Alexis Arguello: Where P4P?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Mark Anthony, Oct 29, 2024 at 10:39 AM.



Was Arguello overrated?

  1. Alexis. A was overrated

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. Arguello was an all-time great

    42 vote(s)
    100.0%
  3. Alexis was a weight bully

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Saintpat

    Saintpat Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    21,727
    22,947
    Jun 26, 2009
    Stop defending the weight bully.

    Duran was thicc before thicc was a thing.

    And I hate MMA.
     
  2. greynotsoold

    greynotsoold Boxing Addict

    5,203
    6,086
    Aug 17, 2011
    He has a youtube channel and touts himself as a boxing expert. I do not believe that he should be allowed to consume oxygen.
     
  3. FThabxinfan

    FThabxinfan Member Full Member

    130
    115
    Sep 12, 2024
    Duràn did start out a lightweight but became more of a light welter later on, he's definitely stocky,I don't know what's the weight bully you're referring to tho.
     
  4. Mark Anthony

    Mark Anthony whooped the vegemite outta him Full Member

    4,479
    2,067
    May 17, 2023
    He only fought smaller people and was still often behind on the cards before scoring a late KO. He also lost the only boxing match he ever had v a tall fighter but was past his prime.
     
  5. Mark Anthony

    Mark Anthony whooped the vegemite outta him Full Member

    4,479
    2,067
    May 17, 2023
    Pretty badly judging by the one fight he had a vs a tall fighter.
     
  6. Mark Anthony

    Mark Anthony whooped the vegemite outta him Full Member

    4,479
    2,067
    May 17, 2023
    You only get that way by over eating if you`re that height, fat is not natural it comes from bad food, nobody is naturally stocky, it`s just fat.
     
  7. Mark Anthony

    Mark Anthony whooped the vegemite outta him Full Member

    4,479
    2,067
    May 17, 2023
    Whatever the hell that means, if a guy Duran`s height trains and eats properly then he would make lightweight, his height is bang on average for a lightweight. Duran used to blow through partying and living in excess.
     
  8. ChrisJS

    ChrisJS Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,166
    6,934
    Sep 11, 2018
    Below.
    Love Puas, definitely one of my all-time favorites but it’s hard to place him over Arguello, as great as Ruben was.
     
  9. Saintpat

    Saintpat Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    21,727
    22,947
    Jun 26, 2009
    I’d go with the collective wisdom of the two dozen. It evens out the rough spots and blind spots. One or two or three outliers isn’t going to sway the outcome considerably, but a one-person list (even with adjustments via inputs regarding particular individual fighters) can be skewed greatly by that one person’s bias or methodology. In fact, that one person’s viewpoint is the entirety of it.
     
  10. Greg Price99

    Greg Price99 Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,068
    7,524
    Dec 17, 2018
    You think Tyson at #29, with McGovern and McFarland outside the top 30, is a better list, derived from deeper knowledge, than a list with McGovern and McFarland inside the top 20 and Tyson outside the top 100?

    If so, fair enough, rankings are subjective. However, I'm 100% certain McGrain's list was derived from deeper knowledge, as a result of multiple lifetimes worth of incredibly deep research into boxing history.

    Tyson is obviously far better known amongst non boxing historians, whilst there will have been voters amongst the 24 that knew very little, and maybe weren't even aware of, McFarland and McGovern.

    Actually due to the scoring system of the combined 24, 2 or 3 outliers did sway the outcome considerably. Iirc, Tyson didn't make about 21 of the 24 voters lists at all, but a couple had him very high. With most points awarded for #1, then #2, etc. this absolute did skew the outcome and is an example of why a multi person list can be flawed if the voters either aren't working to the same criteria and/or have even just a couple amongst them whose knowledge is badly lacking.

    Yeah, having considered your challenges, I'm now more confident in my statement than when I first made it, the all time top 100 p4p list I initially posted a link to, is the best and most well researched I've seen.
     
    JohnThomas1 likes this.
  11. Greg Price99

    Greg Price99 Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,068
    7,524
    Dec 17, 2018
    This represents poor knowledge on your part.

    Panama Al Brown was an ATG at BW, but has a sketchy record at FW. He lost to multiple FWs both shorter and far less accomplished than Arguello.

    At FW or above, Arguello wouldn't just beat Brown, he'd do so comfortably, despite being the shorter fighter.
     
    Noel857 likes this.
  12. Greg Price99

    Greg Price99 Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,068
    7,524
    Dec 17, 2018
  13. Journeyman92

    Journeyman92 Born Again Gadfly Full Member

    14,248
    15,402
    Sep 22, 2021
    **** this worthless morons breakdowns, he’s a fool who claims he’d beat Arguello in a boxing match, a know nothing that stands out in a sea of know nothings.
     
  14. Saintpat

    Saintpat Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    21,727
    22,947
    Jun 26, 2009
    You’re pulling a bait and switch here, offering an apple and judging it as an orange.

    You didn’t ask me which list top to bottom was better in terms of whether they were ranked ‘correctly,’ you asked me which list is best “in terms of being derived from a level of research giving the list maker(s) the highest amount of knowledge.”

    I’d go with 24 people researching over one, yes. I’d go with each person making their own complete list and giving weight to each list rather than a random poster dropping in and swaying the list based on ‘well I’d have this guy higher than that guy,’ which excludes in a list of 100, by definition, 98 others and their respective places.
    It’s like laying a bunch of jelly beans with different flavors in a line and having jelly bean experts come in and move one closer to the front of the line and one lower, switching a few around, etc., and calling that a collective research. I’m saying I’d take a couple dozen jelly bean researchers each making their own list of 100 and then creating the final 100 by giving equal weight to each.

    You asked me a question about methodology and then went and said ‘aha, but see, this list (which is different than a top 100 — I’ll get to that) has one guy in it higher than two others that should be higher, thus the methodology is better.’

    Asking a group of people to volunteer to vote on a top 25 (which is what Rummy did) is far different from ‘here’s 100 fighters in tiers by the list maker, he will consider your input if you wish to suggest changes, and then over time transform it into a top 100.

    I do not old with the idea that asking people for their individual top 100s and combining those by points would end up with Rummy’s list being the same as it is now 1-35 and starting with someone else at 36, because that’s a different ask from the ‘researchers.’

    If you ask for a top 100 and combine those giving scoring weight higher to the top and lower to the bottom, that’s more likely to knock your Tyson outlier down. Fewer people with only more recent knowledge would be likely to participate (so fewer Tyson-near-the-top votes). And the vote distribution would also likely knock Tyson down (and maybe out, a la Buster Douglas). Of course we don’t know unless you want to start such a poll to create a top 100 … I doubt you’d find 24 takers since fewer would want to put in the time and effort.

    But I’ll still take the research over one person’s list, no matter how learned — because Rummy ALSO was having people vote on the top in each division, which takes far more research (and helps inform an overall top 25 vote if you’ve taken the time to sort which heavyweights or lightweights or whatever should rank in order).

    So I can agree with his methodology of gathering the list yet not agree as much with his assignation of weight to top vs. bottom. He gave higher points than I would have to the first-place votes. He could have, had he chosen to do so, kick out votes for anyone in the top 10 who was on less than 25% of the ballot, for instance. I can take the 24 lists Rummy worked from, assign weight differently than he did, and maybe come up with a more agreeable 35. But the research is what you asked about, not the way that research was assembled. Then you said ‘haha, look at the results’ instead of ‘ok, let’s talk about the research’ which was what you asked about.

    As for the other list’s methodology — there isn’t one visible to anyone reading the thread because, again, we can’t even see what his tiers were to begin with, nor how many tiers, etc. The methodology as near as I can tell was ‘here’s my top 100 fighters, help me sort them.’ If you start with the bias that that’s the top 100, it’s unlikely that someone is going to break into that list and move way up, so you’re limiting yourself from the start.

    You asked me a question about research and I can clearly see how Rummy’s was put together and not the other list, so I lean toward the one where it’s plain to see and spelled out how the list was compiled.

    You also did not ask whether I agreed with Rummy’s methodology of assigning points, which was a secret when he took the ballots. He did not say ‘I’m giving X points to a first-place vote and X points to a 25th, he said ‘I’m not sharing that, just vote your conscience.‘ I would have taken Rummy’s data and assigned 25 points for first place and one point for 25th, like an AP Top 25 football or basketball poll. I’d have to look, but I suspect that would impact Tyson’s ranking.

    As for the actual lists and which I think got it more ‘right’? I give more weight to the top than the bottom in aligning myself with one or the other — and I’d go with a list that has SRR and Armstrong 1-2 rather than 3-4 — who comes in 91-100 is less important to me, as is who comes in 26-35.
     
    Mastrangelo likes this.
  15. Greg Price99

    Greg Price99 Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,068
    7,524
    Dec 17, 2018
    Firstly Pat, I'm enjoying our debate. I hope you realise nothing I type is done with ill will or disrespect.

    Secondly, please let's remember you quoted me first, questioning my assertion that the list in the link I posted is the best & most well researched I've seen. So everything I type isn't intended to belittle your view, that it isn't the best & most well researched list, but rather to explain and rationalise mine that it is.

    Thirdly, ok, if you'd prefer we focus solely on the approach, rather than the outcome, that's fine, we'll do just that.

    Finally, purely in an attempt to give you an insight into my reasoning, please humour me by reading the below (very) hypothetical scenario:

    Let's imagine I have unique brain condition that will be fatal if left untreated. My only hope is an experimental drug that has never been administered before. If the dosage administered is correct I'm cured & suffer no harm. If it's either too low or too high, it's immediately fatal. I'm told of two approaches to determine the necessary dosage:

    Approach 1 - A world leading brain surgeon has researched the case in great depth and consulted dozens of other medical professionals. Some of those consulted are other leading brain surgeons and others are practitioners in other disciplines. He informs me of his recommended dosage.

    Approach 2 - 24 x medical professionals are asked to independently submit their recommended dosages. They are totalled & divided by 24 to get the mean average. There are some reputable brain surgeons amongst them, as well as practitioners in other disciplines, who have a greater understanding of how the brain works than the typical layperson, but nothing like the extension knowledge of even an average brain surgeon, let alone a world leading one. I'm informed of this averaged out dosage.

    As the patient, I'm given the choice of which dosage to go with & chose the dosage recommended in approach one. I should imagine you would do the same in that (very) hypothetical scenario, because the recommendation in Approach 1 is derived from a far deeper knowledge base of the subject matter.

    I accept that is a tenuous link to our discussion, but hopefully it's effective in giving you an insight, at least conceptually, to the rationale behind my initial statement.

    As I've typed previously, I remain open minded, so if you want to cite an all time p4p list derived from a greater knowledge base than the one in the link I posted, I'd genuinely be interested in both your reasoning and the list itself.