The Boxing Coefficient

First topic message reminder :

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

Fun isn't it, Ghosty?

milkyboy wrote: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

Less that 93 seconds.

It is Windy, find the 50's so much more interesting than any other era.

Can we keep all the stupid comments to a minimum please, nothing interesting to add then don't comment.

Chill out Ghosty. Have you had a sense of humour bypass again?

Get off my thread, plain and simple.

manos de piedra wrote: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.

I have an issue with the standard of opposition and condition of opponent. Say for instance Berbick against Ali. Ali would be standard (going by your opinion) 10 but condition 1. But the standard Ali fought at was not 10. His name was 10 but his standard was not. Therefore Louis should not be given a 10 but 7 at best.

Why manos why?

And so it begins

It's not rocket science, az.

Louis was a 10 for ability, and the 4 for condition means that his coefficient is 40%.

Marciano's performance in beating that coefficient gives his coefficient.

azania wrote:

manos de piedra wrote: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.

I have an issue with the standard of opposition and condition of opponent. Say for instance Berbick against Ali. Ali would be standard (going by your opinion) 10 but condition 1. But the standard Ali fought at was not 10. His name was 10 but his standard was not. Therefore Louis should not be given a 10 but 7 at best.

The condition element of the equation makes up for the standard part. The aggregate will generally give a fair, if not always perfect reflcetion of the opponent in my humble opinion.

So the Ali that fought Berbick would in essence be about a 5.

rowley wrote:And so it begins

On my best behaviour this and every evening.

HumanWindmill wrote:It's not rocket science, az.

Louis was a 10 for ability, and the 4 for condition means that his coefficient is 40%.

Marciano's performance in beating that coefficient gives his coefficient.

OK

Archie Moore- 7.2

Ezzard Charles- Top class fighter at the height of his powers, definitive losses- 5
Rocky Marciano- Out of his best weight but had the champion on the floor early- 6
Charley Burley- Naturally smaller fighter who dominated him from first bell til last- 5
Joey Maxim- Long overdue fight but easily overcome- 8.5
Harold Johnson- Behind on the cards before closing the show- 8.5
Nino Valdes- Naturally bigger man but pair of reasonably comfortable wins- 8
Jimmy Bivins- Almost total domination of a top class operator- 9.5
Cocoa Kid- Smaller fighter with patchy recent form- 7
Lloyd Marshall- Knock victory and close points verdict over under rated world level fighter- 7.5
Holman Williams- Split series with great fighter- 7

Ezzard Charles- 8.15

Archie Moore- clear superiority over a great fighter- 10
Rocky Marciano- Sterling efforts while past best against a great bigger man- 7
Joe Louis- Clear victory over great inactive champion past his best- 8
Jersey Joe Walcott- Split series with a very good bigger fighter- 7.5
Charley Burley- Clear points wins over great smaller fighter- 8.5
Gus Lesnevich- Comfortable victory over former champion- 7.5
Lloyd Marshall- Series win over dangerous ranked puncher- 8
Jimmy Bivins- Eventual dominance after early losses- 9
Joey Maxim- Comfortable wins over former world champion- 8
Teddy Yarosz- Early career victory over very good ranked opponent- 8


Comparing the widely regarded top men at light heavyweight, no surprises to see Charles ending with such a high mark, level of opposition for both is almost unsurpassed with differing levels of success.

Lets not all forget that Jersey Joe Walcott won the title at 37 years, 168 days who was only just younger than Naz who is 38 next month...

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:It's not rocket science, az.

Louis was a 10 for ability, and the 4 for condition means that his coefficient is 40%.

Marciano's performance in beating that coefficient gives his coefficient.

OK

With Ali/Berbick my scoring would be for Berbick would be:

Ali

Performance: 6.5
Standard of Opponent: 10
Condition of Opponent: 0

Overall value of win: 5.5

I suppose you could argue its worth even less than that. But while Ali was miles below his own best, the standard he was operating at might still be sufficient to beat a 4/10 standard heavyweight while a 5/6 standard of heavyweight could beat him.

The Fab Four

Roberto Duran- 7.35

Ernesto Marcel- Comfortable win over a very good future featherweight champion-8
Iran Barkley- Close points verdict over a good fighter with size, speed, age and power advantage- 7.5
Davey Moore- Brutal display against a decent younger and bigger fighter- 6.5
Marvin Hagler- Close points loss to a great middleweight champion- 7
Tommy Hearns- Wiped out in two rounds by younger, bigger fighter- 4
Sugar Ray Leonard- Close points decision before quitting against a great welterweight- 8.5
Ken Buchanan- Controversial ending but comfortable win over a great champion- 9
Carlos Palomino- Easy points victory over a former champion- 7
Pipino Cuevas-Easy knockout victory over former champion- 7
Esteban De Jesus- Non title loss before dominating title victories- 9

Sugar Ray Leonard- 7.2

Wilfred Benitez- Intriguing fight against a defensive master before knockout- 9
Roberto Duran- Close loss before controversial win against a naturally smaller and older fighter- 8
Tommy Hearns- Knockout while behind on the scorecards against great fight- 8.5
Marvin Hagler- Debatable decision against great middleweight champion but coming off a long lay off- 9
Ayub Kalule- Stoppage victory over under rated unbeaten champion- 7
Don LaLonde- Catchweight fight against mediocre champion- 6.5
Dave Green- Easy win over world ranked fighter- 6.5
Terry Norris- Decisive loss while way past his best- 5
Larry Bonds- Easy win over decent ranked fighter- 6.5
Andy Price- Easy win over decent ranked fighter- 6

Marvin Hagler- 7.25
Alan Minter- Early cuts stoppage over good world champion- 8
Vito Antuofermo- Controversial draw first time around but decisive knockout second time- 7.5
Roberto Duran- Close but deserved points victory over a great little man- 8
Tommy Hearns- All out war against big punching great fighter- 9
Sugar Ray Leonard- Passive performance against a great fighter coming off a long lay off- 7.5
John Mugabi- Close fight ending in stoppage against good fighter who failed at the highest level- 7
Tony Sibson- Easy win over under rated ranked fighter- 6.5
Mustafa Hamsho- Pair of wins over steady ranked fighter- 6.5
Juan Domingo Roldan- Comfortable win over good ranked fighter- 6.5
Wilford Scypion- Easy knockout victory over decent ranked fighter- 6

Tommy Hearns- 7.35
Pipino Cuevas- Devastating display against a very good champion- 8.5
Sugar Ray Leonard- Ahead on points before stoppage, had better of less meaningful later fighter- 8
Roberto Duran- Brutal knockout of a tough brilliant smaller fighter- 9
Marvin Hagler- Showed signs of promise before being stopped early- 6
Virgil Hill- Points verdict over a very good bigger fighter whilst past best- 8.5
Iran Barkley- Pair of losses to a good but not great fighter- 5
Wilfred Benitez- Close points victory over a boxing enigma- 8.5
James Shuler- First round knockout of number one contender- 7.5
Juan Domingo Roldan- Early knockout of ranked fighter- 6.5
Michael Olajide- Easy win over fighter who lost consistently at top level- 6

Interesting results not all that surprising, highlights that Mayweather and Pacquiao were rated far too highly.

Slight changes for me

Perhaps the moore fight replaced by the Camacho fight by Duran - first fight - I had him winning that - nearly cried when they done him over

Heanrs should get a 10 for Duran - smaller, older yes but he was operating in the division and in light of the fits he gave to both Leonard and hagler - a genuine middleweight.

Other than those I think the list is pretty much perfect.

Were I to include Camacho for Duran I would then have to for Leonard and think it's a bit unfair on the pair of them considering the stage of there careers.

If Duran is a ten for Hearns then Hearns must be a ten for Hagler, not much in it but the bigger man won both times which knocks it down a bit.