Food For Thought: What Defines An Opponent As Being Great/Worthy?

There's an equation for this. I call it the Dickens B. Slim Huggers and Haters Theorem, named in honor of it's creator.

Opponent Worthiness Factor = Opponent Achievement Score X Affection for Fighter A

The Opponent Achievement Score must be rated positive 0.1-10, but decimals are allowed.

The Fighter Affection coefficient has a nearly identical range, but instead starts from -5 and runs to a potential+5. This is because it is crucial for both huggers and haters to be accurately accounted for. Allowing negative values for Fighter Affection explains the phenomena of how certain fighters can actually receive less credit for a victory than if they'd simply not fought in the first place.

This theorem also explains why fanboy interpretations of resume strength and opponent caliber are so much more inflated than the average boxing fan may give them credit for.

You're welcome.

 

At first glance, I see he listed both Quarry and Chuvalo. Both of these are hall of famers without having to do any research to confirm it.

Edit: Ok, I just researched it. Both hall of famers.

 

I honestly didn't either. I just looked at the names and thought, "these guys have to be in the hall of fame." I mean come on...the most durable chin in boxing doesn't get in?

 

I think it's safe to say that if they are in one or the other, they are probably pretty f@ckin good.

 

Bob Foster(Not a great HW by any means but one of the best LHW ever) who Frazier beat before the first Ali fight is in the Hall of Fame, The real one.

 

Depends on your viewpoint.

Promoters\business- Guy who brings most money (initially with lowest risk until they reach a certain level)

Fans-The nearest 'hardest' challenger

Boxers- honestly somewhere in between, most want to fight the best of the best...but they wont be doing it for nothing, its their job

 

Plus Quarry, Chuvalo, Ellis, Bonavena, Machen (albeit a faded one) and Mathis were all legitimate contenders. Frazier had clearly established himself as number one in the division in Ali's absence- and wasn't considered to be that much of an underdog going into FOTC.

Tarver was most certainly an underdog, but hell, everyone RJJ faced back then was considered to be a long shot, no matter how accomplished they were. Antonio was still considered a decent test for the guy, given the scalps he'd taken over the two previous years.

As for Douglas, he was also a legit Top 10 guy; and a talented guy at that. He'd defeated guys like Page, McCall, Berbick to earn his ranking, and earned attention by knocking down an undefeated prospect named Micheal Williams on multiple occasions with his jab. The worst that could be said about the guy was that he was an underachieving going into his date with Iron Mike- but he was about as deserving of the chance as anyone else in the ratings at that point.

 

Pretty much a fickle group, the thing is though in the hypocrites defense, this sport changes drastically in a short period of time. Whether it is a knockout, poor effort, upset, bad call, anything at any given time can drastically change the dynamic and landscape of the sport and who is where, regarding rankings, titleholders. etc .etc. There is so much on the line in one match its insane, and a split second window can end it all.....


How long ago was it this board was inundated with Pac fans, going after Mayweather (I am guilty of this too) for everything.

Now where are we? Mayweather schooled the new Mexican hero nearly half his age, and much bigger than him, Pac got knocked out in the 4th fight, after getting robbed. To where his next bout is being taken to another market in the hopes of maintaining marketability.

And that has happened in a very short period of time never mind 2-3 years ago, in this sport that is a lifetime.

So yeah opinions will change drastically in this sport, but its only fair considering quickly things change in boxing.

 

Quality post:good