Originally Posted by srehm1
Hey leaf, we all have our own criteria. It's nice to see the way people rank fighters. sometimes you can see things from a different angle and you can learn from them.
I've never been a fan of the "fighter a can beat fighter b so he ranks higher' style of ranking fighters, myself. too many different styles of fighters with too many different kinds of matchups. who can say that wilson wouldn't have his hands full with John Kordic
? Does that mean Kordic should rank higher than big behn? Of course not. So it's hard for me to go along with that. i try to base my rankings on their accomplishments as fighters. who they beat, how long were they in their prime, were they among the game's best fighters during their careers? were they the best or champ at any time? did they have long stretches of greatness or were they short term greats? was their era better/more competitive than another? things like this. other intangibles come into play like what was their strength of opposition, how successful they were as well as physical/mental strengths and technique.
I try not to get caught up in picking apart lists because many will not agree with mine or the different factors i use.
you're right about fotiu though. he is a legend.
Srehm I only ask that ratings are based on reality. RATE THE FIGHTERS ON WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DID. Everything else is fun but it is only hypothetical. You can only rate someone on what he accomplished against the best that was available in his era. What happens so much in every thread is an opinion about what someone could have done, would have done etc. Just rate them on what they did. Giving credit for non fights is not fair to Fighters who faced everyone. Like the old saying "you can't get wet when you don't go in the pool". I agree with a lot of your criteria. The toughest part is figuring out what era was better or more competitive. Some era's had the one demensional fighters ,does that make them better then the era when players fought ? I guess in a way it does but To me you can only rate someone on who he could have fought in reality. Now if he didn't fight the tough guys that were available that DOES COUNT. Ratings are of course just opinion no right or wrong answers. But they should be based more on reality than speculation IMO.