Heavyweight Champions + Notable contenders resume against current top ten opposition

I often roll my eyes at attempts to quantify boxing accomplishments. I would tinker with the values you assigned. That said this is great! It is both thought provoking and provides a great place when reevaluating ATG'S! Thanks!

 

Yeah, I wouldn't even go as far as to say fruitless, just always keep in mind the fallability when we apply obective measurements to the subjective. Well done!

 

You know something, that was a decent list-underrated work.

 

My biggest problem is fighters being rewarded for losing: Lennox Lewis (for example) gets more points for going 1-1 with Rahman than he would have done if he'd beaten first time around. That cannot be rational, surely?

 

That doesn't make it right for a points ranking system though. Two HW champs operating in parallel universes fight an identical batch of opponents when defending their title; the first, John, goes 10-0 against the crop opponents, having re-matched each. Impressive stuff. John retires having never lost his HW title. The second, Jim, loses on his first defence, wins it back and goes on to alternately win then lose against the same opponents as John, ending up 5-5. Jim shouldn't be rewarded for losing 5 times but would end up with more points than John. Thats illogical. John performs significantly better but Jim is rewarded for his own failings.

Again, I think Lewis is the perfect example. If he hadn't been a daft lump and prepared properly for the first fight against Rahman he'd likely have beaten his opponent negating the need for a rematch. His own flaws, of training of prep of chin - whatever, meant he went 1-1 against a fighter he should have simply beaten. Your system rewards him for the first loss which isn't logical. Whatever the perception of fight fans, a scoring system must recognise that Holy beating Bowe at every time of asking is a better performance than losing then winning, Ali beating Frazier at every time of asking is a better performance than losing then winning.

I should stress, this is great work, I love stuff like this. Just giving my (belated!) input.

 

Real good work. It would be good to play around with the ranking formulas a bit though, give a couple different options. For instance, people like Holyfield, Charles, and Patterson may have faced and beaten a lot of top fighters, but they also lost to a lot. I'd rank all of them as no better than the 3rd best fighter of their era, much lower than some of the lower ranked fighters there. People forget that losses count on a resume too. Therefore, there should be points taken away for each loss a fighter has.

 

Disagree with what? That the champion going 10-0 has performed better than the champion going 5-5? Disagree that Lewis dispatching Rahman first time would have been a better performance than 1-1?

I understand you won't be overjoyed at my labouring the point over an ancient thread, but I'm curious over that particular point. I think it happens a lot in boxing, that fight fans indirectly reward (well, y'knar reward in their own ratings) fighters for the act of losing. Which is always a nonsense.

 

Why are so few points awarded for each year one is the lineal champion?

 

Appreciate your response once again on an old thread :good

I *somewhat* agree this, but its more a perception of the value of the win, rather than the reality. A ****ey rematch win would elevate Holmes's win only because of Holmes's original failing. Though *perception* would suggest that the ****ey scalp became more valuable, reality tells us beyond any dispute that Holmes going 1-0, or 2-0 against ****ey is better than going 1-1. That is inarguable. Surely? There's no way to say the mixed record is a better performance - its not. Its a flawed perception. The champ's performance should not be scored higher for going 1-1 against an opponent than going 2-0. Irrespective of perceptions.

Its his inconsistency (okay, thats grossly over egging it: his *relative* inconsistency) that stopped SRR being #1 on, for example, McGrain's Greatest middleweight list over on Sweet Science. It is right that SRR would rate higher if he DIDN'T have those losses at the weight, conversely your system would reward him for those very inconsistencies.

Essentially in rating a champ's performance I disagree strongly that a guy should be penalised for NOT LOSING! Your system benefits a guy who wins some / loses some over a champ who dominates the exact same opponents.