Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > General Boxing Forum

 
  


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-15-2012, 01:12 PM   #181
Box84
Journeyman
ESB Jr Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 245
vCash: 1000
Default Re: lennox's resume is hardly better than wlad's

I'll post this here because I had it saved in a file and it relates to the topic being discussed.

Boxrec ranking numbers of Wlad and Lewis's top 15 wins.

Wlad

Ruslan Chagaev 761

Chris Byrd (2) 618
David Haye 609
Samuel Peter (1) 588
Jameel McCline 571
Sultan Ibragimov 566
Chris Byrd (1) 555
Eddie Chambers 521
Tony Thompson (1) 516
Samuel Peter (2) 476
Calvin Brock 476
Lamon Brewster 468
Tony Thompson (2) 425
DaVarryl Williamson 416
Monte Barrett 330

Lewis

Hasim Rahman 984

Evander Holyfield 859
Michael Grant 762
Henry Akinwande 707
Mike Tyson 604
Oliver McCall 603
Donovan Ruddock 535
Tony Tucker 499
Vitali Klitschko 491
Frank Bruno 455
Gary Mason 425
David Tua 404
Phil Jackson 398
Andrew Golota 384
Jean-Maurice Chanet 372
Box84 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 01:28 PM   #182
theboss
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 961
vCash: 500
Default Re: lennox's resume is hardly better than wlad's

Quote:
Originally Posted by The13thRound View Post
By the same token klit fans are first to point at guys like calzaghe and say he's overrated his division sucked for ages he avoided certain people blah blah blah.Cant escape the fact that apart from the klits there have been no good heavies you have to bring up cruiserweights when discussing the only opponents without man boobs and one packs.

I seriously don't think wlad would have lasted 3 rounds against many of the 90's heavies.
Just ****ing wow . But a lightheavyweight can be undisputed then lose it to a 44 year old slow a turtle grandfather . The stupidity here is monumental . And you can through in BUSTER and CRACKHEAD OLIVER to round out the group of apparent 90s beasts . lol

Last edited by theboss; 11-15-2012 at 01:39 PM.
theboss is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 01:31 PM   #183
dyna
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,363
vCash: 1551
Default Re: lennox's resume is hardly better than wlad's

Quote:
Originally Posted by Box84 View Post
I'll post this here because I had it saved in a file and it relates to the topic being discussed.

Boxrec ranking numbers of Wlad and Lewis's top 15 wins.

Wlad

Ruslan Chagaev 761

Chris Byrd (2) 618
David Haye 609
Samuel Peter (1) 588
Jameel McCline 571
Sultan Ibragimov 566
Chris Byrd (1) 555
Eddie Chambers 521
Tony Thompson (1) 516
Samuel Peter (2) 476
Calvin Brock 476
Lamon Brewster 468
Tony Thompson (2) 425
DaVarryl Williamson 416
Monte Barrett 330

Lewis

Hasim Rahman 984

Evander Holyfield 859
Michael Grant 762
Henry Akinwande 707
Mike Tyson 604
Oliver McCall 603
Donovan Ruddock 535
Tony Tucker 499
Vitali Klitschko 491
Frank Bruno 455
Gary Mason 425
David Tua 404
Phil Jackson 398
Andrew Golota 384
Jean-Maurice Chanet 372
I think Boxrec is very flawed with those ratings...

Joe Gans for example should be rated much much higher.
dyna is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 11-15-2012, 02:09 PM   #184
Box84
Journeyman
ESB Jr Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 245
vCash: 1000
Default Re: lennox's resume is hardly better than wlad's

Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna View Post
I think Boxrec is very flawed with those ratings...

Joe Gans for example should be rated much much higher.
My belief is that no ranking system can be perfect but at least Boxrec has a system rather then being based on bribes, politics and popularity. A lot of people do complain about Boxrec but when there was a vote on this forum about which rankings where best between Boxrec, WBA, WBC, WBO and the IBF. Boxrec won easily.

As for Joe Gans, Boxrec admits that it's rankings for older fighters aren't perfect. Even if they have all of Gans fights in the database they may not have the complete records of all his opponents, which brings down his ranking. I'm also not entirely convinced about the way they calculate the "all time" rankings of retired fighters.

What I Iike best about Boxrec and other computer based systems ( I believe the IBO is similar ) is that if you don't agree with your ranking, the rules are fair, beat guys above you and move up.

I personally use the site just as a reference and to check fighters records but I do think it's points system is good for checking the stage fighters are at during a certain point in time.

For example we know Lewis beat Tyson. Prime Tyson had 2092 points. The Tyson Lewis beat had 604. Therefore even if we knew nothing about boxing and had never seen either guy, we could seen that Lewis didn't beat a prime Tyson. Of course we know from watching their careers that that is an accurate assessment.

Boxrec is just another tool, not perfect but often more accurate than the biased (human) opinions posted by users on this forum.
Box84 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 02:09 PM   #185
irishny
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7,566
vCash: 75
Default Re: lennox's resume is hardly better than wlad's

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manning View Post
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Who is the poor,misfortunate old man that Byrd is punching in the face??
irishny is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 02:24 PM   #186
dyna
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,363
vCash: 1551
Default Re: lennox's resume is hardly better than wlad's

Quote:
Originally Posted by Box84 View Post
My belief is that no ranking system can be perfect but at least Boxrec has a system rather then being based on bribes, politics and popularity. A lot of people do complain about Boxrec but when there was a vote on this forum about which rankings where best between Boxrec, WBA, WBC, WBO and the IBF. Boxrec won easily.

As for Joe Gans, Boxrec admits that it's rankings for older fighters aren't perfect. Even if they have all of Gans fights in the database they may not have the complete records of all his opponents, which brings down his ranking. I'm also not entirely convinced about the way they calculate the "all time" rankings of retired fighters.

What I Iike best about Boxrec and other computer based systems ( I believe the IBO is similar ) is that if you don't agree with your ranking, the rules are fair, beat guys above you and move up.

I personally use the site just as a reference and to check fighters records but I do think it's points system is good for checking the stage fighters are at during a certain point in time.

For example we know Lewis beat Tyson. Prime Tyson had 2092 points. The Tyson Lewis beat had 604. Therefore even if we knew nothing about boxing and had never seen either guy, we could seen that Lewis didn't beat a prime Tyson. Of course we know from watching their careers that that is an accurate assessment.

Boxrec is just another tool, not perfect but often more accurate than the biased (human) opinions posted by users on this forum.
A rational post... On my ESB?

But yes, you're right.
It's accurate to a certain degree
dyna is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 02:56 PM   #187
madballster
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 10,795
vCash: 1000
Default Re: lennox's resume is hardly better than wlad's

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack View Post
The problem for Wlad's legacy is that he's already been knocked out by C-class fighters, in Brewster and Sanders. Even if he doesn't lose again in his career, those losses will always haunt him. They have to. His legacy will always be defined by his past.
Nah I disagree. If he can stay unbeaten from hereon that will make his previous embarrassing losses somewhat less severe.
madballster is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 03:00 PM   #188
madballster
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 10,795
vCash: 1000
Default Re: lennox's resume is hardly better than wlad's

Quote:
Originally Posted by Box84 View Post
I'll post this here because I had it saved in a file and it relates to the topic being discussed.

Boxrec ranking numbers of Wlad and Lewis's top 15 wins.

Wlad

Ruslan Chagaev 761

Chris Byrd (2) 618
David Haye 609
Samuel Peter (1) 588
Jameel McCline 571
Sultan Ibragimov 566
Chris Byrd (1) 555
Eddie Chambers 521
Tony Thompson (1) 516
Samuel Peter (2) 476
Calvin Brock 476
Lamon Brewster 468
Tony Thompson (2) 425
DaVarryl Williamson 416
Monte Barrett 330

Lewis

Hasim Rahman 984

Evander Holyfield 859
Michael Grant 762
Henry Akinwande 707
Mike Tyson 604
Oliver McCall 603
Donovan Ruddock 535
Tony Tucker 499
Vitali Klitschko 491
Frank Bruno 455
Gary Mason 425
David Tua 404
Phil Jackson 398
Andrew Golota 384
Jean-Maurice Chanet 372
Is there a way to collect all the points 'earned' from all the wins in a fighters career and add them up. Thus you would get some number like e.g. 40 fights, 38 wins, each win avg. 500 points = 19,000 points total.

Can you get that kinda data?
madballster is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 03:35 PM   #189
MattMattMatt
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,712
vCash: 75
Default Re: lennox's resume is hardly better than wlad's

Quote:
Originally Posted by madballster View Post
Is there a way to collect all the points 'earned' from all the wins in a fighters career and add them up. Thus you would get some number like e.g. 40 fights, 38 wins, each win avg. 500 points = 19,000 points total.

Can you get that kinda data?
It would be more informative to see the results presented graphically. It's pretty easy to do, just select all and copy and paste into excel. A couple of mins cleaning up, then sort them in descending order and plot both fighters stats on the same chart. You can see at a glance if one fighter has a consistently better record, if they have only a couple of better wins, or if they have a dozens of meaningless record padding victories.

Obviously there are cases where the ratings don't reflect the strength of the opposition very well, since scores are reduced by lay-offs (which don't affect everyone equally), questionable decisions are still scored against the losing fighter (e.g. Pac), questionable victories are still credited to the winner (e.g. Bradley), DQ wins in fights that you were losing are still credited too highly (Bowe against Golota), beating a fighter that has significantly declined but has yet to have that 'exposed', or is fighting too far from their natural weight results in too much credit to the victor (which is then propagated throughout the whole system).

All of that evens out better than many biased human assessments. Boxrec is a reasonable starting point if you know and understand it's limitations.

A good example from that list is DaVarryl Williamson being rated higher than David Tua. There is no way that any sane boxing expert would ever say that Williamson is a better victory for Wlad than Tua is for Lennox. In fact, if Wlad had that win over Tua I think many people would rate that as one of, if not the, best wins for Wlad. The Rahman/McCall victories are a strange situation, I don't feel that it is appropriate to give Lennox more credit for beating someone that only has a high rating because he beat you by upset KO in the previous fight. In reality we have to take losses into account as well then to even those cases out.
MattMattMatt is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 03:55 PM   #190
Box84
Journeyman
ESB Jr Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 245
vCash: 1000
Default Re: lennox's resume is hardly better than wlad's

Quote:
Originally Posted by madballster View Post
Is there a way to collect all the points 'earned' from all the wins in a fighters career and add them up. Thus you would get some number like e.g. 40 fights, 38 wins, each win avg. 500 points = 19,000 points total.

Can you get that kinda data?
In terms of points earned, it's complicated but you basically earn a set percentage of the total points of your opponent. I'm not really intelligent enough to explain (or really understand) the complexity's of the Boxrec system but a simple example of something similar would be:

Fighter A has 200 points
Fighter B has 100 points

You get 25% of your opponents points for beating them by KO.

Fighter A KO's Fighter B

Fighter A moves up to 225
Fighter B moves down to 75.

The max points Wlad has earned in this respect is 1520. Lewis in his "prime" had 1331.

What you are talking about is simply adding together the points (at the time of victory) of each beaten opponent, then dividing it by total wins or fights. This can be done easily by anyone with time, a calculator and access to Boxrec.

For example, quickly using the data I already posted in this thread:

Wlads top 15 wins total 7896. Divided by 15 = 526.4 points per win.
Lewis's top 15 wins total 8482. Divided by 15 = 565.4 points per win.

If you want to know the number for all on their fights I have already started you off with 15, you can complete the rest if you like.
Box84 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 05:11 PM   #191
JAB5239
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,393
vCash: 1000
Default Re: lennox's resume is hardly better than wlad's

Quote:
Originally Posted by BadDog View Post
lol, another retarded comment. Briggs was lineal champ in the 90s
Fair statement. What would you consider him 13 years after that and with only 1 win over a top 10 fighter during that time?
JAB5239 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 05:46 PM   #192
JAB5239
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,393
vCash: 1000
Default Re: lennox's resume is hardly better than wlad's

Quote:
Originally Posted by theboss View Post
Their oponents won't go on to any of this . Not because they dont match up well with past eras but because the KLITS have been so dominant . The cause and effect have these clowns confused .
What does losing one fight to a Klit have to do with not getting in the HOF? It won't be one loss that keeps these guys out but their entire bodies of work that simply lack.
JAB5239 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 05:49 PM   #193
JAB5239
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,393
vCash: 1000
Default Re: lennox's resume is hardly better than wlad's

Quote:
Originally Posted by theboss View Post
Your version of domination is you getting bent over and taking a **** up your ass .
Wow, you sound as if you speak from experience. Must suck to be you. I mean unless of course you're into that sort of thing.
JAB5239 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 06:02 PM   #194
Manning
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,587
vCash: 1449
Default Re: lennox's resume is hardly better than wlad's

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maximus View Post
This. If i started following boxing in the 2000's like a lot of the clowns here, I too would probably think Lewis, Tyson, Holyfield, etc were nothing special in their prime. Fortunately, a lot of posters here have been fans for decades and know better. This HW era is shocking, and it's not helped by the two main champions continually fighting a succession of cans, novices, cruiserweights and has-beens while avoiding each other. I understand that they're brothers, but it has to be held against them when other fighters had to do it all, and more, on their own.
Manning is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 06:35 PM   #195
Box84
Journeyman
ESB Jr Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 245
vCash: 1000
Default Re: lennox's resume is hardly better than wlad's

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattMattMatt View Post
It would be more informative to see the results presented graphically. It's pretty easy to do, just select all and copy and paste into excel. A couple of mins cleaning up, then sort them in descending order and plot both fighters stats on the same chart. You can see at a glance if one fighter has a consistently better record, if they have only a couple of better wins, or if they have a dozens of meaningless record padding victories.

Obviously there are cases where the ratings don't reflect the strength of the opposition very well, since scores are reduced by lay-offs (which don't affect everyone equally), questionable decisions are still scored against the losing fighter (e.g. Pac), questionable victories are still credited to the winner (e.g. Bradley), DQ wins in fights that you were losing are still credited too highly (Bowe against Golota), beating a fighter that has significantly declined but has yet to have that 'exposed', or is fighting too far from their natural weight results in too much credit to the victor (which is then propagated throughout the whole system).

All of that evens out better than many biased human assessments. Boxrec is a reasonable starting point if you know and understand it's limitations.

A good example from that list is DaVarryl Williamson being rated higher than David Tua. There is no way that any sane boxing expert would ever say that Williamson is a better victory for Wlad than Tua is for Lennox. In fact, if Wlad had that win over Tua I think many people would rate that as one of, if not the, best wins for Wlad. The Rahman/McCall victories are a strange situation, I don't feel that it is appropriate to give Lennox more credit for beating someone that only has a high rating because he beat you by upset KO in the previous fight. In reality we have to take losses into account as well then to even those cases out.
Nice post. The part I highlighted about Rahman is what jumped out at me while viewing the list. It is definitely a strange situation. But the more I think about it, it actually seems OK.

Lewis still ended up being down 193 points, even after he KO'd him quicker in the very next fight.

In terms of comparing it to Wlads wins and giving Lewis credit. The fact is Lewis KO'd a guy in 4 rounds who was good enough to KO him in 5 rounds. Sounds really strange but it's true.

To try and change it would belittle Rahmans achievement in beating the top guy in Lennox Lewis. And/or belittle Lewis's achievement of destroying a guy who previously bested him.

On another matter Wlad has Byrd, Peter and Thompson all on the list twice which is also strange. I'm not sure what to think of that, except to say I'd prefer fighters not to be repeated. It instinctively seems better to have 15 different guys, but it may make no difference?

To clarify I believe Byrd, Peter and Thompson should be on the list twice, I just wish they wasn't.
Box84 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > General Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013