The Boxing Coefficient

An idea dreamt up in the pits of boredom and tiredness, take any great fighter, take the ten best opponents they fought (leeway for fights against opposition when clearly past there best), give them a rating out of 10 for each fighter. See how the old addage of you're only as good as your opposition works, a quick sample using Robinson and Armstrong below. Please note I intend on doing this with both past and present fighters to see how they match up


Sugar Ray Robinson- 7.55
Gavilan- A pair of wins over a fellow great Welterweight, slightly marked down for Gavilans stronger form after the bout- 9
Basilio- Split two fights with the former welterweight champion, despite his advancing years showed vulnerability to pressure but had enough left to win a close rematch- 7
Fullmer- Produced the greatest one punch knockout with that left hook in the second fight but failed to cement himself as the better of the two in their series losing two, winning one with a controversial draw, age being such a significant factor gains him a bit more credit- 6.5
LaMotta- Won five out of their six bouts culminating in the saint valentines day massacre, proving dominance over a great bigger man 8.5
Armstrong- Homocide Hank had seen better days but was still highly ranked in the division and the ease of victory was impressive- 8
Maxim-He lost the fight but won the event, outboxed his bigger foe for 13 rounds before heat exhaustion took it’s toll- 7
Graziano- A comfortable win over a very good but not great Graziano who was battle worn after a gruelling series with Zale 7
Wilson- A pair of wins over the number three ranked Welterweight at the time who was in red hot form- 7.5
Zivic- A solid pair of wins as an up and comer over the quintessential gatekeeper- 7
Angott- A set of wins over a great lightweight, slight size difference takes away some of the shine- 8

Henry Armstrong- 7.05

Robinson- Comfortable points loss while past his best but still highly ranked- 5
Ross- Beating a great welterweight while outweighed significantly- 10
Montanez- Battering a very accomplished welterweight contender who was in the middle of a hot vein of form- 7.5
Angott- Good win at the start of the downturn in his career- 7
Zivic- Pair of losses to a good competitive fighter who seldom excelled at the highest level- 4
Ambers- Splitting a pair of lightweight title fights while seemingly being at the wrong end of an over zealous referee, newspaper reports suggest two clear Armstrong wins- 8
Garcia- A win and a draw against a naturally bigger fighter, controversial draw in tilt for a fourth world title- 8
Arizmendi- Pair of early career losses but during the peak of his powers, won fairly comfortably, natural size is similar so weight at which the fights occurred seems largely irrelevant- 7.5
Sarron- First world title win with a KO victory over a steady but not breathtaking champion- 7
Bass- Comfortable win over a fighter who seemed long removed from his peak years- 6.5

I admire your energy and tenacity Ghosty...wish I had it Mate....

how do you rate Turpin 2....for me one of his greatest wins...

I'd have it at about a 6 Truss mainly because of the first fight and would have to say Turpin isn't amongst the best of his opposition either.

You're right but like Norton-Ali...just had that something Robbo struggled with and finally found the answer!!.....Boxing can be crazy..

The overall greatness of a fighter can be determined by how they perform against a whole host of differing styles.

Agreed...but sometimes the opposition isn't always available....The two you mention are top 6 for sure but it gets harder rating when you have a hot fighter in a cold shop!!!

Still it's a great piece.. and not much in it ..I can disagree with...

Often with great fighters you ignore there losses, so I am interested to know how much I personally overlook them.

I think you ignore their losses more if you like them or add them if it enhances the legacy of someone you like...

Duran is a great example....Hearns was too big at 154 and yet the same people use his close defeat to 160 pound Hagler to enhance his legacy...

Such a subjective thing rating anybody... that I think your thread is applaudable for it's attempted incisiveness....

But records can be nitpicked till the cows come home....

I regard Turpin as one of his best wins.....A guy who had his number !! but he found something deep down to turn the fight....

that's a true champion......

I do see Hearns and Hagler as two very seperate scenarios, both were bigger but Hearns had the style and size to trouble him whereas with Hagler it was more of a size thing.

Yes but you see where I'm coming from..

To an extent but it's the same as using the Leonard fight to enhance Hearns, proved his ability but ultimately lost.

I know but a lot of people don't rate or bother with Tommy so they don't use it.....

Like I said records can be dissected by both sides of the argument in different ways..depending whether you like or dislike the guy..

Look at d4 and Azumah...

An interesting approach, but, as we'll no doubt see, rating 10 fights a piece out of 10 is probably likely to invite a bucket load of arguments. Disagreements are going to be 20 to the power 606!

It'll be good to see a couple more worked examples. A bit of common sense, discussion, and compromise in selecting the scores for fights could see an interesting way to do some rankings.

I'll argue perhaps ghosty that the excellent Gavilan is a 9 and a limited Lamotta is 8.5!!!!..

Armstrong was on the slide and fighting above his natural weight too...so an 8 is way generous if Turpin is only 6.5..

but hey great effort!!

I see Gavilan as a ten star welterweight but he was at his absolute best post Robinson as opposed to prior to their fights hence the slightly lower score. Lamotta is probably a 7.5, a great middleweight who's style and size was a nightmare for smaller fighters, the style and ease with which Robinson beat him was very impressive so a higher mark. As for Armstrong, on the slide yes but was still the third best Welterweight in the world at the time while he gets marked down for the first Turpin loss without which the resulting victory looks less impressive.

Boxtthis wrote:An interesting approach, but, as we'll no doubt see, rating 10 fights a piece out of 10 is probably likely to invite a bucket load of arguments. Disagreements are going to be 20 to the power 606!

It'll be good to see a couple more worked examples. A bit of common sense, discussion, and compromise in selecting the scores for fights could see an interesting way to do some rankings.

Not so much ten fights but ten opponents. In some cases they are one off fights but it's also interesting to see how fighters adapt in rematches something Robinson was very good at but you can't then overlook the first fight as many seem to do with him.

Can't see past Whitaker in more modern times (ie, the last quarter of a century). I've been guilty of badly underrating him up until fairly recently - I knew he was great, but pound for pound I see now that he must surely be in or around the cusp of a top ten of all time.

Chavez: a 'draw' in the record books, but in reality we know that Whitaker gave something of a lesson to the man with whom he vied for the top spot not only then, but throughout the whole era. Not Chavez's best weight, and he lost to Randall soon after, but still a magnificent performance by Pea against the man who was 87-0. 9/10

Ramirez: again, let's ignore the clear larceny of the first result and recognize that Whitaker won around twenty rounds of the twenty-four he boxed against the Mexican. Ramirez's ledger reads as a who's who of Lightweight boxing in the eighties, with some fine wins to his name, and yet Whitaker made him look like an amateur. 8/10

Nelson: if we want to be picky, 135 lb wasn't Nelson's best weight class, but I find it hard to imagine him being practically shut out in a similar way by many other Lightweights, and he had plenty of distinguishing wins after losing to Whitaker, too. 8/10

Haugen: a solid Lightweight titlist, though naturally one who Whitaker was expected to beat with aplomb, and he did just that. 6/10

Vasquez: a big, natural Light-Middleweight who'd compete with any 154 lb belt holder, who'd beaten a certain Winky Wright during his long WBA tenure. Whitaker made light of the physical disadvantages to give workmanlike, if not spectacular performance. 7/10

Pineda: big puncher, though his style played in to Whitaker's hands at 140 lb. A Maidana-type figure who Whitaker beat at a canter. 6/10

McGirt: a superb pair of wins for Whitaker here. McGirt unquestionably the top man at Welterweight when Whitaker stepped up to beat him, and not long removed from a masterclass performance against Simon Brown. Would add, too, that Whitaker-McGirt I is one of the most enjoyable and high quality Welterweight title fights you could wish to see. 9/10

Roger Mayweather: uncle Roger wasn't a model of consistency at world level, but Whitaker was only a young pup in the professional game here, and came through some difficult moments to outscore a man who went on to win his second world title afterwards. 6/10

De la Hoya: Oscar at the absolute peak of his powers, Whitaker clearly past his best having looked awful against Hurtado and average against Rivera - and still, Whitaker was probably unlucky to lose his Welterweight title here. To perform so well when over the hill against a fighter of De la Hoya's abilities, to the point where a real argument can be made that he deserved the decision, adds to Whitaker's credentials. 7/10

Trinidad: the only time that Whitaker was clearly beaten, and this was at the age of thirty-five, returning from a long suspension and fighting a genuinely great Welterweight in the form of his life. Performed with great honour in defeat. 6/10

Average: 7.20

I'm working on this, hope to have about 30 odd done by the close of tomorrow, will be a few admissions like Langford who I don't know enough about to do the man credit. You did just as I would Chris, the result itself isn't the important factor but more the performance.

Ghosty I'll do a few of the smaller guys over the next couple of days if I get a chance.

I'm actually left wondering why i've given Robinson more credit for beating Angott than Armstrong.

I have a similar system which I adopt for deep research, Ghosty.

I take the fight at which a given fighter could be said to have fought at world class for the first time, the point at which his effective career at world level ends, and then gather up the records of all his opponents during that period and average them out to a percentage.

I then take the fighter's record, his opponents' records, and average them out.

By way of example, here's part of the process for Joe Louis :


Peak from 1935 ( v Primo Carnera ) to 1949 ( retired )

Number of fights in prime 39

Record for the period 38 - 1 - 0 = 97.4%

Opponents' average records at the time he fought them 49 - 11 - 3 = 86.5%

Overall : 91.9%

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I'm actually left wondering why i've given Robinson more credit for beating Angott than Armstrong.

I think you have it right there Ghosty, to be honest. Angott was in his prime and the reigning Lightweight champion when Robinson beat him, if I remember correctly. Armstrong was decidedly past his best and, more to the point, Robinson had agreed to carry him throughout so as to give his idol a payday for the smallest amount of punishment and pain. Superb name to have on his record, but not up there with Sugar's greatest triumphs, for me.

Ignore that Ghosty, misunderstood what you meant!

Would be interesting to do this for fighters like Calzaghe who are undefetaed but generally regarded as not fighting the best and comparing them against someone like De La Hoya who fought everyone around and racked up a few losses.

I'll bite, Superfly. Calzaghe break down, anyone?

Hopkins: horrible fight to watch, not the easiest to score, but through no real fault of Calzaghe's. Hopkins was generally accepted as the top man at 175 lb, it was Joe's first fight at the weight, and Hopkins regained his mantle afterwards, too. Question marks over Hopkins' age, naturally, but on the whole a good win for Calzaghe. 8/10

Kessler: a unification bout between two tried, tested and unbeaten world champions shouldn't be sniffed at, no matter what the division. Clear win for Calzaghe against a genuinely very good fighter who has claimed two world titles since. 8/10

Eubank: entertaining fight, with the younger fresher man outgaming the battle-worn one. Eubank wasn't all that old but clearly wasn't the fighter he'd been a few years previously, either, not scoring a win of significance for a while before, and scoring none after. 7/10

Lacy: well, he was being built up as a monster before, wasn't he? I can't ignore that Lacy has done nothing to suggest he was ever the hot property he was made out to be in 2006, but at the same time I can't ignore the quality of Calzaghe's performance which was, quite simply, brilliant against an unbeaten fighter. 7/10

Woodhall: solid opponent who'd competed well at European / fringe world level for a while, but also the sort of man you'd expect Calzaghe to beat with something to spare. He did. 6/10

Reid: inconsistent at the highest level, hardly an elite fighter to begin with, and still Calzaghe didn't look very good in this fight. Workmanlike win, no more - though I do think it was a win. 5/10

Mitchell: a solid gatekeeper at 168 lb, perhaps past his peak when he took on Calzaghe. Still, a decent win for Joe considering that he had to get up off the deck and stopped him in the very next round, I believe. 6/10

Veit: two wins for Calzaghe here, neither really registering much on the radar. Veit was nothing to get excited about, although Calzaghe did what he had to do in ruthlessly dispatching him twice. 5/10

Brewer: a similar scalp to Mitchell; Brewer was a solid 168 lb campaigner, but again there was nothing surprising or particularly inspiring here. 6/10

Bika: another awful fight to watch in which Calzaghe looked average at times. Bika about as 'middle of the road' as you get above domestic level, too. 5/10

Average: 6.3

If you are doing requests Chris - then Ali please

How about Chuck Wepner?

Just about spot on I reckon, Chris. I had started to pull one together but go distracted with something at work (and I'm not talking about the short skirts on the trainees).

I got as far as Woodhall on your list and my scoring is almost identical (I've got Reid as a 5.5). Lets hope Ralphy doesn't see us suggesting that the Woodhall win was only a six.

Gene Tunney- 7.15

Jack Dempsey- Aside from the ‘long count’ controversy, a comprehensive pair of wins over an inactive but undeniably great heavyweight- 9
Harry Greb- More renowned as a middleweight but also proved himself to be a great light heavyweight, competitive to start with but gained a clear superiority overall- 9
Tommy Loughran- Draw with one of the great light heavyweights who would go on to have a dominance over a strong division, opinion was split on the true winner- 7
George Carpentier- A very good fighter who often failed at the top level and had also seen better days- 7.5
Tommy Gibbons- Very good fighter who had mixed with the best and often beaten the best- 8
Jeff Smith- Good ranked fighter of the era, very rarely excelled at the highest level- 6.5
Jimmy Delaney- Reported by the newspapers of the day to have done just enough to get the win- 7
Battling Levinksy- Hit and miss former world champion- 7
Leo Houck- Somewhat of a gatekeeper- 5.5
Tom Heeney- Fairly average- 5

Jack Dempsey- 7.05

Gene Tunney- Long lay off but still managed to come the closest to stopping Tunney- 6
Willard- No great shakes but manner of victory sent shockwaves round the boxing world that still reverberate today- 9
Jack Sharkey- Knockout victory while past his best against an unsung fighter- 7.5
Luis Firpo- Tricky fight against a much bigger fighter- 7.5
Tommy Gibbons- Showed a different side to outbox a very talented opponent- 8
George Carpentier- Good fighter but not a seasoned heavyweight- 7.5
Billy Miske- Knocking out a very durable and strong fighter who had career cut short due to poor health highlighted by close earlier fights- 7.5
Levinsky- Comfortable victory over a good but not great smaller man- 6.5
Billy Brennan- Solid contender of the day- 6
Gunboat Smith- Decent but nothing more- 5

A 9 for Willard seems quite generous in the circumstances.

It's the circumstances that make it a 9, the most brutal performance against a much bigger man who was a heavy favourite.

He was a mediocre heavyweight who was in his late thirties and hadnt defended his title in over 3 years.

In hindsight yes but that was not the opinion of the time.

Even without hindsight that was the case. I think most reports have him a small betting favourite - around 6/5 or 5/4. Probably because Dempsey wasnt hugely established. Hindsight is surely relevant in any case?

Otherwise Pacquiaos win over de la Hoya would be a 9 or a 10 if its just going the performance and opinion and betting at the time.

I'm personally happy giving it a 9, the performance of Pacquiao against De La Hoya isn't on the same level nor will it leave such a lasting impression.

Id give it a 7 probably. Performance might rate higher but everything else drags it down.

Great effort Ghosty!

7, would seem far too low for such a defining performance much like Alis performance over Williams it gets high high marks for performance.

I just think the standard and condition of the opposition is a major factor in how a win is rated. I would try to remove subjective elements such as whether or not it was a defining moment and keep it as objective as possible. Any sort of win over Willard would struggle to get above 8 in my view just because hes too ordinary a fighter for that. But considering he was so inactive and so old then it severely diminishes the win for me.

If you were looking at purely performance, then I would agree it would be right up there. But as a win overall its probably a 5 star performance against a 3 star opponent who was fairly past it.

Id look at it something like:

Performance: 9 or 10
Standard of opponent: 6 or 7
Condition of opponent: 4 or 5

Overall: 21/30 = 7

In most cases I would agree but this would be one of the few times when the performance stands above all else.

Floyd Mayweather- 7.50

Oscar De La Hoya- Comfortable win over an ageing inactive fighter who had a big size advantage- 8
Ricky Hatton- A lesson in counter punching against a fighter expected to cause problems, weight class seems irrelevant as natural size with opponent- 8
Diego Corrales- A boxing masterclass against the divisions next best- 8.5
Genaro Hernandez- Classy domination of an under rated champion- 8
Shane Mosley- comfortable win against an ageing fighter coming of a good win- 7
Juan Manuel Marquez- Total shut out of a top class operator but an ageing smaller man- 7
Zab Judah- Early issues against a tricky southpaw who lost majority of big fights- 7
Jose Luis Castillo- Fortunate decision first time round but overcomes this with a comfortable rematch win against a strong durable body puncher- 8
Arturo Gatti- Ageing warrior who lost against the cream- 7
Jesus Chavez- Compelling fight against a non stop pressure fighter, world level opponent but not necessarily world class- 6.5

Manny Pacquiao- 7.35

Miguel Cotto- World class all time great somewhere near his best- 9
Marco Antonio Barrera- On a good run of form, maybe slightly past his best- 8.5
Erik Morales- Loss in first fight somewhat redeemed with pair of wins over an opponent on the way down- 8
Juan Manuel Marquez- Close fights, fortunate to have wins with weaknesses being highlight at differing stage in career- 6
Ricky Hatton- Destruction of a well respected lineal champion, signs of recent diminished punch resitance- 8
Oscar De La Hoya- Past his best and in hindsight weight drained, ease of victory was surprising- 7
Oscar Larios- Long serving former world champion, above ideal weight for both- 7.5
Lehlo Ledwaba- Accomplished world champion- 7
Antonio Margarito- Bigger fighter but recently disgraced with question marks over much of career- 7
Jorge Solis- World level contender but not world class- 6.5


Not happy with either of them and feel i've been a tad over generous.

Would agree that you've been a wee bit generous to Mayweather and Pacquiao, Ghosty, though it's obviously down to opinion. Always thought that Pacquiao's first win over Barrera is by far his best, not sure I'd rate the Cotto win quite as highly, though it was still a superb victory for Manny.

I know exactly what i've done Chris, in an effort not to seem biased towards the old timers i've over compensated but then it may be a case of downplaying the likes of Robinson and Armstrong, not too sure but something has gone wrong somewhere. It does to some extent show how an unbeaten record can manipulate these things as does quality of opposition, Armstrong gets a lower mark for having to face the best of all time while Mayweather and Pacquiao have higher marks for beating average men like Larios and Chavez. Needs a tweek.

I have Cotto and Barrera very even but think Pacquiao wasn't as natural at Welterweight so that gives the win a slight edge, both need lowering though.

A valiant effort to give a weighted average performance and find a decent benchmark for comparison. As the input is qualitative, it cant and won't ever be perfect because its a subjective attempt to make an objective score.

Windy's method, as it takes subjectivity out of it... is a factual score. By definition it takes no account of the real calibre of the oposition, only the paper calibre of them.

I think that if you took the statistical performance score from windy and your coefficient and looked at them next to each other, together they'd be a good starting point for any debate on atg lists etc. You'd have a qualitative and quantitative measure. Be interesting to look at those coefficients against some of those atg lists you did a while back and see how they'd look.

If you wanted to get rid of some of the potential for anomolies from opinion, you might get some of the fluctuations out of the scoring by doing what manos did for the dempsey willard fight and make each score (of the 10) an average of: dominance of performance, calibre of opposition, how close to peak were both fighters etc. But it will still be subjective (as proven by you and manos not agreeing on that one!) and its an onerous enough task as it is. I for one would not have the energy or inclination to try. Good work fella

Make a good sports ma thesis for someone.

I have a kind of system I use myself for rating wins but I have never really tried to aggregrate it over a career.

Using Marciano as an example taking his biggest fights:

Joe Louis:

Performance: 8.5
Standard of opponent: 10
Condition of opponent: 4

Overall win value: 7.5

Archie Moore:

Performance: 8.5
Standard of opponent: 7 (10 as a light heavy, but only 7 as a heavyweight)
Condition of opponent: 6

Overall win value: 7

Walcott I:

Performance: 6.5
Standard of opponent: 8
Condition of opponent: 7.5

Overall win value: 7.5

Walcott II

Performance: 9
Standard of opponent: 8
Condition of opponent: 3

Overall win value: 6.5

Charles I

Performance: 8
Standard of opponent: 8 (10 as a ligt heavyweight, 8 as a heavyweight)
Condition of opponent: 6.5

Overall win value: 7.5

Charles II

Performance: 9
Standard of opponent: 8
Condition of opponent: 3

Overall win value: 6.5

I guess if you aggragated it in total it would leave Marciano as a 7 rating overall from his biggest fights.

By no means a perfect system as there are other variable subjective elements that are not classified but I just use it a rough kind of guideline for measuring the value of a win.

Picking up on milkyboy's comment, a couple of posts above, I used my system a while ago to compare thirteen of the usual suspects for a heavyweight list. Should mention that I also awarded ' points ' for the number of successful title defences and the records against HOF fighters. They ended up like this :

Louis
Ali
Johnson
Holmes
Foreman
Lewis
Dempsey
Marciano

Tyson ( tie )
Jeffries ( tie )

Frazier
Holyfield
Liston

Wishing to factor in pure ability, but not wishing to risk subjectivity by offering my own opinions, I then added in some ' points ' from analysis by historian Monte Cox, who assessed each fighter according to certain criteria. The final result was this :

Louis
Ali
Johnson
Holmes
Dempsey
Lewis
Foreman
Marciano
Tyson
Jeffries
Frazier
Holyfield
Liston

Can't say I agreed with either list 100%, but I don't think they are too bad.

... they're not a million miles away windy that's for sure

meant to add windy, that ali and louis are a good case study for comparison between the two methodologies... louis couldn't fail to be top with yours but ali would most likely do bettwe with ghosty's


manos... all very well doing that for marciano... but tyson would still flatten him in 1

When I have the time, milky, I intend to do them again, but this time I shall go back two generations of opponents.

The reason is that, while reading the Charley Burley bio by Harry Otty ( fantastic book, ) I came across a couple of boxing brothers named Hogue. Burley's win over one of the Hogues was hailed as a great win, at which point my eyebrows shot up since I'd never heard of Hogue. A glance at his record soon changed that, as he had some stellar names on his resumé.

I reckon analysing the opponents' opponents, though a huge task, would, inevitably, yield greater accuracy.

Don't have the stomach for it yet, though. The other lot took a month of Sundays to compile as they were.

EDIT : Just saw your latest post, milky, and I totally agree. I, too, would favour Ali over Louis by the very thinnest of margins because I believe that, when all things are equal or near equal, head to head becomes important, and I'd fancy Ali to beat Louis more often than not.

HumanWindmill wrote:When I have the time, milky, I intend to do them again, but this time I shall go back two generations of opponents.

The reason is that, while reading the Charley Burley bio by Harry Otty ( fantastic book, ) I came across a couple of boxing brothers named Hogue. Burley's win over one of the Hogues was hailed as a great win, at which point my eyebrows shot up since I'd never heard of Hogue. A glance at his record soon changed that, as he had some stellar names on his resumé.

I reckon analysing the opponents' opponents, though a huge task, would, inevitably, yield greater accuracy.

Don't have the stomach for it yet, though. The other lot took a month of Sundays to compile as they were.

EDIT : Just saw your latest post, milky, and I totally agree. I, too, would favour Ali over Louis by the very thinnest of margins because I believe that, when all things are equal or near equal, head to head becomes important, and I'd fancy Ali to beat Louis more often than not.

Exactly what i've been doing recently Windy with the likes or Moore, Robinson and the like, after doing a bit of second generation digging you can find hidden gems, one of my favourites being Robbos win over Wilson. On first inspection I overlooked the wins as I hadn't heard of Wilson but you end up realising he was a fantastic fighter in his own right, at the time of the second fight he was rated as the fourth best Welterweight on the planet behind Cochrane, Robinson and Armstrong. Had a string of recent notable wins and was highly highly regarded at the time.


Milky

That is what I intend to do eventually compare the coefficient to the rankings we made up, expect a few surprises here and there as Armstrong has already highlighted. Unlike most statistical evidence on the face of things they seem to favour the modern guys more than the old timers due to fight frequency and generally less losses. Comparing Armstrong and Pacquiao for instance, you have a difference of almost 0.5 in favour of Pacquiao largely down to the timing of some of Armstrongs fights which seems unfair but still quite relevant.