Most ranking books will feature Sugar Ray Robinson, Muhammad Ali, Joe Louis and Henry Armstrong at the top. All are solid, logical choices because they all have impressive records and there are plenty of facts to support the writer's contenton. If the number one choice is Robinson, the author will support his choice by citing Robinson's career statistics: his welterweight title, his 5 middleweight titles, 109 career knockouts, 175 career victories, 25 year career and his long undefeated streaks. Joe Louis' highlights include his 25 title defenses and his 11+ years as heavyweight champion. For Ali, it's 3 heavyweight titles and 16 year span of championship activity. Armstrong's simultaneous ownership of three world titles, 151 career wins and 101 career knockouts are his headlines. If a writer ranks Rocky Marciano near the top, he will attempt to substantiate Marciano's ranking by citing his 43 knockouts in 49 bouts and his position as the only undefeated heavyweight champion in history.

 

Judging by the fighters that are usually at the top of ranking lists, we accept statistical evidence because facts are explicit, compelling and tend to end arguments. However, while it's relatively simple to rank elite champions with gaudy records and towering achievements, how do rank the majority of fighters that generally fall below the top ten or twenty? Is it possible to rank them in the same entirely objective manner in which we rank Robinson, Armstrong, Louis or Ali?  Certainly. 

 

Few would dispute that Ray Robinson is the greatest fighter ever. His statistics jump off the page: career fights, victories, knockouts, six world titles, longevity, etc. Robinson's basic stats are vivid and strong enough to separate him from the pack. A true student of boxing could read: "202 fights, 175 wins 109 KOs and  6 world titles and know that it's Robinson without seeing his name. Why not measure all champions by using the same objective criteria?  I'm sure all authors review a boxer’s basic record of wins, losses, draws, knockouts and title bouts, but they may run into trouble because, unlike greats such as Robinson, what jumps off the page when looking at the basic record of "average" champions? Not so much, and that makes it more difficult to accurately rank them. In my study of 700 champions, I found 115 champions that had at least 100 career bouts, 120 champions that had between 70 to 99 career fights, 217 champions that fought 50 to 69 career fights and 248 champions that fought less than 50 times. By itself the number of fights in a boxer's career isn't sufficient to define career performance, but activity is an important and measurable component to consider. The champion with the greatest number of fights to a decision is Maxie Rosenbloom with 274, and the champion with the least number of career bouts is bantamweight champion, Byun Jung-Il, who boxed only 12 times. While Rosenbloom had the greatest number of fights, he is not the highest ranking champion nor is Byun the lowest ranking champion. To determine their real position, every possible aspect of a boxer's career should be taken into account. Then we can get a clear picture and rank then accordingly.   

 

In order to sensibly rank champions, especially those with modest records, it's vital to find meaningful statistical categories that permit us to compare, contrast and measure the quality of every champion's career. I did this to create a level playng field and  to move beyond the age old use of opinion-based rankings that time and again have maintained the ranking of some of yesteryear's legends at levels established perhaps a century ago. There seems to be an unwritten rule that says no one can or should reassess legends. Obviously, I disagree, which is why I developed  29 categories of career performance that have generated facts that have never been available before. You may not agree with my findings. Boxing author and columnist Thomas Hauser reviewed my book after it came out and he didn't agree with me beyond my fist few picks. In fact, he picked at some rankings and summed it up by calling my ranking system "idiocy."  He never offered his rationale or attempted to prove why I was wrong. He just offered his opinion that suggested I am an idiot and he pointed out that ranking fighters is an art. To that I say that writing about fighters is an art and subjective art is intended to please or disturb the reader. To me, an accurate objective ranking system is also an art. To Hauser and other devotees of the subjective method, objectivity is the enemy. For the record, Mr. Hauser used the word IDIOCY in his column but he later apologized to me for his "intemperate" remark -- by email. Mr. Hauser made no attempt to support his contention with facts and that to me is the achilles heel of all practioners of subjective boxer rankings. He concluded with: "Give me good old subjective analysis." Well, he can have it. Mr. Hauser may be wary of sailing off the edge of the earth. He may prefer to remain in familar waters and move about in a narrow area, but touting the need for more good old subjective analysis (guesswork) in ranking boxers, adds very little to our knowledge. If he thinks I'm wrong, I wish he would make a better case. I want to learn things about boxers and we learn nothing by maintaining status quo. So, Mr.Hauser, don't just say I'm wrong about Benny Leonard and others; dig in and prove me wrong. Prove what what you think is correct.   

 

My proof? Over a ten year period, I analyzed 700 champions in 29 performance categories. I discovered the "average" boxing champion's career record is 57 bouts, 44 wins, 26 knockouts and about 3 years of activity in championship bouts. 57, 44, 26 and 3 is roughly 25 percent of Sugar Ray Robinson's career of 202 bouts, 175 wins, 109 knockouts and nearly 15 years of championship activity. Obviously, the average champion in a field of 700 is nowhere close to Ray Robinson's level of performance, but it is still possible to separate the jumble of tightly-packed mid-level champions by digging for more information that will break a logjam. By detecting just one subtle difference, a champion with exactly 57 bouts, 44 wins, 26 knockouts, but an additional year of championship activity will rank just slightly higher than another with a similar basic record, and when all 29 categories are added to the mix, I am able to refine the results and quantify career performance. A basic W-L-D-KO  analysis provides a thumbnail sketch of what the boxers accomplished, but by going deeper than a basic analysis, I pinpoint similarities and differences in every champion and show how and why one fighter outranks others.    

 

When Top 100 authors put out an opinion-based list, they will usually start with 150-200 well-known fighters and then organize, tweak and whittle it all down until they get something that they like and hope will make sense to readers. The 700 fighters I ranked are all champions from 1882 to 2000. This may disappoint fans of "uncrowned champions" best represented by men such as Peter Jackson, Harry Wills, Sam Langford and Charley Burley. All of these men were superb boxers and deserving of a title shot, but they never got one. For whatever the reason, be it the color line, superior ability or poor management, these excellent fighters never got a shot, which is certainly unfortunate, but only champions make the cut in my book because winning a title is the primary goal for any serious professional boxer and those who become champions are boxing's elite.

 

Beyond that, I wanted to avoid creating my own subjective list by jotting down and organizing famous champions. The best way to avoid interjecting myself in the debate was to keep my opinions to myself. Instead, I went all the way back to the beginning of boxing's modern era when John L. Sullivan stated his preference to fight with padded gloves and box three minute rounds. Moving forward decade by decade, I built a database of every champion in every weight division from the 1880s through 2000. Sugar Ray Robinson emerged as the number one ranked champion. On the bottom at number 700 is Jorge Vaca. The midpoint at number 350 is 19th century welterweight champion Matty Matthews, who ranks just below 1920s champion Pete Latzo, and just above 1980s champion Robin Reid. All 700 champions were ranked on a 100-point scale. Robinson scored a 97.89, Vaca's score is 34.76. "Mr. Average," Matty Matthews, the man in the middle, scored 54.03. Only five of the 700 champions scored 90 points or more and Muhammad Ali is not one of them, although he is very close at 89.43.  Ali graded out as the number one heavyweight of all time. That's my method in a nutshell. My rankings are entirely based on career results.

 

Some authors that rank fighters can find meaning in fighting styles, so they will emphasize intangibles such as power and toughness when ranking a fighter. Those that appreciate scientific boxing skill, quickness and guile may elevate the master boxers. Still, whether a certain champion was a power puncher or a slick boxer, the objective for any fighter is to win the fight. How he won is far less important than how often he won. In Ray Robinson, we had a man who is acknowledged as the finest example of a fighter with every asset -- power, speed, grace, determination, intelligence and toughness. If we had never seen Robinson in action, what could we tell about him if we simply reviewed his record? He must have been tough because he was stopped only once in 202 fights. He certainly had power because he knocked out 109 opponents, which is the second highest number of knockouts among all champions. Can a knockout artist also have superior boxing skills? 84 of Robinson's fights went the distance and he was awarded the decision in 66. Guile and determination? Robinson lasted for 25 years; only 20 champions have fought that long, or longer. Ray Robinson had all the tools, but what made Robinson the greatest fighter is that he was more productive over a longer span of time than any champion in history. That is not an opinion; it is a matter of fact. An oft-reported assessment of Robinson is that he could knock out sluggers and out-box boxers. One look at Robinson's record tells us exactly that. Still, having great tools does not necessarily mean a fighter is a great fighter; only that he has the capacity to be a great fighter. What makes Robinson the greatest is his performance. He proved his greatness by winning many fights and by being productive for many years.

 

While Robinson won and endured, there are many highly-skilled, often spectacular fighters that win but quickly flame out and fade away. Here we get into the area of ranking by career value versus peak value. When writers consider fighters whose records do not quite jump off the page, they may have no recourse but to offer an opinion about their place in history. Often they base their ranking on the period of time that the writer thinks a fighter was at his peak. This tack tends to keep famous old time fighters such as Benny Leonard forever fixed in the upper echelon. As subjective analysis offers the famous a lifetime pass into future top 100 rankings because anyone that attempted to subjectively rank boxers would have to be an idiot to not place Benny Leonard high on his list because just about every expert in the last century says that is where Leonard belongs. I don't have Benny Leonard in my top ten but I can and do explain why. (See below). 

 

When conducting my objective analysis of 700 champions, I noticed some unappreciated champions that stood shoulder to shoulder with more famous fighters that have appeared on recent top 100 lists. Now, is it really worth knowing that Mario D'Agata, Rudolfo Gonzalez and Soo Hwan Hong rank within .06 points of each other?  Probably not. They are nowhere close to being top 100 champions, so I was suprised when I saw that the scores of D'Agata, Gonzalez and Hong were within a half a point of Rocky Graziano's, who was included in a recent top 100 list. While Graziano's record grades out as average, putting him in a top 100 list suggests the analyst lacks a way or the will to find the right answer. Or maye he had too short a list to  start with. In Graziano, we had a man who was a character in and out of the ring. Paul Newman starred in 'Somebody Up There Likes Me;' the story of Graziano's life. Only a handful of sports champions have had movies made of their life story but that has nothing to do with how Graziano performed in the ring. After his career was over, Graziano became a TV personality and remained in the public eye for the rest of his life. Films and still photographs of Graziano's second fight with Tony Zale vividly portray a snarling, bleeding Graziano lashing out with his right hand and pounding Zale into submission as Zale helplessly hung over the ring ropes. What's lost in the mix is that the second fight with Zale was Graziano's only moment; his only championship victory. He was unsuccessful attempting to defend his title and in his three other title fights, Graziano  was quickly kayoed each time. Graziano was an exciting fighter to watch but he had a very brief peak: one championship win against three defeats. Graziano's championship peak lasted literally one fight. By itself a championship record of 1-3 is not the stuff of legends, or deserving of a top 100 ranking. In terms of peak value, Graziano's was unable to defend his title and his reign is measured in months rather than years. He peaked and fell in less than one year and when he is objectively evaluated against every champion since 1882, Graziano's record proves that he does not even merit a position among the top 300 champions let alone the top 100. In terms of career value, Graziano does not show particularly well, either. He was 43-6-5 when he got his first title shot against Zale in 1947 and Zale handed him his seventh loss and his first defeat by knockout. Plus, he had a relatively short career that ended at age 30. In all, Graziano answered the bell 83 times and he was 67-10-6 with 52 knockouts. When Graziano fought competent fighters, he usually lost. To me, the only reason why Graziano would be given any consideration as one of Boxing's Greatest 100 Fighters of All Time is that his life was rally the story. He was a fireworks display; exciting, a big punching 'kill-or-be-killed'  street thug-turned-prizefighter who became a TV celebrity after he quit boxing. In my book Graziano is a bit below average. Among the 700 champions, my system ranked Graziano at # 386 all time and he ranks # 39 of the 59 middleweight champions I reviewed, and yet Rocky Graziano appeared in Bert Sugar's latest top 100 list at number 99. Graziano is but one glaring example of subjective rankings gone off track. He was a one-trick pony champion and one of the ring's true characters but Graziano's persona exceeded his performance and his position in Sugar's book comes at the expense of many champions that had better results in the ring. Boxer's should be ranked for what they achieved in the ring and nothing more. Life stories are important to know and add context but they have no bearing on their ranking.    

 

It is critically important to compare career patterns such as the age of champions when they turned pro, had their first title bout, won their first and last title bout, fought their last title bout and when they retired. In studying these factors, subtle differences stand out and form the Career Quality of all champions. Breaking down the careers of 700 hundred champions into 29 components brings to light similarities and differences and leads us to discover where every champion belongs in an historical ranking. I am not concerned with how a fighter wins or looks doing it. I don't care if he had a great chin, lightning fast hands or inexhaustable stamina. Those are simply physical attributes that can contribute to, but not guarantee success. Floyd Patterson was praised for his fast hands and combination punching but better known and often ridiculed for being knocked down more than any heavyweight champion in history. Sonny Liston, who twice humiliated Patterson in less than one round, was often praised for having a great chin and terrific power. Despite the obvious physical advantages and the head to head dominance Liston had over Patteron, what did each man accomplish over the course of his career? The imposing Liston may have had a great chin and terrific power, but those assets helped him win only two title fights while losing two. The smaller, seemingly fragile Patterson won eight title fights, lost five and was the first man in history to regain the heavyweight championship. So, who had the better career?  Patterson, by a wide margin. Like Graziano, Liston certainly made an impression in boxing annals, but his championship career was a blip.

 

My ranking system is based only on results. I want to know one thing: How well and for how long did these boxing champions excel in the ring in comparison to their peers? While I advocate an objective, unbiased ranking system, I admit that there are some drawbacks to objective ranking when too few statistics are used. In a narrow-focus ranking there can be a tendency to zero in on and argue about the importance of each ranking category, rather than to focus on the overall results of the fighter. For instance, by winning world titles six times, Ray Robinson deserves to be ranked above Henry Armstrong, who held three titles. However, in Armstrong's favor, we know that he fought more title bouts and he won more title bouts than Robinson did, so Armstrong has an advantage there. What is more important, titles held, or title fights won? I do not believe that either category should be given more weight than the other because by comparing results of every champion, the men with better overall performance will rise above the rest and generate appropriate ranking points. Armstrong had a better ratio of wins by knockout for his career than Robinson, but Robinson won more career fights and his championship career was much longer, spanning from 1946 to 1961, while Armstrong's lasted from 1937 to 1941. What it boils down to is that over the 29 categories, Robinson outperformed Armstrong more often than Armstrong bettered Robinson. If we can avoid trying to quantify the importance of one category over another, we can properly focus on the fighters results and that evidence will show exactly where champions rank in every category; be it titles held, titles won, career knockouts, length of career, and dozens more. To accomplish this, the task is to generate meaningful points of comparison that enable us to compare and rank fighters based on a wide array of statistics, rather than a few. By developing 29 ways to measure 700 champions, I feel that I have accomplished that task.

 

Why do I use 29 categories to rank fighters? Well, anybody can offer an opinion and back their call with a few selected facts. If somebody believes that Ray Leonard was a better fighter than Sugar Ray Robinson, and if their assessment is backed with selected statistics where Leonard has an advantage over Robinson, then the arguement for Leonard can be defensible. However, if we analyze each fighter in 29 categories Robinson's superiority across the entire range is clear and a fine champion such as Leonard will come in well below Robinson. Of all the categories that I use, most have rarely if ever been taken into account when analyzing and ranking boxers. If we examine career longevity and activity, we'll see that Sugar Ray Robinson had 202 bouts in his career while Ray Leonard had 40 professional fights. Comparing them side by side in that one category gives Robinson a significant edge, but as compelling as their head to head comparison may be, I can also detect where Robinson and Leonard rank against the entire pool of 700 champions. The key factor here is that 533 champions had more fights in their career than Ray Leonard had, but only 6 champions had more career fights than Ray Robinson. What that tells me is that Robinson not only took on more risk than did Leonard, he accepted more risk than almost every champion in history and he produced. Robinson deserves credit for that and my system ensures that he gets exactly what he deserves. When all factors are considered, Robinson's superiority over Leonard -- and every fighter – is quantifiable and compelling.