Page 98 of 180
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 27 Apr 2016, 18:18
by Leonid
computerrank wrote:Leonid wrote: ... So this means that maximum rating of a boxer in a time period does not correlate well with the number of boxers/bouts in time period, right? That's my point - it doesn't and IMO number of boxers is a better factor of a strenth of division.
But its not my main point, main point is that the strength of the division should not be factored in all-time ratings as heavily as it is now (+ 14% of carreer high rating). ...
(1) The number of boxers in a time period is NOT a good measure for the top ratings in a time period.
(2) It looks like the top rating in a time period correlates with the number of boxers in the time periods before ... with some lag of 10 - 15 years. The model might be . if a lot of boxers start their career and peak their career 10 to 15 year later, the top rating will peak too ...
I will go into this - perhaps understanding this process will help ...
(1) - Your diagram shows that since 50s your measure of division strength (top ratings) was more or less steadily declining, while mine (number of boxers) shows it as steady till mid 80s and then increase. I say mine correlates better with the perceived strength, but surely it is highly subjective and 30s-40s appearing the strongest in both approached does not look appropriate. That's why one of my suggestions was to exclude this factor of a division strength at all from the all-time ratings.
(2) - Doubt it, but that is a possibility.
(3) - Why do you use as much as 14%? Right now you imply that HW 50s division is a few times better than current (ie. Rocky got 799 point = 60% of his total all-time points vs Wlad's 129 point = 10%of his total for this "14% of carreer high rating" which is based on the strength of the division). I'd say much lower than 14% would be more appropriate to disallow one-time success (maybe just luck) in any division mean more than long-time success in others. But lowering the percentage would still mean 50s HW div is better than current, when in reality it is hardly so.
Paradox: If Marciano faced a total bum in his last fight after Moore and got ko'ed by a lucky punch, his opponent would guarantee himself a place in like top-35 HWs of all time right above Vitali Kitschko and Ken Norton. He'd get to what - at least 3000 current rank points and all-time 200/1*33%+200/1*33% + 14%*3000 = 552. And how many of the HW boxers since 70s have got this many all-time points? Only several ATGs.
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 28 Apr 2016, 01:57
by mike1989
computerrank wrote:mike1989 wrote:and the rating Holyfield can lose ???
Holyfield looses points - from 1312 down to 1304
please reset the ratings Holyfield for years since you dumped KAV for Klitschko ????
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 28 Apr 2016, 02:32
by computerrank
Leonid wrote:...
(3) - Why do you use as much as 14%? Right now you imply that HW 50s division is a few times better than current (ie. Rocky got 799 point = 60% of his total all-time points vs Wlad's 129 point = 10%of his total for this "14% of carreer high rating" which is based on the strength of the division). I'd say much lower than 14% would be more appropriate to disallow one-time success (maybe just luck) in any division mean more than long-time success in others. But lowering the percentage would still mean 50s HW div is better than current, when in reality it is hardly so.
Paradox: If Marciano faced a total bum in his last fight after Moore and got ko'ed by a lucky punch, his opponent would guarantee himself a place in like top-35 HWs of all time right above Vitali Kitschko and Ken Norton. He'd get to what - at least 3000 current rank points and all-time 200/1*33%+200/1*33% + 14%*3000 = 552. And how many of the HW boxers since 70s have got this many all-time points? Only several ATGs.
I see your points. I am not sure about the right way. The current all time ratings are experimental at all. The 14% weight was the result of a regression calculation with various all time lists. This value showed the least rank differences.
I really appreciate your comments and suggestions
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 28 Apr 2016, 03:13
by computerrank
mike1989 wrote:computerrank wrote:mike1989 wrote:and the rating Holyfield can lose ???
Holyfield looses points - from 1312 down to 1304
please reset the ratings Holyfield for years since you dumped KAV for Klitschko ????
Code: Select all
Light Heavyweight 1984 5 0 0 5 499 Evander Holyfield
Cruiserweight 1985 42 8 0 34 499 Evander Holyfield
Cruiserweight 1986 234 74 66 94 499 Evander Holyfield
Cruiserweight 1987 372 140 82 150 499 Evander Holyfield
Cruiserweight 1988 461 206 104 150 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1989 499 239 109 150 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1990 632 305 175 151 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1991 708 371 185 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1992 749 404 192 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1993 881 470 258 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1994 912 492 267 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1995 920 500 267 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1996 1019 534 333 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1997 1066 566 347 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1998 1099 600 347 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1999 1198 632 413 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 2000 1223 654 416 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 2001 1243 661 429 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 2002 1268 669 446 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 2006 1268 669 446 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 2007 1268 669 446 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 2008 1305 673 479 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 2010 1305 673 479 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 2011 1305 673 479 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 28 Apr 2016, 06:25
by mike1989
computerrank wrote:mike1989 wrote:computerrank wrote:
Code: Select all
Light Heavyweight 1984 5 0 0 5 499 Evander Holyfield
Cruiserweight 1985 42 8 0 34 499 Evander Holyfield
Cruiserweight 1986 234 74 66 94 499 Evander Holyfield
Cruiserweight 1987 372 140 82 150 499 Evander Holyfield
Cruiserweight 1988 461 206 104 150 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1989 499 239 109 150 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1990 632 305 175 151 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1991 708 371 185 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1992 749 404 192 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1993 881 470 258 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1994 912 492 267 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1995 920 500 267 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1996 1019 534 333 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1997 1066 566 347 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1998 1099 600 347 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1999 1198 632 413 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 2000 1223 654 416 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 2001 1243 661 429 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 2002 1268 669 446 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 2006 1268 669 446 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 2007 1268 669 446 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 2008 1305 673 479 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 2010 1305 673 479 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 2011 1305 673 479 153 499 Evander Holyfield
on a brush Holyfield rating:
1985-1988 year annual rank points without taking into account the cluster;
1996 annual rank opponent has not exactly +66 points (first was Ridik Bowie and not Mike Tyson);
in 2008, Holyfield lost to Valuev because annual rank opponent has +0 and 33. ???
in 2008, Holyfield allowed annual rating is not for top 10 ???
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 28 Apr 2016, 07:58
by computerrank
mike1989 wrote:computerrank wrote:mike1989 wrote:
on a brush Holyfield rating:
1985-1988 year annual rank points without taking into account the cluster;
1996 annual rank opponent has not exactly +66 points (first was Ridik Bowie and not Mike Tyson);
in 2008, Holyfield lost to Valuev because annual rank opponent has +0 and 33. ???
in 2008, Holyfield allowed annual rating is not for top 10 ???
- 1996: for opponent rank #1 and #2 give same points
- 2008: it wasn't a clear loss against Valuew, it was as MD
- 2008: I changed it to top 20 for annual rank and annual best opponent rank. Holyfield got 4 points - so he was around #16
- 1985-1988 year annual rank points without taking into account the cluster; <= I don't understand here, what you mean really - but cluster ratings are applied
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 28 Apr 2016, 09:05
by Leonid
BTW I really like your current ratings in each division, which are underappreciated on the forum. But clearly an all-time rating system pose a bigger challenge. Regression analysis, huh? I see you've given these rating systems a thought. Still there's a way to go, since my hypothetical example have many real instances, like The Cinderella Man Jim Braddock being a top-20 all-time HW mostly due to his single win over Max Baer. There's probably not one person on this forum who would agree with that. Is it too much trouble to produce a top-20 HW list that would be a result of exclusion of this 14% factor from the ratings at all?
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 28 Apr 2016, 09:20
by computerrank
Leonid wrote:BTW I really like your current ratings in each division, which are underappreciated on the forum. But clearly an all-time rating system pose a bigger challenge. Regression analysis, huh? I see you've given these rating systems a thought. Still there's a way to go, since my hypothetical example have many real instances, like The Cinderella Man Jim Braddock being a top-20 all-time HW mostly due to his single win over Max Baer. There's probably not one person on this forum who would agree with that. Is it too much trouble to produce a top-20 HW list that would be a result of exclusion of this 14% factor from the ratings at all?
I will do a test run without the 14% ...
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 28 Apr 2016, 11:24
by mike1989
computerrank wrote:mike1989 wrote:computerrank wrote:
- 1996: for opponent rank #1 and #2 give same points
it's understood )
- 2008: it wasn't a clear loss against Valuew, it was as MD
as Holyfield lost to Valuev ? how +33 ?? )
- 2008: I changed it to top 20 for annual rank and annual best opponent rank. Holyfield got 4 points - so he was around #16
understand )... and then where Klitschko points for 2004 ???
- 1985-1988 year annual rank points without taking into account the cluster; <= I don't understand here, what you mean really - but cluster ratings are applied
over these years, Holyfield has received +66 for each year, as I understand that would get +66 need to be No. 1 in the cluster, not the weight ????
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 28 Apr 2016, 11:25
by mike1989
mike1989 wrote:computerrank wrote:mike1989 wrote:
- 1996: for opponent rank #1 and #2 give same points
- 2008: it wasn't a clear loss against Valuew, it was as MD
- 2008: I changed it to top 20 for annual rank and annual best opponent rank. Holyfield got 4 points - so he was around #16
- 1985-1988 year annual rank points without taking into account the cluster; <= I don't understand here, what you mean really - but cluster ratings are applied
it's understood )
as Holyfield lost to Valuev ? how +33 ?? )
understand )... and then where Klitschko points for 2004 ???
over these years, Holyfield has received +66 for each year, as I understand that would get +66 need to be No. 1 in the cluster, not the weight ????
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 28 Apr 2016, 12:41
by computerrank
Cobwebcat wrote:Pacmans all time rating is showing as his current points total in error
This is a bug in the presentation, yes.
All active boxers are listed with their current rating, but the ranking is based on the all time rating points actually. The right value should be displayed ...
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 28 Apr 2016, 14:27
by computerrank
computerrank wrote:Leonid wrote:BTW I really like your current ratings in each division, which are underappreciated on the forum. But clearly an all-time rating system pose a bigger challenge. Regression analysis, huh? I see you've given these rating systems a thought. Still there's a way to go, since my hypothetical example have many real instances, like The Cinderella Man Jim Braddock being a top-20 all-time HW mostly due to his single win over Max Baer. There's probably not one person on this forum who would agree with that. Is it too much trouble to produce a top-20 HW list that would be a result of exclusion of this 14% factor from the ratings at all?
I will do a test run without the 14% ...
... top 100 all time heavweights ordered by all time rating without top rating share ...
all_time_heavies_no_top_rating.pdf
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 28 Apr 2016, 16:57
by mike1989
computerrank wrote:mike1989 wrote:computerrank wrote:
on a brush Holyfield rating:
1985-1988 year annual rank points without taking into account the cluster;
- 1985-1988 year annual rank points without taking into account the cluster; <= I don't understand here, what you mean really - but cluster ratings are applied
All Time ("Inactive") Ratings
The All Time Rating for a boxer is the sum of 33% of the sum of annual rank points he gets for his annual ratings - and 33% of the sum of annual rank points of best defeated opponents - and 14% of his career top rating:
the annual rating is the rating at the end of every year the boxer was active
annual rank points = 200 / annual rank in division cluster
Holyfield gained +66 points was the first in the kruzerveyt but not in the cluster kruzerveyt+havivah ???
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 28 Apr 2016, 18:31
by Leonid
Thanks a lot! I actually like it more than the current version. Marciano moved down, same as one hit wonders like Braddock and Johansson, while Lewis, Holmes, Tyson, Bowe, Holy, Johnson, Frazier, Dempsey, both Klitschkos moved up, and IMO deservingly so. At least several guys from this millenium not named Klitschko could make it to the top-100. That's all positive changes, 15 years in a hundred yr old sport deserve to be fairly represented.
Langford at #1 looks odd, but he is top 3 in any version. He had increadible longativity, but some of his points come from divisions very far from HW and even while fighting at HW he weighted less than today's middleweights do. He started at what - lightweigh? fought for welterweight title, continued at middleweight, so maybe there should be some coefficient applied to those points earned below his main cluster. All-time divisional ratings could have different number of points for a boxer than in his p4p all-time ratings, where such coefficient would not apply. Or old-time HWs should have cruiser-to-heavy coefficient applied when they and their opponents both fight under the CW limit of 200 pounds. Seems fair, since even CWs' fighting weight is above 200.
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 28 Apr 2016, 18:51
by computerrank
mike1989 wrote:computerrank wrote:mike1989 wrote:
on a brush Holyfield rating:
1985-1988 year annual rank points without taking into account the cluster;
- 1985-1988 year annual rank points without taking into account the cluster; <= I don't understand here, what you mean really - but cluster ratings are applied
All Time ("Inactive") Ratings
The All Time Rating for a boxer is the sum of 33% of the sum of annual rank points he gets for his annual ratings - and 33% of the sum of annual rank points of best defeated opponents - and 14% of his career top rating:
the annual rating is the rating at the end of every year the boxer was active
annual rank points = 200 / annual rank in division cluster
Holyfield gained +66 points was the first in the kruzerveyt but not in the cluster kruzerveyt+havivah ???
aha ... looks strange again ...
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 29 Apr 2016, 02:40
by mike1989
computerrank wrote:mike1989 wrote:computerrank wrote:
aha ... looks strange again ...
)... and Klitschko will dositey annual ranking points for 2004. In 2008, Holyfield was the defeat of Valuev because for 2008 may not be a +33 ??? )
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 29 Apr 2016, 05:03
by computerrank
computerrank wrote:mike1989 wrote:computerrank wrote:
All Time ("Inactive") Ratings
The All Time Rating for a boxer is the sum of 33% of the sum of annual rank points he gets for his annual ratings - and 33% of the sum of annual rank points of best defeated opponents - and 14% of his career top rating:
the annual rating is the rating at the end of every year the boxer was active
annual rank points = 200 / annual rank in division cluster
Holyfield gained +66 points was the first in the kruzerveyt but not in the cluster kruzerveyt+havivah ???
aha ... looks strange again ...
It was a bug ...
2008 he got 33 points for his close loss against Valuev.
Now it looks like this for Holyfield:
Code: Select all
Light Heavyweight 1984 5 0 0 5 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1985 34 0 0 34 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1986 173 13 66 94 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1987 267 35 82 150 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1988 323 68 104 150 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1989 361 101 109 150 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1990 494 167 175 151 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1991 570 233 185 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1992 611 266 192 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1993 743 332 258 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1994 774 354 267 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1995 782 362 267 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1996 881 395 333 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1997 928 428 347 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1998 961 461 347 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1999 1060 494 413 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 2000 1085 516 416 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 2001 1104 522 429 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 2002 1128 530 446 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 2006 1128 530 446 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 2007 1128 530 446 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 2008 1165 533 479 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 2010 1165 533 479 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 2011 1165 533 479 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 29 Apr 2016, 06:18
by mike1989
computerrank wrote:computerrank wrote:mike1989 wrote:
Now it looks like this for Holyfield:
Code: Select all
Light Heavyweight 1984 5 0 0 5 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1985 34 0 0 34 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1986 173 13 66 94 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1987 267 35 82 150 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1988 323 68 104 150 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1989 361 101 109 150 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1990 494 167 175 151 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1991 570 233 185 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1992 611 266 192 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1993 743 332 258 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1994 774 354 267 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1995 782 362 267 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1996 881 395 333 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1997 928 428 347 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1998 961 461 347 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1999 1060 494 413 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 2000 1085 516 416 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 2001 1104 522 429 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 2002 1128 530 446 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 2006 1128 530 446 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 2007 1128 530 446 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 2008 1165 533 479 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 2010 1165 533 479 153 499 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 2011 1165 533 479 153 499 Evander Holyfield
)
and what about the rating of Klitschko 2004, he is also in the top 20 ???
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 29 Apr 2016, 06:20
by mike1989
can please even the rating of Max Schmeling to lose ???
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 29 Apr 2016, 09:23
by computerrank
I dropped the component top rating completely ...
all_time_heavies_no_top_rating.pdf
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 29 Apr 2016, 09:25
by computerrank
mike1989 wrote:can please even the rating of Max Schmeling to lose ???
Max Schmeling now looks like this:
Code: Select all
Light Heavyweight 1927 854 17 13 4 0 9041 Max Schmeling
Light Heavyweight 1928 823 31 23 8 0 9041 Max Schmeling
Heavyweight 1929 1133 61 45 16 0 9041 Max Schmeling
Heavyweight 1930 2002 193 111 82 0 9041 Max Schmeling
Heavyweight 1931 2581 281 177 104 0 9041 Max Schmeling
Heavyweight 1932 2629 380 243 138 0 9041 Max Schmeling
Heavyweight 1933 1691 397 259 138 0 9041 Max Schmeling
Heavyweight 1934 1620 423 276 147 0 9041 Max Schmeling
Heavyweight 1935 2556 478 298 180 0 9041 Max Schmeling
Heavyweight 1936 4062 610 364 246 0 9041 Max Schmeling
Heavyweight 1937 2639 643 397 246 0 9041 Max Schmeling
Heavyweight 1938 1970 676 430 246 0 9041 Max Schmeling
Heavyweight 1939 2534 775 463 312 0 9041 Max Schmeling
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 29 Apr 2016, 09:30
by computerrank
All time p4p look like this - no top rating regarded
all_time_p4p_no_top_rating.pdf
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 29 Apr 2016, 11:59
by Leonid
Thanks! The changes are not as dramatic as one could predict, SRR and Moore are still top-2, but not by such a huge margin, and the more recent guys get a little more appreciation as they well deserve, while some not that great guys, especially from the 50s, go down. Who would have Jimmy Bivins as #21 p4p and Joey Maxim #33? They are barely making it to such positions in many subjectuve light-heavyweight all-time ratings.
I don't believe fighters were better back in the day, with their caveman training regimes and supplements and current system gives many of them quite a benefit compared to today's crop.
Therefore I like this rating better as well and think this should be the official system. Does anyone else support me in this?
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 29 Apr 2016, 13:32
by mike1989
computerrank wrote:mike1989 wrote:can please even the rating of Max Schmeling to lose ???
Max Schmeling now looks like this:
Code: Select all
Light Heavyweight 1927 854 17 13 4 0 9041 Max Schmeling
Light Heavyweight 1928 823 31 23 8 0 9041 Max Schmeling
Heavyweight 1929 1133 61 45 16 0 9041 Max Schmeling
Heavyweight 1930 2002 193 111 82 0 9041 Max Schmeling
Heavyweight 1931 2581 281 177 104 0 9041 Max Schmeling
Heavyweight 1932 2629 380 243 138 0 9041 Max Schmeling
Heavyweight 1933 1691 397 259 138 0 9041 Max Schmeling
Heavyweight 1934 1620 423 276 147 0 9041 Max Schmeling
Heavyweight 1935 2556 478 298 180 0 9041 Max Schmeling
Heavyweight 1936 4062 610 364 246 0 9041 Max Schmeling
Heavyweight 1937 2639 643 397 246 0 9041 Max Schmeling
Heavyweight 1938 1970 676 430 246 0 9041 Max Schmeling
Heavyweight 1939 2534 775 463 312 0 9041 Max Schmeling
what's wrong with it ??? )
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 29 Apr 2016, 14:43
by computerrank
mike1989 wrote:computerrank wrote:mike1989 wrote:can please even the rating of Max Schmeling to lose ???
Max Schmeling now looks like this:
Code: Select all
Light Heavyweight 1927 854 17 13 4 0 9041 Max Schmeling
Light Heavyweight 1928 823 31 23 8 0 9041 Max Schmeling
Heavyweight 1929 1133 61 45 16 0 9041 Max Schmeling
Heavyweight 1930 2002 193 111 82 0 9041 Max Schmeling
Heavyweight 1931 2581 281 177 104 0 9041 Max Schmeling
Heavyweight 1932 2629 380 243 138 0 9041 Max Schmeling
Heavyweight 1933 1691 397 259 138 0 9041 Max Schmeling
Heavyweight 1934 1620 423 276 147 0 9041 Max Schmeling
Heavyweight 1935 2556 478 298 180 0 9041 Max Schmeling
Heavyweight 1936 4062 610 364 246 0 9041 Max Schmeling
Heavyweight 1937 2639 643 397 246 0 9041 Max Schmeling
Heavyweight 1938 1970 676 430 246 0 9041 Max Schmeling
Heavyweight 1939 2534 775 463 312 0 9041 Max Schmeling
what's wrong with it ??? )
Nothing is wrong for me, you wanted to see it, or?