Ability?
Skills?
Record?
Best wins?
Losses?
Amount of defences?
What is Your Criteria For Ranking Boxers?
-
keithmoonhangover
- Cruiserweight
- Posts: 16895
- Joined: 16 Sep 2010, 10:42
Re: What is Your Criteria For Ranking Boxers?
Ability and skills for sure but with a record that backs it up. Without the record the skills and ability are just speculation. At the same time I wouldn't always rate a guy with 6 great wins over a guy with 4. Once your record is good enough to get you in to the debate I leave it there.
Best wins is very significant. Losses not really. Too many reasons why losses are hugely overplayed for me to give it much weight. Would need a whole other thread.
Defences are a big deal with older fighters. Fewer titles and challengers would fight 20% above themselves for a title, so holding the title was a bigger deal back in the day.
Best wins is very significant. Losses not really. Too many reasons why losses are hugely overplayed for me to give it much weight. Would need a whole other thread.
Defences are a big deal with older fighters. Fewer titles and challengers would fight 20% above themselves for a title, so holding the title was a bigger deal back in the day.
Re: What is Your Criteria For Ranking Boxers?
Those listed certainly, but then you have intangibles: Heart; toughness; will; etc.
I'd even take skills to what does the fighter do that is special, such as power; managing distance; angles; accuracy etc. It's easier for me to rate a fighter then explain how I do it, to some extent. I might overuse the term 'eye test.'
I'd even take skills to what does the fighter do that is special, such as power; managing distance; angles; accuracy etc. It's easier for me to rate a fighter then explain how I do it, to some extent. I might overuse the term 'eye test.'
-
Ambling Alp II
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 15185
- Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31
Re: What is Your Criteria For Ranking Boxers?
You have to weigh the quality of the wins against the losses.
The better the opponent that a guy beat was, the more credit he should get.
You absolutely have to look at losses. Often losses tell you even more than wins. Sometimes you learn more about a fighter's weaknesses after he loses a fight. (Once in a great while, a fighter's stock goes up in a loss where he fought well)
The worse the opponent that a guy lost to, the more it should count against him.
To a limited extent, you should factor in how competitive a fight was as well. (Also have to factor in poor officiating)
It's important to take into consideration the stage of a fighter's career. A loss in a fighter's late 30s is not the same as one in his late 20s. Likewise, a fighter should not get as much credit for beating a guy who was past it compared to beating the same guy near his prime.
The "eye test" should be considered as well. How does he look on video? That can tricky as well. Some old timers fought before film or when film wasn't very good.
Even, with good footage, you have to watch a lot of the guy's fights against good opponents. A really good performance may be deceiving. Likewise, one subpar performance may be deceiving.
With exceptions, the eye test usually will back up what a carefully look at weighing the wins against the losses.
The better the opponent that a guy beat was, the more credit he should get.
You absolutely have to look at losses. Often losses tell you even more than wins. Sometimes you learn more about a fighter's weaknesses after he loses a fight. (Once in a great while, a fighter's stock goes up in a loss where he fought well)
The worse the opponent that a guy lost to, the more it should count against him.
To a limited extent, you should factor in how competitive a fight was as well. (Also have to factor in poor officiating)
It's important to take into consideration the stage of a fighter's career. A loss in a fighter's late 30s is not the same as one in his late 20s. Likewise, a fighter should not get as much credit for beating a guy who was past it compared to beating the same guy near his prime.
The "eye test" should be considered as well. How does he look on video? That can tricky as well. Some old timers fought before film or when film wasn't very good.
Even, with good footage, you have to watch a lot of the guy's fights against good opponents. A really good performance may be deceiving. Likewise, one subpar performance may be deceiving.
With exceptions, the eye test usually will back up what a carefully look at weighing the wins against the losses.
Re: What is Your Criteria For Ranking Boxers?
Primarily their Best wins.keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑24 Dec 2022, 08:17 Ability?
Skills?
Record?
Best wins?
Losses?
Amount of defences?
Any wins over Top 10 Contenders have to be taken as significant. Championship wins are always a little more significant just due to what's at stake in those fights.
Ability and Skills pretty much comes into play with their Best wins.
So basically. I rank guys based on what they DID. Not on what I think they could've done. Ultimately thinking a guy could've beaten someone is worth jack and sh*t. So all you really have of any merit to rank them on is their achievements in their own time. Their Ability and Skills will be on display in their Best Wins. So it all just kinda goes hand in hand.
In some small cases somebody's best abilities may even show up in a loss.
For instance I've always thought the best Jermain Taylor ever looked as Middleweight Champion was in the 1st Kelly Pavlik fight. Up until being knocked out, he had usually never fought with that much fire as Champion, and it was an excellent bout.
Boxing's funny that way sometimes.