Alexis Arguello: Where P4P?

What’s the methodology and research behind it?

I’m not disputing you (or its validity as these things go), but the link takes us to a thread that literally is just a list with no explanation on how it was arrived at. I assume you know more (the post at the bottom says it changed from its original form, but not sure how the lister came to his conclusions … which is important to know when stating it is the most thoroughly researched).

 

Who tf is "Fouts" & why tf is he allowed to consume oxygen??

 

The video had like 570 some views when i watched it.

And i was immediately ashamed i had contributed.

 

He was an exceptional fighter. One of the all time greatest body punchers. His only weakness was a tad slow.

 

Is he an adult?

 

Around the 25 spot , give or take a few

 

Exactly what group of fighters did he need to take on to prove himself worthy of your praise Mark? Is Dwight Qawi big enough, or not quite?

Not your best work.

 

With respect, there is a 245-page thread that explains how it was arrived at.

The OP didn't initially include a list 1 to 100, but rather fighters grouped into tiers.

Fighters moved around those tiers, new fighters entered tiers, throughout the 245-page thread. I.e. the OP evolved as the thread developed.

I've read every post on the thread, if you do the same I've little doubt you'll agree with me that the knowledge contributed by multiple posters is astounding.

Whilst it was McGrain's list, rather than a democracy, he did consider the opinions of other posters and made changes based on reasoned arguments.

We should also consider that McGrain has done a top 100 list at HW and top 50 lists in the other 7 original weight divisions. If you read the articles that present those lists, the sheer extraordinary scale of research, both footage watched and primary print read, shines through. I don't know of a boxing historian whose breadth of knowledge matches Matt's.

As I said, I've little doubt that the 100 p4p ATG list I posted is the most thoroughly researched, when you consider the collective knowledge of the primary contributors to that thread, that I've ever seen.

 

Arguello was a remarkable technician and an exemplar of the craft.

I rank him very highly. Guy's whose performances write a text book on the sport before your very eyes, generally should be.

 

All due respect, but if it takes 245 pages to explain the list then I’m going to have to pass. Same with entire threads on each weight division.

Can you give me a thumbnail on the methodology? What about the research makes Arguello 41 instead of 35 or 48, for instance? How much does it favor past vs. more recent (like a point system based on results would imo weight too heavily on ‘they had a lot more fights back then,’ which may give fighters longer resumes but doesn’t mean those fighters were better than ones of more recent vintage). How were losses weighed vs. wins? (A lot of people in threads I see give great weight to wins but shrug off losses, which are equally part of a fighter’s resume.)

I’m sure it’s a fine list. I can glance at it and see that. But is it really more researched than one put together my multiple staff members at Ring Magazine, for instance, with each doing their own research? Because if five people research a topic, they’re probably doing more research than a single person. And if you take five such lists and give 100 points for a first-place vote and 1 point for a 100th-place vote, to me you’re weeding out more bias and personal leaning than a singular person’s list.

The list you link literally says ‘if you read this it won’t make any sense because it’s been altered.’ So why would I (or anyone) read 245 pages that don’t make sense? We can’t see the list evolve — the first post is like ‘move this guy and put in this guy,’ ‘this fighter shouldn’t be two tiers above this other fighter’ — but we have no idea of where someone is being moved to or from or what those tiers were. If this list you linked was something that should have been preserved for posterity to understand how it was arrived at, the original post shouldn’t have been altered. We would see it evolve through research, debate and discussion, so that if Mickey Walker moved up or down we’d know from what number/tier to what number/tier and why. It’s like a map of an ocean with no reference points other than water.

I tend to favor projects more like @Rumsfeld does them, inviting input from any and all on the forum and ranking on a point system when we vote, then assigning weights to the votes to let the points totals to cause fighters (or fights or whatever the category) to sort themselves out that way. To me 25 or 50 people doing their own independent research to come up with their own votes is far more researched than one person doing so, or responding to singular comments about singular fighters to move them up or down.

 

To be fair Duràn was one lil squirt himself.

 

Kind of ironic that Hearns gets accused here of being a weight bully, but I’ve never read of him cutting massive pounds to weigh in … whereas Duran, who you also cite, instead of being called a weight bully gets to use it as an excuse — ‘well he weighed a lot and had to cut weight so we cannot really count this result against him.’

If Duran was waddling around at 200 pounds and came down to welter, that makes him the weight bully, lol.

 

Pat, I just said its the most well researched and best all time p4p list I've seen, which imo it is.

I can't definitively claim the people that contributed to the 245 page thread have combined superior knowledge to those behind other all time lists, it's my guess that they do, of the lists I've read, anyway.

My own top 50 p4p all time list is a WIP, so citing Matt's in answer to the question posed in the thread title seemed reasonable to me.

From memory, Mcgrain's lists largely exculde hypothetical outcomes in fantasy fights, I.e. what is commonly referred to as "H2H, but instead focus on who the fighters actually beat, when and how, with things like length and number of defences in title reigns, number of ranked contenders (with wins over #1 ranked contenders and lineal champions typically counting the most) and other prime ATGs beaten all being factored in. Prime losses, again to who, when and how, are also factored in, yes.

The analysis is qualitative, rather than quantitative, I.e. no points system, but certain stats (again, ranked contenders beaten, prime win/loss ratio, number of title defences, etc) will be considered.

Is that ok?

 

Sure. But as the top post in that thread notes and warns, I can’t make heads or tails of it as we don’t see the original form and its alterations — ‘Fighter A should be two tiers above’ has no context if we don’t know what those tiers were to begin with.

I’d lean toward the research of multiple people with each weighed equally — instead of McGrain (or whomever) moving a fighter up or down based on the suggestion of one post (by someone who may not have researched an entire top 100 list but has a strong opinion on Duran, say) and decided not to do move someone despite a suggestion from another poster in another post.

If we all do our own research on a top 25 KO’d list, for instance, that’s more collective research than ‘I think Sandy Saddler should be above Pep because he beat him three times’ — a take I endorse — because that ‘research’ only involves two fighters rather than maybe 150 or 200 who might be viable candidates for a top 100 list.

 

You guys are feeding trolls again.......