Rank these elements in terms of importance....

How would you rank the following aspects in terms of the degree of differentiation they provide a fighter? For example, if all top fighters are fast, hand-speed becomes less of a factor even though it is certainly a baseline requirement.

Punching power
Height
Willingness/Inclination to hold
Hand-speed
Undefeatedness
Chin
Foot-speed
Opponent selection
Ability to cut weight in order to enjoy significant t weight advantage
Jab
Popularity
Conditioning

Feel free to add any others you feel are important considerations.

 

I don't get it. " if all top fighters are fast, hand-speed becomes less of a factor"

How would that be any different if all of the top fighters possessed any of the other criteria?

 

This is going to be an extremely objective and analytical thread

 

It would not be. That is the point. To the extent "any" of the above elements are widespread among top fighters, they become less important in distinguishing top fighters. So you are basically being asked to rank from most to least which of the above are key ingredients "and" less pervasive.

 

It is? Assuming you are being sarcastic, it's hardly an indictment of the thread. This is a discussion forum afterall. Not a science experiment.

 

12 different criteria with the permission to add EVEN MORE ... might as well ask everyone to write a minimum 200-page manifesto called "how I evaluate boxers (I think, anyway)"

 

Yup

 

Yeah. It is kind of a lot to have to consider. But if there is a single point I would like to emerge from the discussion, it's that many of the elements determining a fighter's fate are not what we would consider typical boxing aptitude. For example, the ability to cut weight can be a huge advantage, allowing a fighter to overcome severe liabilities in areas like technique, defense and conditioning. As such, weight-cutting ability is perhaps a candidate for being the most "differentiating" factor.

 

Popularity and Inclination to hold are most important

No need to mention craft, skill, nuance, intelligence, a solid fundamental base, etc.

 

Both are indeed key. In the case of popularity, it is by definition distributed highly unevenly across fighters. And, it brings great value to the sport. It can be exploited to avoid top competition. And it is certainly a factor the judges seem to consider. It also provides leverage in negotiations (e.g. no Reyes for Maidana).

As far as holding, all you have to do is watch John Ruiz to know that holding can overcome even the biggest deficits in basic areas like coordination, conditioning and chin.

 

Hip-hopness is crucial

 

It's fun to pretend it's all about skill, heart and dedication. But it's not in fact. Other elements like weight-cutting ability, likability, opponent selection and holding may actually be bigger determining factors.

 

This is true of course, but it is impossible to compare or rate them in any rational manner. And it also depends upon what you want: John Ruiz got several title fights, but is among the least-liked contenders ever. So was his willingness to clinch good and important or not?

Everything affects everything

 

The outcome of interest here is, "winning."

 

It all depends on fighter and situation in question.

Though out of the options you gave, undefeatedness is pretty important in keeping winning..

 

A jab is a good punch to do

 

Of course there are individual effects at play. But are there also broader effects that play a general role? There's certainly patterns in the way careers are managed which suggests external factors not unique to individuals are important to a boxer's success. Again, your very astute observation that, "it all depends," means there are a lot of confounding factors to sort out here. That's kind of the point.

 

Show us your ranking

 

Opponent selection
Ability to cut weight
Height
Willingness/Inclination to hold
Hand-speed
Popularity
Punching power
Undefeatedness
Chin
Foot-speed
Jab
Conditioning

 

Height is hugely underrated. Most fights winner can be predicted... by height alone !

 

I think we'd have to make a fight between prime Bob Foster and Zab Judah to test this theory

 

Agreed. But it depends on the extent of the advantage. An advantage of a few inches will of course not be as reliable as more dramatic differences.

 

Tyson Fury vs Jake Matlala

 

I think it would depend on the fighter. Everything affects everything. So we can't be sure you know.

 

Name me a fight where a fighter A defeated fighter B with his better undefeatedness, even though fighter B had better chin and jab

 

In addition to undefeated fighters tending to be more confident and less willing to lose, there is also the fact they are more valuable quantities with more money behind them. This means they are more likely to be awarded close decisions. Plus, as undefeated fighters, they are generally going to take fewer risks. Obviously, it is difficult to observe. But I'm sure you can think of plenty examples in which the undefeated guy wins a decision he doesn't deserve over a guy with 5 losses.

 

I doubt this is true

 

So you hate tall people?

 

I seriously doubt that's what he meant.

 

So Whiskey is a liar?