BoxRec

There’s a lot of rubbish spouted on here and elsewhere about Joe Calzaghe’s record. I’ve done a bit of maths which I reckon proves just how incredible it is that he has remained undefeated at this level (even taking account of how poor some of his opponents have been).

I’ve used probability to work out just how unlikely it is even for an elite fighter like Joe to go 46 fights unbeaten

I’ve assumed some hopefully realistic odds for JC’s fights – don’t forget this is at the time he fought them - and I’ve tried to be harsh to Joe’s opponent. Stay with me on this.

The maths

Going in, the Lacy and Kessler fights were pretty much pick ‘em, evens

Next up is Hopkins where Joe is say 2-1

Joe is hot favourite in the RJJ fight (3-1 on)

Then the next layer, lets say (don’t forget this is at the time)

Eubank 3-1 on
Sheika 3-1 on
Brewer 3-1 on
Mitchell 3-1 on
RJJ 3-1 on
Reid 3-1 on

Next rung

Bika 4-1
Woodhall 4-1

All other defences (12) I assume are 5-1 on , still huge odds for a 2 horse race

That’s 23 fights

I’ll assume odds of 8-1 on for the other 23. At the time some of these were pretty tough (eg Mark Delaney)

Conclusion
Even allowing for the fact that Joe (might be easier to depersonalise this and call him fighter x) is a hot favourite elite fighter, he still had only a one in 10 chance (9.1 to 1 to be exact using these assumptions) of remaining undefeated all this time.

QED

Lacy was 4-6 or 4-7 to beat Calzaghe. Joe wasgenerally 6-4 against.

I would say Joe was more than 8-1 for the other 23... except Delaney, who was crazily the betting favourite.

Only Delaney and Lacy were betting favourites vs Joe.

Joe was 1/3 to beat Hopkins, 11/10 to beat Lacy, 1/19 to beat Bika and a fair few of his defences were over 1/20, if not over 1/30 for some of his really crap defences. Remember Khan was 1/20 to beat Prescott, which in hindsight was amazingly good value.

Dioufy wrote:Joe was 1/3 to beat Hopkins, 11/10 to beat Lacy, 1/19 to beat Bika and a fair few of his defences were over 1/20, if not over 1/30 for some of his really crap defences. Remember Khan was 1/20 to beat Prescott, which in hindsight was amazingly good value.

I agree, for many of his defences he was 20/1 on or shorter. I'm sure i recal seeing 50/1 on also at one time, and would not be surprised to hear of even shorter odds being offered for his poorest defences, Mcintyre, Pudwill etc.

Hopkins and Reid were narrow/disputed

You can see a pattern in the matchmaking - from Reid up to Hopkins - where the name in the other corner is some way past his prime. That help him remain unbeaten, eh?

Excepting Lacy and Kessler, who came to the UK and were beaten in front of massive crowds

Autobarn wrote:Hopkins and Reid were narrow/disputed

You can see a pattern in the matchmaking - from Reid up to Hopkins - where the name in the other corner is some way past his prime. That help him remain unbeaten, eh?

Excepting Lacy and Kessler, who came to the UK and were beaten in front of massive crowds

What the fornicate has massive crowds got to do with it? Were they to blame for the shellacking that Lacy took?

Would it have been different on American soil?

Joe was 5/1 going into the 12th round against Hopkins

Calzaghe and Hatton have been favourites (often very heavy favourites) nearly every time they've entered the ring.

So have Witter, Froch and Haye.

states wrote:Calzaghe and Hatton have been favourites (often very heavy favourites) nearly every time they've entered the ring.

So have Witter, Froch and Haye.

Yes I understand that, it was the point of the thread to highlight that even allowing for being a heavy favourite more often than not, to go so long unbeaten is still extremely unlikely.

That wasn't directed at you, chinny, I was agreeing with your hypothesis, essentially.

My point is that Calzaghe (and Hatton), have done extremely well in their career's, yet get judged on some weird scale, against other Brits.

Maths isn't my strongest point, and I don't get the formula sorry.

Joe has been the underdog twice in his career - and he wasn't a massive underdog in either. Boxing is a two horse race, and if you discount the lacy/delaney fights then isn't his odds at remaining defeated very high?

In nearly most of Joe's fights, especially in the latter stage if his career and his "career-defining" fights he's always had an advantage. Against Eubank, Hopkins and Jones, it was age, against Lacy and Kessler he was at home. Pretty big advantages if you ask me.

That is not how you work out odds. Each fight is considered on it's own merits, boxing is not like tossing a coin, so the opening gambit is poor in itself.

All this calzaghe bashing is getting as tiresome as the previous Hatton v Witter dribble

tonyevs wrote:All this calzaghe bashing is getting as tiresome as the previous Hatton v Witter dribble

Nobody is bashing mate. Most guys here know Calzaghe is talented, but their saying it how it is.
Facts are Facts, Calzaghe has too many holes and Question marks in his career.

observer1 wrote:

tonyevs wrote:All this calzaghe bashing is getting as tiresome as the previous Hatton v Witter dribble

Nobody is bashing mate. Most guys here know Calzaghe is talented, but their saying it how it is.
Facts are Facts, Calzaghe has too many holes and Question marks in his career.

In your opinion... Certainly not facts. Its a subjective view. And one with poor reasoning.

Hello? Earth to boxrec. Does nobody here understand probability? The post, unfortunately, doesn't stack up as an argument.

Joe being an average of 5-1 on doesn't mean that one would expect him to five fights out of every six, it refers to an individual action that "resets" after it's over.

Think of it like this: if I tossed a coin ten times, and the first nine all fell on heads, most people would bet on tails for the tenth flip. WRONG! The tenth flip just as much chance of being a head as a tail.

It's the same with Calzaghe. Adding all the odds up in this way proves nothing. Each set of odds referred to an individual match and had no relation to a series of matches. After each one, the odds on the next fight did not change based on his win in the previous fight. The odds makers weren't saying "he's won, surely it must come to an end" they were assessing his chances in each match -- just like the coin flip.

Yep, carbo...quiet right.

Carbo wrote:Hello? Earth to boxrec. Does nobody here understand probability? The post, unfortunately, doesn't stack up as an argument.

Joe being an average of 5-1 on doesn't mean that one would expect him to five fights out of every six, it refers to an individual action that "resets" after it's over.

Think of it like this: if I tossed a coin ten times, and the first nine all fell on heads, most people would bet on tails for the tenth flip. WRONG! The tenth flip just as much chance of being a head as a tail.

It's the same with Calzaghe. Adding all the odds up in this way proves nothing. Each set of odds referred to an individual match and had no relation to a series of matches. After each one, the odds on the next fight did not change based on his win in the previous fight. The odds makers weren't saying "he's won, surely it must come to an end" they were assessing his chances in each match -- just like the coin flip.

That is precisely what I said. The odds are not cumulative.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Carbo wrote:Hello? Earth to boxrec. Does nobody here understand probability? The post, unfortunately, doesn't stack up as an argument.

Joe being an average of 5-1 on doesn't mean that one would expect him to five fights out of every six, it refers to an individual action that "resets" after it's over.

Think of it like this: if I tossed a coin ten times, and the first nine all fell on heads, most people would bet on tails for the tenth flip. WRONG! The tenth flip just as much chance of being a head as a tail.

It's the same with Calzaghe. Adding all the odds up in this way proves nothing. Each set of odds referred to an individual match and had no relation to a series of matches. After each one, the odds on the next fight did not change based on his win in the previous fight. The odds makers weren't saying "he's won, surely it must come to an end" they were assessing his chances in each match -- just like the coin flip.

That is precisely what I said. The odds are not cumulative.

Okay, just because you both agree doesn't mean you are right. I understand probability perfectly well thank you and completely stand behind what I said. Probability can be cumulative and it is incredible that anyone can fight at the level that Joe has for 46 fights unbeaten. Yes odds for one fight are just that - odds for one fight - but it is still valid to calculate the probability of a fighter fighting x number of bums, y number of okay opponents and z number of good opponents. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

chinny wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Carbo wrote:Hello? Earth to boxrec. Does nobody here understand probability? The post, unfortunately, doesn't stack up as an argument.

Joe being an average of 5-1 on doesn't mean that one would expect him to five fights out of every six, it refers to an individual action that "resets" after it's over.

Think of it like this: if I tossed a coin ten times, and the first nine all fell on heads, most people would bet on tails for the tenth flip. WRONG! The tenth flip just as much chance of being a head as a tail.

It's the same with Calzaghe. Adding all the odds up in this way proves nothing. Each set of odds referred to an individual match and had no relation to a series of matches. After each one, the odds on the next fight did not change based on his win in the previous fight. The odds makers weren't saying "he's won, surely it must come to an end" they were assessing his chances in each match -- just like the coin flip.

That is precisely what I said. The odds are not cumulative.

Okay, just because you both agree doesn't mean you are right. I understand probability perfectly well thank you and completely stand behind what I said...

OK. You're right.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Carbo wrote:Hello? Earth to boxrec. Does nobody here understand probability? The post, unfortunately, doesn't stack up as an argument.

Joe being an average of 5-1 on doesn't mean that one would expect him to five fights out of every six, it refers to an individual action that "resets" after it's over.

Think of it like this: if I tossed a coin ten times, and the first nine all fell on heads, most people would bet on tails for the tenth flip. WRONG! The tenth flip just as much chance of being a head as a tail.

It's the same with Calzaghe. Adding all the odds up in this way proves nothing. Each set of odds referred to an individual match and had no relation to a series of matches. After each one, the odds on the next fight did not change based on his win in the previous fight. The odds makers weren't saying "he's won, surely it must come to an end" they were assessing his chances in each match -- just like the coin flip.

That is precisely what I said. The odds are not cumulative.

Sorry James. Missed the post.

Carbo wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Carbo wrote:Hello? Earth to boxrec. Does nobody here understand probability? The post, unfortunately, doesn't stack up as an argument.

Joe being an average of 5-1 on doesn't mean that one would expect him to five fights out of every six, it refers to an individual action that "resets" after it's over.

Think of it like this: if I tossed a coin ten times, and the first nine all fell on heads, most people would bet on tails for the tenth flip. WRONG! The tenth flip just as much chance of being a head as a tail.

It's the same with Calzaghe. Adding all the odds up in this way proves nothing. Each set of odds referred to an individual match and had no relation to a series of matches. After each one, the odds on the next fight did not change based on his win in the previous fight. The odds makers weren't saying "he's won, surely it must come to an end" they were assessing his chances in each match -- just like the coin flip.

That is precisely what I said. The odds are not cumulative.

Sorry James. Missed the post.

I was under the impression that he had calculated the odds as you would do with an accumulator bet?? I.e. If you were to put a £1 accumulator bet on three even money football games. Then if game 1 comes in you get your stake back, plus your £1 winnings, meaning £2 goes onto the second game. If that comes in you get your stake back (£2), plus your winnings which is £2, meaning you've got £4 on the final game which would mean you getting £8 back if the 3rd game comes in (£4 stake and £4 winnings).

This to me would be a reasonable way of trying to evaluate how good Joe's achievements are statistically, by working back through all the odds and calculating what the odds would have been before his very 1st fight if you'd have put a £1 on and you could glance into the future and knew all his opponents and their odds - and would be really interesting to compare against the likes of RJJ until he got beat!!

this is all nonsense.

the outcomes of boxing matches are not dependent on probabilities, which are in any case distinct from gambling odds.