ATG's Who Never Beat A Fellow Great

Okay, I'll post my p4p list, but first a look at my scoring criteria:



P4P CRITERIA

[FONT=&quot]RESUME (50 POINTS) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
The focus is on the quality of fighters beaten, but:
- The size of the opponent and difficulty of the task is relevant to the quality of the opponent (e.g. John Ruiz is a better win for Roy Jones than Juan Manuel Marquez is for Floyd Mayweather, even though Juan Manuel Marquez is a better fighter than John Ruiz).
- Beating someone at their peak/in their prime counts for more than beating someone past their peak/prime, so it's not just the 'name' that is relevant to the quality of the fighter but the stage they were at in their careers.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]- Beating a fighter in a title fight should count for more than beating a fighter in a non-title fight, assuming that the fighter was at their best for the title fight and the fight was over a championship length, which tests a fighter’s limits to a greater extent than a fight scheduled for less rounds (e.g. a win in a 15 round fight is worth more than a win in a 6 round fight, all other things being equal).
- The quantity of fighters beaten counts a little too, so beating a quality opponent more than once is a plus.
- Close losses contribute to assessing the quality of one's resume.
- Not close but nevertheless honourable losses count somewhat too.

DOMINANCE (40 POINTS)
Indicators of dominance include:
- Consistently winning (early losses or past prime losses don't get penalised that much).
- The manner of victory (ko's, shut outs and near shutouts etc. are all indicative of dominance).
- Cleaning out divisions.
- Conquering in multiple weight divisions.

LONGEVITY (10 POINTS)
A fighter scores well for longevity if:
- They are around at a high level for a long duration of time.
- They have a lot of fights at a high level.
- Ideally a fighter should have a combination of both of the above to score extremely well for longevity.

CHARACTER (10 POINTS)
One gets points for character if they do things like:
- Take risks (e.g. fight everyone in and around their weight division and not duck opponents, offer rematches, go out on their shields in an effort to win fights rather than hold on just to survive etc)
- Overcome adversity.
- Bear up well to adversity even if they don't win (and this is shown by the ability to take an ass whipping when it's your way coming, so durability counts here).[/FONT]

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

My maths is ****, so there's probably a ton of mistakes when it comes to adding, and I'm not totally happy overall with how the list sits right now. I haven't combed through it to weed out inconsistencies amidst my scoring, but there it is for now. It's a start.

Biggest issues with my lists I think will be that i don't take into account h2h ability and I don't put much value on achievements (e.g. holding the title for 10 years as opposed to never winning a title is equated in my list, though I do recognise that fighters usually peak for their title fights and therefore offer stiffer opposition whilst there).

 

Pryor above Barrera? You been smoking some seriouss **** mate.

 

Thats very well done there sweet...Its great to see exactly how you came to you conclusions.

My biggest headache with making these lists is the fact I know Im being incosistent throughout it..this way at least minimizes it.

 

Cheers WAR. Yeah, I've made it about 5% scientific, but there's always going to be inconsistencies and immeasurability when it comes to making lists.

Fun to do, that's about it and shouldn't be taken too seriously.

 

I don't find it altogether consistent. Out of the four criteria's, the only one where Chang outdone Morales and Barrera was dominance. ...:huh

 

Thank you.

Care to break it down?

Score both guys according to my criteria and tell me your totals.

 

Read the thread over, and then be quiet Addie FFS mate.

 

A couple questions of your list. Well first, let me congratulate you on what looks like a gargantuan effort.
1.) How do you rate Character?
2.) I apologize for nitpicking but I see you have Ernesto Marcel rated higher than Salvador Sanchez. I know many think he'd be a nightmare for Sanchez (I think it'd be a very tough fight but I'd favor Sanchez). You have Marcel rated slightly higher in resume. I'd be interested in your reasoning. I'll keep an open mind, but for me, Lopez (x2), Gomez, Nelson, Laporte, Castillo is tough to beat.

 

Can't wait for the 'where's Pac n Floyd' posts. Deary me....

 

The dedication you've shown in making the list is honorable, but it's severely flawed...common sense should have been a criterion. :good

Edit: Reasoning for putting off ranking two of the best fighters of the last 30 years?

 

Probably because the careers of some of the fighters they have beaten or have had "close and honourable" losses to are still ongoing.

 

...I clearly need to go to bed. It's 4am.

 

Cheers Nat, it wasn't easy.

By what I've mentioned in the criteria I set. Or did you have a more technical question in mind?

Good point. Well as far as resume goes, I actually give Marcel a lot of credit for giving Roberto Duran a hard, tough fight. As you see, close losses contribute to how I assess one's resume. I only had Duran up a point at the time of the 'stoppage', which was quite absurd. Beyond that Marcel beat a real good array of fighters himself: Arguello, Gomez (the MD was a joke he beat the **** out of Gomez), Shibata (x 2 - the draw was a joke Marcel clearly whipped Shibata), Serrano, Marcano (x 2), Smecca.

Their resumes are very close imo. Perhaps Sancehz should have the edge there though I'll have to think about that.... Cheers :good