**How to figure out: who;s the better boxer formula**

Ok given ...it has it flaws, so how we can improve it to make it happened...

 

Somewhat amusing

 

Ok we need to address quality of opposition, with amultiplier for boxers with winning records and negative multiplier for boxers with losing record..

 

No matter how you slice it, it's pure entertainment as there is no surefire way to handicap the sweet science.

However, if you're looking for ways to improve your "formulaic" approach then perhaps you can use a fighter's winning percentage instead of total wins. As an earlier poster stated, those fighters with 250 wins will automatically come out on top. Also, you can take the opposition's winning percentage into account and weigh that against the fighter in question.

 

OK

You got me thinking Orishaman. As much as I'm against this formula thing, I think I've got a good one. Really simple and concise.

Fighter's win% x 10
+
Opponent's win% x 5
+
KO% x 3
=
EFFICIENCY RATING
Max efficiency rating = 1,800 pts.

EXAMPLES

Roy Jones Jr.
Win %- 92.7 x 10= 927
+
Opp win %- 84.3 x 5= 421.5
+
KO%- 69.1 x 3= 207.3

EFFICIENCY RATING- 1555.8

Bernard Hopkins- 1491.7
Floyd Mayweather Jr.- 1610.1
Oscar DeLaHoya- 1557.0

 

Like I said earlier, I'm not a fan of any sort of formula to determine superiority.

 

Wlad Klitschko- 1584.3
Manny Pacquiao- 1570.0

 

Maybe we can combined them and start making sence....

 

Ok lets say:

Maybe we need to alocate multipliers to the formula according to importance, were loses by KO gets ahigher multiplier than wins by KO, and adding loses to non rank oppnents by a high multiplier also-

Say:

ER +...oh **** WTF