don't know about you, but my eyes often lead to incorrect or questionable conclusions. I often find the views of others illuminating.

As for my criteria being Bendy? I agree. Now find me one that is MORE objective and I'll happily use that one.

You have made an embarrassing error. Your last three replies are all to the same person - me. I'm not the same as Jazmerkin. It's good that you continue to be patronising by advising me to look up the meaning of the word hypocrisy - I did so and it seems I used it in the correct context ( I didn't really check - just feeding your ego).

So, you use your own eye, that’s a good start. So, can you please expand on how you have Langford ahead of Lewis? Because it really does seem as though you have a recurring issue with Lennox Lewis for his 2 losses yet consistently hold fighters that have suffered more losses against equally questionable opponents in high regard. That is what I mean by bendy criteria.

[ryanman]

It's still not solid enough for me. Unfortunately for the sake of this thread, cold hard facts can sometimes be lost on me simply because they are only relevant to their own era's. Which is why IMO, you have to leave room for speculation simply because the ballpark has and always will change.
Ken Norton who went 1-4 against the other major players of his era, is a hall of famer yet Donnavan Ruddock isn't.

Why? Because Ken Norton beat a past prime and somewhat overrated Muhammad Ali.

I do realise Sly was inducted in a non-fighting capacity but I'm allowed artistic licence because i was making a good point with it

See I agree & disagree Jim. I personally believe that Norton is more than worthy in the same way I consider guys like Winky Wright & Jose Luis Castillo to be locks were I to have a vote. Norton was competitive with all the best guys he fought with the exception of Foreman, whose power he just couldn't handle (no shame there).

However, what this exposes is the problem in ranking people based on some kind of Top Trumps system. I'm also of the belief that it's far easier for these older guys to get in based off the fact they don't have to deal with every second of their careers being analysed meticulously. We simply see their best bits & trust individual interpretations of how good they are, which may be subject to hyperbole. I mean that's all good, but based off press interpretations of his last 3 fights you could be led to believe that Sergio Martinez is one of the greatest Middleweights of all time. The difference is we can view those fights ourselves & make our own judgements.

I also agree that to a point the HoF is subjective. Should a win over Barry McGuigan or Ingemar Johannson be worth more than a win over Genaro Hernandez or Masao Ohba when I consider the latter pair to be more talented fighters & with comparative or better resumes?

I think having some criteria is great, but at the end of the day, what you see with your own eyes is equally important. HOW someone performs/wins/loses is just as important to me. Regardless of how many different factors are used to try & define it, at the end it's all just opinion.

My Top 20

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Jack Johnson
3. Joe Louis
4. Joe Frazier
5. Larry Holmes
6. Jack Dempsey
7. George Foreman
8. Lennox Lewis
9. Jim Jeffries
10. Evander Holyfield
11. Mike Tyson
12. Rocky Marciano
13. Sonny Liston
14. Sam Langford
15. Gene Tunney
16. Ezzard Charles
17. Floyd Patterson
18. Ken Norton
19. Wlad Klitschko
20. Max Schmeling

The bold is bullspit that you keep repeating. Just because you haven't read in detail multiple accounts of older greats and their fights doesn't mean they don't exist. Just because you haven't watched the extensive footage available on most of these guys doesn't mean others haven't. The idea that TODAY's men are under more scrutiny is crazy. The sport has shrunk dramatically in terms of observation and observers.

How can one not have criteria? How in the hell do you do your rankings? Pulling names outy of hats?

Having said that, that's not a bad list. Except I don't know how one can "use their eyes," watch footage of both Johnson and Louis, and rank Johnson higher.

The fact is it is just YOUR criteria. Your criteria is not the criteria that everybody must follow. You select your criteria, hence it has inherent bias. You can't argue with that. Also, you come across as quite patronising. Just my opinion.

Oh, and just to parody your last sentence - How can you use YOUR own eyes and have Langford ahead of Lewis? Ok, you will say you don't rely on your eyes but your own criteria (as if only a moron would trust their own eyes), but your criteria seem very bendy.

Geeze, OBVIOUSLY on the bold. But seomeone must HAVE criteria to determine such a list. You seem dismissive of the very CONCEPT of criteria. {Now THAT was patronising)

I NEVER said I don't rely on my own eyes. I questioned what you were seeing with yours in placing Johnson over Louis. What do you see in Johnson that you don't see in Louis for example> What do you see in Louis that you don't see in Johnson? Relying solely on ones eyes requires an arrogance that I just don't have. I don't know about you, but my eyes often lead to incorrect or questionable conclusions. I often find the views of others illuminating.

As for my criteria being Bendy? I agree. Now find me one that is MORE objective and I'll happily use that one.

You have made an embarassing error. Your last three replies are all to the same person - me. I'm not the same as Jazmerkin. It's good that you continue to be patronising by advising me to look up the meaning of the word hyprocracy - I did so and it seems I used it in the correct context ( I didn't really check - just feeding your ego).

So, you use your own eyes, that's a good start. So, can you please expand on how you have Langford ahead of Lewis? Because it really does seem as though you have a recurring issue with Lennox Lewis for his 2 losses yet consistently hold fighters that have suffered more losses against equally questionable opponents in high regard. That is what I mean by bendy criteria.

Oh, and you say 'Geez OBVIOUSLY on the bold'. Yes it was obvious, that's why I said it. I was making a simple point that you seemed to have forgotten.

* Note - I have complied a top heavyweight list probably at least three times on here so I'm not going to be repetitive. I know you haven't been here too long so you wouldn't know but there have been a fair few threads on this subject.

[marbleheadmaui]

It's still not solid enough for me. Unfortunately for the sake of this thread, cold hard facts can sometimes be lost on me simply because they are only relevant to their own era's. Which is why IMO, you have to leave room for speculation simply because the ballpark has and always will change.
Ken Norton who went 1-4 against the other major players of his era, is a hall of famer yet Donnavan Ruddock isn't.

Why? Because Ken Norton beat a past prime and somewhat overrated Muhammad Ali.

I do realise Sly was inducted in a non-fighting capacity but I'm allowed artistic licence because i was making a good point with it

See I agree & disagree Jim. I personally believe that Norton is more than worthy in the same way I consider guys like Winky Wright & Jose Luis Castillo to be locks were I to have a vote. Norton was competitive with all the best guys he fought with the exception of Foreman, whose power he just couldn't handle (no shame there).

However, what this exposes is the problem in ranking people based on some kind of Top Trumps system. I'm also of the belief that it's far easier for these older guys to get in based off the fact they don't have to deal with every second of their careers being analysed meticulously. We simply see their best bits & trust individual interpretations of how good they are, which may be subject to hyperbole. I mean that's all good, but based off press interpretations of his last 3 fights you could be led to believe that Sergio Martinez is one of the greatest Middleweights of all time. The difference is we can view those fights ourselves & make our own judgements.

I also agree that to a point the HoF is subjective. Should a win over Barry McGuigan or Ingemar Johannson be worth more than a win over Genaro Hernandez or Masao Ohba when I consider the latter pair to be more talented fighters & with comparative or better resumes?

I think having some criteria is great, but at the end of the day, what you see with your own eyes is equally important. HOW someone performs/wins/loses is just as important to me. Regardless of how many different factors are used to try & define it, at the end it's all just opinion.

My Top 20

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Jack Johnson
3. Joe Louis
4. Joe Frazier
5. Larry Holmes
6. Jack Dempsey
7. George Foreman
8. Lennox Lewis
9. Jim Jeffries
10. Evander Holyfield
11. Mike Tyson
12. Rocky Marciano
13. Sonny Liston
14. Sam Langford
15. Gene Tunney
16. Ezzard Charles
17. Floyd Patterson
18. Ken Norton
19. Wlad Klitschko
20. Max Schmeling

The bold is bullspit that you keep repeating. Just because you haven't read in detail multiple accounts of older greats and their fights doesn't mean they don't exist. Just because you haven't watched the extensive footage available on most of these guys doesn't mean others haven't. The idea that TODAY's men are under more scrutiny is crazy. The sport has shrunk dramatically in terms of observation and observers.

How can one not have criteria? How in the hell do you do your rankings? Pulling names outy of hats?

Having said that, that's not a bad list. Except I don't know how one can "use their eyes," watch footage of both Johnson and Louis, and rank Johnson higher.

The fact is it is just YOUR criteria. Your criteria is not the criteria that everybody must follow. You select your criteria, hence it has inherent bias. You can't argue with that. Also, you come across as quite patronising. Just my opinion.

Oh, and just to parody your last sentence - How can you use YOUR own eyes and have Langford ahead of Lewis? Ok, you will say you don't rely on your eyes but your own criteria (as if only a moron would trust their own eyes), but your criteria seem very bendy.

Geeze, OBVIOUSLY on the bold. But seomeone must HAVE criteria to determine such a list. You seem dismissive of the very CONCEPT of criteria. {Now THAT was patronising)

I NEVER said I don't rely on my own eyes. I questioned what you were seeing with yours in placing Johnson over Louis. What do you see in Johnson that you don't see in Louis for example> What do you see in Louis that you don't see in Johnson? Relying solely on ones eyes requires an arrogance that I just don't have. I don't know about you, but my eyes often lead to incorrect or questionable conclusions. I often find the views of others illuminating.

As for my criteria being Bendy? I agree. Now find me one that is MORE objective and I'll happily use that one.

You have made an embarassing error. Your last three replies are all to the same person - me. I'm not the same as Jazmerkin. It's good that you continue to be patronising by advising me to look up the meaning of the word hyprocracy - I did so and it seems I used it in the correct context ( I didn't really check - just feeding your ego).

So, you use your own eyes, that's a good start. So, can you please expand on how you have Langford ahead of Lewis? Because it really does seem as though you have a recurring issue with Lennox Lewis for his 2 losses yet consistently hold fighters that have suffered more losses against equally questionable opponents in high regard. That is what I mean by bendy criteria.

Oh, and you say 'Geez OBVIOUSLY on the bold'. Yes it was obvious, that's why I said it. I was making a simple point that you seemed to have forgotten.
* Note - I have complied a top heavyweight list probably at least three times on here so I'm not going to be repetitive. I know you haven't been here too long so you wouldn't know but there have been a fair few threads on this subject.

{Laughing on the bold] Forgotten? Hardly. It is so obvious it needn't be explicitly stated.

[marbleheadmaui]

It's still not solid enough for me. Unfortunately for the sake of this thread, cold hard facts can sometimes be lost on me simply because they are only relevant to their own era's. Which is why IMO, you have to leave room for speculation simply because the ballpark has and always will change.
Ken Norton who went 1-4 against the other major players of his era, is a hall of famer yet Donnavan Ruddock isn't.

Why? Because Ken Norton beat a past prime and somewhat overrated Muhammad Ali.

I do realise Sly was inducted in a non-fighting capacity but I'm allowed artistic licence because i was making a good point with it

See I agree & disagree Jim. I personally believe that Norton is more than worthy in the same way I consider guys like Winky Wright & Jose Luis Castillo to be locks were I to have a vote. Norton was competitive with all the best guys he fought with the exception of Foreman, whose power he just couldn't handle (no shame there).

However, what this exposes is the problem in ranking people based on some kind of Top Trumps system. I'm also of the belief that it's far easier for these older guys to get in based off the fact they don't have to deal with every second of their careers being analysed meticulously. We simply see their best bits & trust individual interpretations of how good they are, which may be subject to hyperbole. I mean that's all good, but based off press interpretations of his last 3 fights you could be led to believe that Sergio Martinez is one of the greatest Middleweights of all time. The difference is we can view those fights ourselves & make our own judgements.

I also agree that to a point the HoF is subjective. Should a win over Barry McGuigan or Ingemar Johannson be worth more than a win over Genaro Hernandez or Masao Ohba when I consider the latter pair to be more talented fighters & with comparative or better resumes?

I think having some criteria is great, but at the end of the day, what you see with your own eyes is equally important. HOW someone performs/wins/loses is just as important to me. Regardless of how many different factors are used to try & define it, at the end it's all just opinion.

My Top 20

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Jack Johnson
3. Joe Louis
4. Joe Frazier
5. Larry Holmes
6. Jack Dempsey
7. George Foreman
8. Lennox Lewis
9. Jim Jeffries
10. Evander Holyfield
11. Mike Tyson
12. Rocky Marciano
13. Sonny Liston
14. Sam Langford
15. Gene Tunney
16. Ezzard Charles
17. Floyd Patterson
18. Ken Norton
19. Wlad Klitschko
20. Max Schmeling

The bold is bullspit that you keep repeating. Just because you haven't read in detail multiple accounts of older greats and their fights doesn't mean they don't exist. Just because you haven't watched the extensive footage available on most of these guys doesn't mean others haven't. The idea that TODAY's men are under more scrutiny is crazy. The sport has shrunk dramatically in terms of observation and observers.

How can one not have criteria? How in the hell do you do your rankings? Pulling names outy of hats?

Having said that, that's not a bad list. Except I don't know how one can "use their eyes," watch footage of both Johnson and Louis, and rank Johnson higher.

The fact is it is just YOUR criteria. Your criteria is not the criteria that everybody must follow. You select your criteria, hence it has inherent bias. You can't argue with that. Also, you come across as quite patronising. Just my opinion.

Oh, and just to parody your last sentence - How can you use YOUR own eyes and have Langford ahead of Lewis? Ok, you will say you don't rely on your eyes but your own criteria (as if only a moron would trust their own eyes), but your criteria seem very bendy.

Geeze, OBVIOUSLY on the bold. But seomeone must HAVE criteria to determine such a list. You seem dismissive of the very CONCEPT of criteria. {Now THAT was patronising)

I NEVER said I don't rely on my own eyes. I questioned what you were seeing with yours in placing Johnson over Louis. What do you see in Johnson that you don't see in Louis for example> What do you see in Louis that you don't see in Johnson? Relying solely on ones eyes requires an arrogance that I just don't have. I don't know about you, but my eyes often lead to incorrect or questionable conclusions. I often find the views of others illuminating.

As for my criteria being Bendy? I agree. Now find me one that is MORE objective and I'll happily use that one.

You have made an embarrassing error. Your last three replies are all to the same person - me. I'm not the same as Jazmerkin. It's good that you continue to be patronising by advising me to look up the meaning of the word hypocrisy - I did so and it seems I used it in the correct context ( I didn't really check - just feeding your ego).

So, you use your own eye, that’s a good start. So, can you please expand on how you have Langford ahead of Lewis? Because it really does seem as though you have a recurring issue with Lennox Lewis for his 2 losses yet consistently hold fighters that have suffered more losses against equally questionable opponents in high regard. That is what I mean by bendy criteria.

I've made no errors. But give me time!

And you obviously didn't look up hypocrisy so I'll help you

a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion

I suspect what you mean to accuse me of is having a "double standard." Happy to have that pointed out if it is true!

Let me try to show why I have Langford over Lennox. Sam defeated HOFers on 14 occasions and on almost every occasion those guys were in ther primes. Lennox beat that quality a fighter only three times and I don't think any of them except Vitali was in their prime. It's a HUGE accomplishment gap. Now was there anything Lennox could have done about that? Probably not. He didn't have the same possibilities in front of him. It is what it is. And even among non HOFers Langford defeated fine heavyweights like Jeff Clark (good enough to defeat HOFer Kid Norfolk) and Battling Jim Johnson (who faced Jack Johnson in a title fight and got a draw though Jack was injured) on multiple occasions each. Had their been ratings back then? My guess (based on just a quick count) and it is only a guess? Langford defeated ranked heavies 25 times, Lennox we know did so 13 times, an excellent number, but still a big gap (only in my guesswork though).

Lennox was drilled by two different mediocrities while in his prime. Before his eyes were injured in 1917 Langford was not KO'd by any heavyweight period despite fighting top guys well over 30 times. After his eyes were damaged he got KO'd by lesser fighters (Fred Fulton for example) but does anyone want to make the case that counts as Langford's prime? Did Lennox reverse those? Sure but so what? Langfo0rd didn't have to in the first place.

Anyway, that's the basic case for whatever it is worth.

I think the best response is not to question the data as it's hard to do so, but to argue that Langford was never champion and Lennox had a fine title reign. It's not Sam's fault he couldn't get a shot, but so what? Liife isn't fair.

It's not a bad counter, just not one I find compelling.Have you a better argument? Love to hear it!

[Howlin Mad Missy]

It's still not solid enough for me. Unfortunately for the sake of this thread, cold hard facts can sometimes be lost on me simply because they are only relevant to their own era's. Which is why IMO, you have to leave room for speculation simply because the ballpark has and always will change.
Ken Norton who went 1-4 against the other major players of his era, is a hall of famer yet Donnavan Ruddock isn't.

Why? Because Ken Norton beat a past prime and somewhat overrated Muhammad Ali.

I do realise Sly was inducted in a non-fighting capacity but I'm allowed artistic licence because i was making a good point with it

See I agree & disagree Jim. I personally believe that Norton is more than worthy in the same way I consider guys like Winky Wright & Jose Luis Castillo to be locks were I to have a vote. Norton was competitive with all the best guys he fought with the exception of Foreman, whose power he just couldn't handle (no shame there).

However, what this exposes is the problem in ranking people based on some kind of Top Trumps system. I'm also of the belief that it's far easier for these older guys to get in based off the fact they don't have to deal with every second of their careers being analysed meticulously. We simply see their best bits & trust individual interpretations of how good they are, which may be subject to hyperbole. I mean that's all good, but based off press interpretations of his last 3 fights you could be led to believe that Sergio Martinez is one of the greatest Middleweights of all time. The difference is we can view those fights ourselves & make our own judgements.

I also agree that to a point the HoF is subjective. Should a win over Barry McGuigan or Ingemar Johannson be worth more than a win over Genaro Hernandez or Masao Ohba when I consider the latter pair to be more talented fighters & with comparative or better resumes?

I think having some criteria is great, but at the end of the day, what you see with your own eyes is equally important. HOW someone performs/wins/loses is just as important to me. Regardless of how many different factors are used to try & define it, at the end it's all just opinion.

My Top 20

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Jack Johnson
3. Joe Louis
4. Joe Frazier
5. Larry Holmes
6. Jack Dempsey
7. George Foreman
8. Lennox Lewis
9. Jim Jeffries
10. Evander Holyfield
11. Mike Tyson
12. Rocky Marciano
13. Sonny Liston
14. Sam Langford
15. Gene Tunney
16. Ezzard Charles
17. Floyd Patterson
18. Ken Norton
19. Wlad Klitschko
20. Max Schmeling

The bold is bullspit that you keep repeating. Just because you haven't read in detail multiple accounts of older greats and their fights doesn't mean they don't exist. Just because you haven't watched the extensive footage available on most of these guys doesn't mean others haven't. The idea that TODAY's men are under more scrutiny is crazy. The sport has shrunk dramatically in terms of observation and observers.

How can one not have criteria? How in the hell do you do your rankings? Pulling names outy of hats?

Having said that, that's not a bad list. Except I don't know how one can "use their eyes," watch footage of both Johnson and Louis, and rank Johnson higher.

The fact is it is just YOUR criteria. Your criteria is not the criteria that everybody must follow. You select your criteria, hence it has inherent bias. You can't argue with that. Also, you come across as quite patronising. Just my opinion.

Oh, and just to parody your last sentence - How can you use YOUR own eyes and have Langford ahead of Lewis? Ok, you will say you don't rely on your eyes but your own criteria (as if only a moron would trust their own eyes), but your criteria seem very bendy.

Geeze, OBVIOUSLY on the bold. But seomeone must HAVE criteria to determine such a list. You seem dismissive of the very CONCEPT of criteria. {Now THAT was patronising)

I NEVER said I don't rely on my own eyes. I questioned what you were seeing with yours in placing Johnson over Louis. What do you see in Johnson that you don't see in Louis for example> What do you see in Louis that you don't see in Johnson? Relying solely on ones eyes requires an arrogance that I just don't have. I don't know about you, but my eyes often lead to incorrect or questionable conclusions. I often find the views of others illuminating.

As for my criteria being Bendy? I agree. Now find me one that is MORE objective and I'll happily use that one.

You have made an embarrassing error. Your last three replies are all to the same person - me. I'm not the same as Jazmerkin. It's good that you continue to be patronising by advising me to look up the meaning of the word hypocrisy - I did so and it seems I used it in the correct context ( I didn't really check - just feeding your ego).

So, you use your own eye, that’s a good start. So, can you please expand on how you have Langford ahead of Lewis? Because it really does seem as though you have a recurring issue with Lennox Lewis for his 2 losses yet consistently hold fighters that have suffered more losses against equally questionable opponents in high regard. That is what I mean by bendy criteria.

I've made no errors. But give me time!

And you obviously didn't look up hypocrisy so I'll help you

a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion

I suspect what you mean to accuse me of is having a "double standard." Happy to have that pointed out if it is true!

Let me try to show why I have Langford over Lennox. Sam defeated HOFers on 14 occasions and on almost every occasion those guys were in ther primes. Lennox beat that quality a fighter only three times and I don't think any of them except Vitali was in their prime. It's a HUGE accomplishment gap. Now was there anything Lennox could have done about that? Probably not. He didn't have the same possibilities in front of him. It is what it is. And even among non HOFers Langford defeated fine heavyweights like Jeff Clark (good enough to defeat HOFer Kid Norfolk) and Battling Jim Johnson (who faced Jack Johnson in a title fight and got a draw though Jack was injured) on multiple occasions each. Had their been ratings back then? My guess (based on just a quick count) and it is only a guess? Langford defeated ranked heavies 25 times, Lennox we know did so 13 times, an excellent number, but still a big gap (only in my guesswork though).

Lennox was drilled by two different mediocrities while in his prime. Before his eyes were injured in 1917 Langford was not KO'd by any heavyweight period despite fighting top guys well over 30 times. After his eyes were damaged he got KO'd by lesser fighters (Fred Fulton for example) but does anyone want to make the case that counts as Langford's prime? Did Lennox reverse those? Sure but so what? Langfo0rd didn't have to in the first place.

Anyway, that's the basic case for whatever it is worth.

I think the best response is not to question the data as it's hard to do so, but to argue that Langford was never champion and Lennox had a fine title reign. It's not Sam's fault he couldn't get a shot, but so what? Liife isn't fair.

It's not a bad counter, just not one I find compelling.Have you a better argument? Love to hear it!

Maybe you'd like to check out patronising while you're about it?

I've included a link. Hope that helps. Patronising - Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia