***Ring Magazine Pound For Pound Rankings***

Brawler - I cant make my mind up on where to put Pavlik and its pretty much for the reasons you've said here - which boils down to resume. I've given him the benefit of the doubt because he's got the '0' on his record and I've put him as my #6. But as I said a little further up the thread I think after Pac, Joe C, Vaz, Cotto and JMM there is then an argument for order among the rest. I suppose there could be an argument for having JMM above Cotto too.

I'm also in two minds about Mijares above Hatton, but think on recent form its about right.

Your thoughts?

 

I haven't seen enough of Mijares to make my mind up on whether he should be in at all - so will have to take people's word on it!!

Hatton would be fringe top 10 - like you I had him 6 prior to PBF (Boxrec had him at 4) probably 10.

 

Percentage weight increases?

James Toney - 157-237 = 33.76%

Pacman's is 21.48%, Mayweather's is 15.58%

 

I would recommend you try and watch a bit of Mijares, fantastic technician honestly he's a joy to watch imo.

 

I must admit watching the really small guys doesn't really grab me - but I will give him a try.

 

LOL at james toney

 

Same but there's a few guys I like watching in the lower divisions, Mijares, Donaire, Mares, I don't using watch anything south of super-bantam though.

 

Chris Byrd 169 - 222 31.36%
Bobby Gunn 148 - 201 35.82%

 

Bobby Gunn fought at 148?

 

Yep - look at Boxrec.

Prior to his 11 year hiatus he was a LMW.

 

But he calculated FLoyd and Manny at their weight dvision weight of 135 & 154. James Toney's weight division weight would be 200lb for HW meaning 21.5%. Still very good but Toney is nowhere near as good at HW as Floyd and Manny are at JMW & LW.

 

I'd have Cotto higher than Hopkins

 

Mayweather was only 150 on the scales against DLH - my percentages were worked out on the basis of that, as opposed to the divisions they fought.

If there was any confusion lol

 

The Boxrec point system should be viewed as an informative and interesting ranking based purely on calculation and not as a definitive p4p list. The general idea is that every fighter has a certain number of points, and gains points when he beats another fighter. The number of points he gains is calculated from how convincingly he won and from the number of points of his opponent. When he loses, his points drop based on how badly he lost and how many points his opponent has. The biggest flaws of this system are that it is more based on career than recent wins, it doesn't translate well between weight classes, and boxers can get a huge amount of points by beating old or shot fighters.

 

Good point re boxrec - trouble is, a guy can win a SD against a tough opponent and get virtually no credit for it. A good example is the Bradley Witter fight - I wasn't alone in my local in thinking that a robbery was on the cards when the first card was read out in favour of Witter!

Bradley has only six more points than Witter - yet pretty much everyone who watched the fight with me said 8-0-4 in favour of Bradley, the worst was 7-1-4 or 6-2-4 to him.