Page 2 of 2
Re: Ten Commandments for Rating Boxers
Posted: 06 Nov 2016, 05:38
by Kalan
I'm not an advocate for any fistic period... Some of my all time favs are Tunney, Charles, Sanchez, Jofre, Burley, and Monzon... I'm for truth not eras
But what I'm saying is that it was easier to pad your record to 200-0 in the 40's or 50's if anyone had the inclination to do that... But you don't learn a whole lot and you develop bad habits when you fight so many guys with very poor skills.. Take the last 2 guys David Haye fought: Arnold Gjergjaj and Mark de Mori...on the surface they both had very good records.. 30 fights, and 0 or 1 loss, those are good records, but it was all fluff.. Their opponents had more wins than losses - but they were specifically looking for Heavyweights with decent records and poor skills.. They should have been able to defend themselves, but fighting Haye proved they couldn't.. They couldn't because they never stepped up their competition, their sparring, or the level of coaching they were getting.. They never got close to a title fight either.. And it's not doing David Haye much good fighting guys who can't perform or give him any rounds.. Haye is a guy with a very strong skill set and his sparring is keeping him sharper than most guys, but you also need tough fights.
Joe Louis fought a ton of guys like Gjergjaj and de Mori - opponents who were terrible boxers.. Louis said his peak form was Max Baer when he was 21 and had been fighting 14 months as a pro.. It should take you 7 to 10 years to achieve your best form if the competition is there.. He was upset by Schmeling because he wasn't ready for a good right hand counterpuncher.. He admitted he spent too much time on the golf course.. I think he tailed way off in the '40's as the competition got worse and worse. By the time Louis fought Walcott he was basically shot, and looked like somebody 10 years older.
Re: Ten Commandments for Rating Boxers
Posted: 06 Nov 2016, 05:40
by Kalan
That was in reply to elmersalsa.
Re: Ten Commandments for Rating Boxers
Posted: 07 Nov 2016, 11:54
by Ambling Alp II
BAD INTENTIONS wrote:Ambling Alp II wrote:A major reason why we disagree on things is because we factor in different things when rating fighters.
Thought this would be fun. In no particular order, here is a list of the 10 Commandments of rating fighters.
1. Win/loss records. Look at it to get an initial clue of how good someone is. However, the difference in competition is so vast that you should not use it as evidence that someone is great or better than someone else. A fighter can always find an easy opponent to beat.
2. Title defenses. The sheer number don’t mean anything. At all. Zero. Ziltz. One guy can have a lot of title defenses against weak opponents and might not be that good at all. Another guy might have very few (if any) because he lost to a great opponent.
3. Do consider quality wins. The best opponent than fighter beat almost always says a lot about a fighter. The more quality wins, the better.
4. Losses-Factor in the quality of the opponent that a fighter lost to. To a lesser extent factor in how competitive the fight was. A close loss to a great fighter is a lot different than a convincing loss to a normal fighter.
5. Film/Video- Certainly consider it. However, be careful if you have only seen a guy a little. You might overrate him if you only see one of best performances or underrate him if you have only seen one of his worst.
6. You can rate a fighter in different weight classes. Just look at what he did in the weight class you are rating at the time.
7. Reputation – Most of the time a fighter’s reputation is ballpark, but not always. Keep an open mind.
8. Stages. -Take into consideration the stage of a fighter’s career when considering a particular fight. Age/wear and tear have to be factored in. ie- Trevor Berbik beating Ali in 1981 is not the same as Ken Norton doing it in 1973.
9. Excuses-Make sure they are legit. Don’t overuse them for your favorites. i.e. Your favorite fighter (in his mid-20s) loses and you claim it was because he was not motivated.
10. The sport didn’t start the day you became interested. Chances are, there are many fighters that that fought before you were born who you barely heard of who were better than fighters that you are familiar with and think are really good.
Feel free to add your own.
Better than the original ten.
Thanks, but I wouldn't go that far!
Re: Ten Commandments for Rating Boxers
Posted: 07 Nov 2016, 12:14
by Ezzard
I don't really pay too much attention to defeats. Fight enough and you'll lose fights.
I don't rank football teams on games they lose. Athletes on races they lost. Or tennis players on their defeats.
Better to have fought and lost than to have never fought at all.
Winning is clearly better than losing. But I don't want to give credit for micro-managed careers of the kind that have been on the rise in the last 40+ years.
I tend to think that fighters prove themselves by fighting the best of their era. If they achieve enough to get in the top bracket then it's up to the individual.
Re: Ten Commandments for Rating Boxers
Posted: 07 Nov 2016, 12:16
by Ezzard
I do get the points on title wins... But at the same time there's no doubt that boxers often fight above themselves when challenging for world titles. Winning a belt raises earning potential. Challengers can be 20% more when fighting for the title. So I think it's worth considering.
Re: Ten Commandments for Rating Boxers
Posted: 07 Nov 2016, 16:47
by Ambling Alp II
Defeats have to count. Obviously some count for more than others. Not saying that sheer number of them means a lot by themselves. However, you have to look at them and consider the quality of the opponent, the stage of the fighter's career for the fight, and to some degree the competitiveness of the fight. Often you can learn more about a fighter in a fight that he loses than in a fight that he wins.
For example, you should not just not just close your eyes and pretend that weaknesses that were exposed in a loss didn't happen.
I get that you don't want to overly criticize a fighter a for losing to top fighters while another guy simply ducks them gets off scott free. However, the guy that does that won't have any quality wins either.
btw- A defeat is not always a major negative. A fighter who you might know much about or don't think is very good could give a great fighter a tough loss; this would actually raise his stock.
As for title wins- They count for a lot if the opponent was of high quality. A title win over a journeyman doesn't mean anything. Therefore, the sheer number by itself doesn't mean anything. It's more impressive to win one title fight against a quality opponent than 10 over stiffs.
Re: Ten Commandments for Rating Boxers
Posted: 08 Nov 2016, 02:53
by Ezzard
It means something. Of course it does. But there are lessons to be learned in defeat too.
I just think that for the majority of great fighters a few defeats here and there are negligible.
Re: Ten Commandments for Rating Boxers
Posted: 08 Nov 2016, 12:04
by Ambling Alp II
Agreed. It is often negligible. Especially for fighter from long ago who who fought frequently against really tough competition and occasionally lost.
Let's say fighter A had say dozens of fights against really high level opponents opponents in his career, and loses four of them. His big wins are going to heavily outweigh his losses. He is a great fighter.
However, lets say Fighter B only had four fights against that competition and went 0-4 in those fights. That is a completely different story. That is not a great fighter.
Also wanted to be clear that I am not saying that the sheer number of losses (by itself) is not automatically a big deal. ie. Just because one guy has 10 losses it doesn't automatically mean that he is better than another guy who had 5. The quality of the competition, the competitiveness of the fights and the stages of the fighter's career have to be factored in.
For example, Ezzard Charles had several losses at the end of his career. Those should pretty much be thrown out the window when rating him. If you don't, then you have to give way too much credit to the ordinary fighters who beat him when he was not that good anymore.