PULLING RANK - The Highest Rated Boxers of All Time

The MORAL of the Story Is, Devise ANY Type of SHITTY Criteria, Support it w/even SHITTIER "Logic" & you can Have YOUR Own Rankings Posted by Fightbeat...


REED::

 

Actually the moral of the story should be folks should learn how to read.

I can't believe that people still think this is an opinion piece. It's statistics. We'll be offering a math class next semester

 

Based on the STATISTICS Provided N this Thread, that Article BLOWED...

3 Liked it, ALL the Rest LOATHED it...


REED

 

Exactly.

But hey.......it created controversy, and as we all know, controversy sells.


That was the ENTIRE point, imo.

 

This is not statistics.

If it were, there would be a detailed mathematical formula rather than "credit was given" or "points were awarded"

there is no room for anyone to check the data, something integral to the validity of any data.

 

Jose Corpas will be sending me the data to post. You can then go and check if he did it right or wrong.

He'll continue this topic tomorrow when he registers.

C

 

dsimon writes:

EVeryone needs to get away from the haterade.... Nobody is being forced to drink the Koolaid.

The author is making a point about perception. Has anyone here thought for a second how much perception influences how much a fighter gets credit? The rankings are somewhat based on people's perception of how good a fighter is at the time. Its an intersting take.

 

This list isnt about who I think is the fastest, who I think is the hardest hitter, who beat who or who might've beaten who. Its not about who made me say WOW the most. Its about who were in the top 10 the longest; by division and pound for pound. The pound 4 pound list reflect what a boxer did throughout his career and throughout however many divisions they were "rated" in. When I first made the list I scored 10 pts for a number 1 ranking, 9 pts for a number 2, etc. But that only works if there were just 1 rankings each month. Currently we have 4 rankings each month-5 if you throw in the Ring mag. That leaves you with as many as 4 different # 1's, 4 different # 2's etc. I dont consider one ranking better than another. Also, remember that the WBA doesnt rank the WBC,IBF,WBO champs and vice-versa. So, for example, say you have someone with no title rated 5 by all four groups. That would give him 6pts x 4=24. But a WBA champ would only get 10x1 since the other organizations omitted him. Award more points for a champ? Then, after the years are tallied up, it would have turned this into a who had the "longest title reign" piece. I can do that article next.

This isn't my opinion. Aaron Pryor is ranked at 140. He was rated from 1980-1985. Kosta Tszyu was rated from 1992-2006. Bruno Arcari was ranked from 1968-until 1974. Could Pryor beat them? I think so. But was he ranked longer than they were? NO.
Patterson was rated at heavyweight for 17 yrs-Rocky Marciano 5. Was Floyd at any time during those 17 yrs better than the Rock during his 5? I dont think so but 17 is greater than 5.
Fighters like McCallum, Holyfield, SR Leonard, and many more made brief stops in certain divisions so they dont rate among the top in each division but do so in the pound for pound. Someone like Emile Griffith is #11 at welterweight and #12 at middleweight. Combine the two and add in what he did at 154 and he's in the top 10 pound for pound. I could've listed listed the top 20/30/40 of each division along with the numbers but that wouldve made this article look like an excel spreadsheet. Besides, anyone can look it up. Those ratings are public.

You can argue who you think is the greatest puncher ever-but you can't argue that Archie Moore has the most kos. You can argue which film you think is the best ever, but you cant argue that Titanic is the highest grossing. You can argue who you think is the greatest fielder ever in baseball-but you cant argue that Travis Lee has the highest fielding pct. of all. You can argue who you think is the greatest fighter ever, but you cant argue who had the most fights. You can argue who you think is the greatest cruiserweight of all time. But you can't argue who was ranked longer. Its Johnny Nelson. Could he beat Holyfield-nah. But he was ranked as a cruiser longer than anyone else.
Also Arben, no "medicore" fighter was ranked long enough to have made it onto this list. Bruno Arcari went unbeaten in 61 straight bouts and lost only twice in 73 fights. He was ranked in the top 10 at 140 and 147. He, like anyone who was top 10 for more than 5/6 years is not "mediocre." regardless of whether or not Arben, Jaws, or whoever were impressed.

 

At least your article got some feedback, although to be honest it reads like an esoteric and pointless statistical exercise which illustrates how misleading or wrong some of these numbers based formulations for determining overall rankings can be

 

I appreciate the work done, and it's an original spin, but ultimately I agree with salaco that it's a "pointless statistical exercise".

Unless of course your point was to prove that using numeric formulas for ranking the greatness of fighters is wrong?

What was the objective Mr Corpas?

 

dsimon writes:There is a movement in sports, most notebly baseball, to make statistics more meaningful. In order to do this one has to be willing to look at statistics and change them to reflect more meaningful conclusions. For example, looking carfully at on base percentage as a meaningful measure of a hitters success. The author is doing that with data in boxing. He has explained himself very well inthis respect. I.e. "you can argue that the Babe was the greatest home run hitter ever, but you can't argue with who hit the most balls out of the park." The fact that the statistical info reflects a different conclusion regarding a boxer's ability is an interesting epistemological bon mot. Like I said previously it shows how much our perception figures into what we consider great in sports. And the author never said his conclusions were absolute... Like a lot of people interested in the epistemological relevance of data he is trying to find a place of certainty to start with and build upon so all conclusions remain meaningful according to the same consistant rules.

 

its not ranking greatness- its just ranking who was ranked the longest.

 

Was there an objective to it, other than just an exercise in statistics?

 

I put it out there as a reference- something you would find in a boxing book of facts- an encyclopedia. Last year I wrote about who had the most knockouts. This time I listed which boxers were ranked in the top 10 longer than anyone else.

As far as any personal motives or putting it out there for the sake of creating controversy-not at all. Only thing personal is this- I was a pro. I can appreciate what it takes to be top 10. And someone who can say they were top 10 for several years- thats no small potatoes.