Top 100 Boxers of All Time

Excellent points, gollum! The yin/yang symmetry of Floyd and Manny going #1 and #2 in reverse order across the 2000s and 2010s was one of the coolest mathematical quirks to emerge from the data. You make a great point about voter sample size, too. With a smaller pool of dedicated voters, a single ballot definitely holds weight. But what surprised me was how consistent the consensus actually remained at the top across all 13 surveys. As for the 1890s/1900s - it really is a dying art to find folks who know that pioneer film and record books inside out, which is why I was glad to give those early eras an equal mathematical seat at the table. Those decades had the fewest number of volunteers, and credit to them for sharing that knowledge.

Appreciate the deep thoughts and feedback as always!

 

Which were the strangest for you? As I recall, you had 9 out of 10 in almost every decade, and I think there was only one or two where you still managed 8!

 

Thanks Frank! Really appreciate that comparison. Applying objective mathematical models to cut through pure intuition always reveals fascinating patterns, whether in drilling prospects or all-time P4P records!

You're spot on about the head-to-head trap, too. Boxing history is full of stylistic anomalies that skew raw perception. And don't count out Tye Fields just yet... maybe he's lurking somewhere in the unreleased 200s!

Cheers for tuning in, paisano!

 

Great perspective, Lonsdale! You laid out the core case for the Pioneer and Golden Age eras perfectly.

Same-day weigh-ins, 8 original weight classes, 15-round championship distances, and active monthly schedules tested fighter endurance in ways modern boxing almost never demands. That grueling framework was exactly why I wanted to make sure those early decades were given equal mathematical weight alongside the modern eras.

Appreciate you sharing your thoughts and checking out the project!

 

I see what you did there!

 

Someone else noted that too over in the YouTube comments. At the end of the day, Foreman (and Hopkins) were somewhat shortchanged because George's 1990s accomplishments and Hopkins' 2010s achievements didn't factor into the scoring (both finished outside the Top 20 in those decades, respectively).

Patterson finished ahead of Liston mainly because he landed at #6 in the 1950s and #15 in the 1960s, whereas Liston was #15 in the 1950s and #8 in the 1960s. The main difference is Patterson received a higher percentage of available points. The system does not recognize head-to-head results, it merely measures how each man stacked up against the best from his time. Despite their official outcomes, Patterson ranked higher than Liston, and honestly, I don't think that's egregious in the context of this P4P exercise. Specific H2H results don't always tell the entire story (ie - Pep finishing ahead of Saddler, for instance). But I totally respect the observation and the implied disagreement with the order here. Cheers!