Defeating the Greatest Opposition of All Time (Top 12)

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by eltirado, Dec 18, 2017.


Page 3 of 4
  1. Paranoid Android

    Paranoid Android Manny Pacquiao — The Thurmanator banned Full Member

    7,393
    5,900
    Jul 21, 2017
    Come at me after you've gotten your GED, punk.
     
    Paranoid Android, Dec 18, 2017
    Paranoid Android, Dec 18, 2017
    #31
    OvidsExile likes this.
  2. eltirado

    eltirado Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    15,706
    1,690
    Jul 31, 2013
    I am trying to keep it at face value, to see what kind of fighters we end up with on top.

    The list you get is still raw that you can further use in many ways, penalizing (failed attempts) will end up favoring undefeated fighters & obviously we can't reward losses, that is why I kept losses neutral.

    Also mathematically how do you want the penalty to be? negative (W?) / (+L)? will sound good at first (for losses), but will you go about wins...There lots of other ways to analyze W-L (how deep is W-L in quantity of fights), also a win vs padded record is not the same as a win vs ATG with the identical record. So this is just going at basic face value, at the end you have to have subjective input. This list seems to favor technically superior Elite champions, obviously Gold Medalist are over represented on the top, even the less succesful Gold medalist (due to pressure to preform early at high level)
     
    eltirado, Dec 18, 2017
    eltirado, Dec 18, 2017
    #32
    Rumsfeld likes this.
  3. OvidsExile

    OvidsExile At a minimum, a huckleberry over your persimmon. Full Member

    35,275
    38,056
    Aug 28, 2012
    I looked around online and saw somebody was calculating the average total of every opponent fighters faced and calling it something like their sumaverage or something like that. Ray Robinson had a sumaverage of 2 to 1. Ali had a sumaverage of like 4 to 1. Sam Langford's was like 1.5 or something.

    That's certainly one way of doing it. The only problem is that a lot of the best guys like Ray Robinson who beat way more top fighters than anybody do very poorly on such tests while guys like Zou Shiming who aren't top five in their division do very well by such metrics.

    I think a much more reliable metric would be one that only considers their records in championship bouts. Somebody did a thread down in the Classics section of this site called Hall of Famers vs Top Ten Contenders that only counted victories over highly ranked opponents. The results were pretty close to how people tend to rank the ATG p4p list.
    Ray Robinson 44-13-1
    Archie Moore 44-15-4
    Ezzard Charles 40-17-1
    Emile Griffith 36-17-1
    Henry Armstrong 33-12-2
    Ike Williams 33-15-1

    If you just look at wins and not losses it looks something like:
    1. Ray Robinson 45
    2. Archie Moore 43
    3. Ezzard Charles 40
    4. Emile Griffith 36
    5. Manuel Ortiz 34
    6. Henry Armstrong 33
    6. Muhammad Ali 33
    8. Ike Williams 31
    8. Joe Louis 31
    10. Willie Pep 27
    11. Jimmy Bivins 25
    12. Harold Johnson 24
    12. Jake LaMotta 24
    14. Jose Napoles 23
    15. Joey Maxim 22
    16. Kid Gavilan 21
    16. Carlos Ortiz 21
    18. Joe Brown 19
    18. Charley Burley 19
    18. Joey Giardello 19
    *I got those numbers from two different sources so the numbers are slightly different.

    https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/hall-of-famers-vs-top-10-contenders.445922/
     
    OvidsExile, Dec 18, 2017
    OvidsExile, Dec 18, 2017
    #33
    GlaukosTheHammer and eltirado like this.
  4. Rumsfeld

    Rumsfeld Moderator Staff Member

    49,550
    16,055
    Jul 19, 2004
    It would definitely favor undefeated fighters, no doubt. But perhaps not as much as you'd think in every situation, depending on the number of losses a fighter had, and assuming most of the guys who would be on the top of your list as is, would tend to be the types who lost against the best. I just think it would be interesting to have an 'adjusted ratio' that factors losses into the equation in some form. But again, easier said than done.

    All of that being said, the results are still mighty interesting all the same. Great stuff! Would be curious to see any additions you make, and I think you make an outstanding point regarding the over representation of medalists.
     
    Rumsfeld, Dec 18, 2017
    Rumsfeld, Dec 18, 2017
    #34
    eltirado likes this.
  5. OvidsExile

    OvidsExile At a minimum, a huckleberry over your persimmon. Full Member

    35,275
    38,056
    Aug 28, 2012
    Stop monkeying around with your stupid formulas and finish your decades best fights survey. I want to know about the f'ing fifties and forties!
     
    OvidsExile, Dec 18, 2017
    OvidsExile, Dec 18, 2017
    #35
    Rumsfeld likes this.
  6. eltirado

    eltirado Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    15,706
    1,690
    Jul 31, 2013
    It all can be manipulated, belting a mediocre fighter is not impossible, ranking mediocre fighters into title fights is very ea$y. So you will have title fights easier than fights vs boxers with 2-20 records (underrated boxers)

    These are just face value numbers, but they have also subjective indirect value...(how?)

    Usually those kind of fights that have high (W-L) will require a higher budget (at high risk, because it will not be the typical safe prospect feed), this will require subjective decision making by some kind of boxing handler (whoever will pay the $), nobody will continuously pay ($) on mediocre boxers, so indirectly the list will just stay concentrated among the elite boxers, even at face value.
     
    eltirado, Dec 18, 2017
    eltirado, Dec 18, 2017
    #36
    OvidsExile likes this.
  7. OvidsExile

    OvidsExile At a minimum, a huckleberry over your persimmon. Full Member

    35,275
    38,056
    Aug 28, 2012
    Usually, (at least in the modern era) once a fighter hits championship level and wins a title, he's only ever matched against other champions and top contenders. If you knock off the pre-championship fights, usually about 20 fights that go toward learning and getting ranked, the best guys do way way better. Even if you only knocked off one or two of their worst opponents you can see a fighter's average go up by a whole point or two, as I showed the other day with Joltin Jeff Chandler. Same goes for Holyfield. He get's a title after nine fights and his next forty fights are champions and ex-champions. Should it really matter that he has one or two guys with 53 losses dragging his whole average down?

    I don't think anyone can objectively say that Shiming, Rigondeaux, and Murata have faced the toughest competition in the history of the sport.
     
    OvidsExile, Dec 18, 2017
    OvidsExile, Dec 18, 2017
    #37
  8. Gil Gonzalez

    Gil Gonzalez Boxing Addict banned Full Member

    3,607
    2,860
    Jun 15, 2012
    Yes, he bends the rules like a great pro now. Also in the Salido fight he was too stoic to complain about fouls. Now he is like the second referee in the ring.
     
    Gil Gonzalez, Dec 18, 2017
    Gil Gonzalez, Dec 18, 2017
    #38
    eltirado likes this.
  9. Gil Gonzalez

    Gil Gonzalez Boxing Addict banned Full Member

    3,607
    2,860
    Jun 15, 2012
    Not 100%. That monolith in 2001: A Space Odyssey did something to us.
     
    Gil Gonzalez, Dec 18, 2017
    Gil Gonzalez, Dec 18, 2017
    #39
    eltirado likes this.
  10. eltirado

    eltirado Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    15,706
    1,690
    Jul 31, 2013
    For the first fights they did, Shiming a gold medalist already caught two Ls in the process. Murata & Rigo each took an L (although we didn't count Ls, but it means they were not Kell brooking it), they faced opponents with decent records...gpt ranked fast into championship level fights, all became champions, Shiming the most fringe, Murata revenged his loss, Rigo has that W on Donaire. Lots of action for a few fights, compare to other boxers from any era in their first 15 fights (usually still in padding mode)

    All 3 fighters are still ongoing process (meaning their opposition ratio can go down), but compared to anyone else early fights (don't compare a retired ATG to a fighter who is still active). You will notice they faced better opponents (on paper) that is the only reason they appear on top of the list. In the older times, prospects were fed easy fights early on, no internet to instantly find out who is who...So if anything the current era is harder on prospects, because of the internet.
     
    eltirado, Dec 18, 2017
    eltirado, Dec 18, 2017
    #40
  11. OvidsExile

    OvidsExile At a minimum, a huckleberry over your persimmon. Full Member

    35,275
    38,056
    Aug 28, 2012
    Still, what you have is boxers who have most consistently fought high opposition rather than the boxers who fought the highest opposition. Your way takes the statistical average, but a more accurate measure of opposition would probably be the median.
     
    OvidsExile, Dec 18, 2017
    OvidsExile, Dec 18, 2017
    #41
  12. Rumsfeld

    Rumsfeld Moderator Staff Member

    49,550
    16,055
    Jul 19, 2004
    :lol:

    Oh goodness! I think you're referring to an extremely old survey.
     
    Rumsfeld, Dec 19, 2017
    Rumsfeld, Dec 19, 2017
    #42
  13. Nay_Sayer

    Nay_Sayer On Rick James Status banned Full Member

    15,707
    503
    May 25, 2009
    I make more money than you do, Junior...
     
    Nay_Sayer, Dec 19, 2017
    Nay_Sayer, Dec 19, 2017
    #43
  14. Paranoid Android

    Paranoid Android Manny Pacquiao — The Thurmanator banned Full Member

    7,393
    5,900
    Jul 21, 2017
    I seriously, seriously doubt that.
     
    Paranoid Android, Dec 19, 2017
    Paranoid Android, Dec 19, 2017
    #44
  15. Arpeggios

    Arpeggios Member banned Full Member

    480
    395
    Dec 9, 2017
    But you're still a ****..
     
    Arpeggios, Dec 19, 2017
    Arpeggios, Dec 19, 2017
    #45
Page 3 of 4