Your P4P Top Ten.

As some of you may now know, we are launching a magazine at the end of this month. The magazine will feature a number of different sports that are discussed on the forum, and also on the journal plus more.

One feature that I want to run is a V2 Pound For Pound list. It will be updated every month so that remains current and will feature in each edition. I want to generate the first list using your opinions.

So who makes your P4P Top Ten at the moment?

1. Perry Como
2. Marciano's jockstrap
3. Roger Mayweather
4. Jeff Mayweather

No-one else qualifies beyond that. It's a VERY select crew.

1. Floyd Mayweather
2. Andre Ward
3. Tim Bradley (I wish it wasn't but I can't make a case for him not being on my own criteria)
4. Guilliermo Rigondeaux
5. Wladimir Klitschko (based on last horrible outing he's dropped in my eyes)
6. Sergio Martinez (again, I question this but criteria etc)
7. Juan Manuel Marquez
8. Adonis Stevenson
9. Manny Pacquiao
10. Carl Froch (debatable of course)

Mayweather
Ward
Rigo
Martinez
Bradley
Jmm
Pacman
Garcia
Mikey Garcia
Wlad

I do like how Klitschko gets rated, "How dare he struggle so much against the #1 contender?! 120-104? Never seen worse!!" (Dave Chappele's white voice)....

1) Mayweather
2) Bradley
3) Ward
4) Rigo
5) Martinez
6) Wlad Kitschko
7) Stevenson
8) Marquez
8) Pacquiaio
10) Garcia.

1.Floyd
2.Rigo
3.Ward
4.Bradley
5.Stevenson
6.GGG
7.Marquez
8.Lara
9.Garcia
10.Donaire

Don't know how anybody canhave Rigo lower than 3. The man is pretty much unbeatable and I was very close to having him as numero uno.

1.) Floyd
2.) Ward
3.) Rigo
4.) Bradley
5.) Wlad
6.) JMM
7.) Danny Garcia
8.) Pacquiao
9.) Mikey Garcia
10.) Stevenson

*BREAKING NEWS*

Jim Lampley's ovaries just cracked my top five!!

Don't have a top ten but Mayweather doesn't deserve top spot , someone who fails to meet his greatest challenge , is pulling the wool over the fan's eyes.

Cheers Rodders

Rigo
Floyd
Ward
Manny
Bradley
Wlad
Marquez
Stevenson
Garcia - with the odious father
Donaire

Hi Hampo,

Why don't you use the Top10 voted for by the 606v2 community? It's the best way to eliminate any bias:

1 (1) Floyd Mayweather Jr.
2 (2) Andre Ward
3 (8) Timothy Bradley
4 (20) Guillermo Rigondeaux
5 (6) Wladimir Klitschko
6 (4) Juan Manuel Marquez
7 (5) Sergio Martinez
8 (7) Manny Pacquiao
9 (21) Danny Garcia
10 (3) Nonito Donaire

1 Robinson
2 Armstrong
3 Greb
4 Ali
5 Langford
6 Charles
7 Fitzsimmons
8 Leonard (R)
9 Gans
10 Leonard (B)

All Time Great wrote:Hi Hampo,

Why don't you use the Top10 voted for by the 606v2 community?

Seems like the best idea. It was done only recently.

Here's mine anyway:

1. Floyd Mayweather Jr.
2. Andre Ward
3. Timothy Bradley
4. Guillermo Rigondeaux
5. Sergio Martinez
6. Juan Manuel Marquez
7. Manny Pacquiao
8. Wlad Klitschko
9. Mikey Garcia
10. Nonito Donaire

The community vote was too controversial...

Langford 5th is the art of wummery at its finest.

Cheers Rodders

Too low Rodders? Was thinking the same myself to be honest.

Far too low mate.

kingraf wrote:The community vote was too controversial...

Won't this one be subject to the same controversy given that it's collected from the same people?

The one conducted a few weeks back actually turned out looking quite credible to my eyes.

Anyway, I've given my input.

Rodney wrote:Far too low mate.

Tough though Roddrers, of the four above him I think you can make a case for every one of them being anywhere in the top five, is genuine flip a coin stuff.

1)Floyd Mayweather
2) Robert Guerrero
3)Amir Khan
4) Henry Bruseles
5) DeMarcus Corley

Thought I'd post Truss list in his absence, Mayweather has beat 58 P4Pers you know.

Cheers Rodders

You couldn't argue could you Jeff , I have Langford as number one but I've got a soft spot for him. Only guy I wouldn't have in top 5 is Ali ( don't know if we've debated why Ali is so high and Joe Louis is not top 10 ) I could create an article if you like, might keep your moderation duties a tad busier.

Cheers Rodders

Argh.....Lampley's ovaries were removed in November. My bad.

Rodney wrote:You couldn't argue could you Jeff , I have Langford as number one  but I've got a soft spot for him. Only guy I wouldn't have in top 5 is Ali ( don't know if we've debated why Ali is so high and Joe Louis is not top 10 ) I could create an article if you like, might keep your moderation duties a tad busier.Cheers Rodders

Can't see why Rodders, all seems pretty straight forward and non-controversial to me...then again, I have Peter Jackson listed 15 times in my own personal top ten closley followed by Bradley Pryce and three versions of David Haye (retired, unretired and retired?)

I wish you would just stop posting boxing related comments constantly in 2014 Dave , I can't take you seriously.

Cheers Rodders

Rodney wrote:I wish you would just stop posting boxing related comments constantly in 2014 Dave , I can't take you seriously.
Cheers Rodders

It's that sort of comment that had me flirting with idea of the occasional boxing related article. I see I should have never made that New Year's Resolution (still, like most of them, I'll have jacked it in by the end of the month)

1) Mayweather
2) Ward
3) Rigondeaux
4) Bradley
5) Wladimir Klitschko
6) Marquez
7) Martinez
8) Pacquiao
9) Donaire
10) Danny Garcia

How does one measure P4P ability? What criteria is used? Which boxers will beat the others if they were exactly the same size? Who has the best record?

P4P is a nonsense term really. All that should matter is who would win if they fight.

Wlad is the best in the world. He would easily beat Floyd and Rigo with ease.

As BoxRec demonstrate, Benson, it's simple......

Boxing Record Archive (BoxRec) provides Current/"Active" and All Time boxer ratings, as calculated daily by its computer. These ratings are not influenced by subjective views or opinions, but are wholly dependent upon the bouts contained in the BoxRec database. They are offered solely for the entertainment of its visitors; they have no official value beyond the Web site.

The All Time ratings include both "Inactive" (retired) and "Active" boxers. The Current/"Active" ratings include only those boxers who have fought a bout within the past 365 days. (After a year of not fighting, a boxer is automatically designated "inactive" by the BoxRec computer. A boxer is also designated "inactive" if he has announced his retirement, even if he may have had a bout within the past 365 days.) Every boxer in the database is rated--even those with an 0-1 record.

The BoxRec computer re-calculates the ratings daily at approximately 9:35 GMT. As the computer refreshes its calculations each and every day, a boxer may earn or lose ratings points with every bout of his entered into the database by a BoxRec Editor since the last daily calculation. A boxer may also earn or lose points if bouts are added to any of his opponents' records, or to their opponents' records--even if the boxer himself has not had a fight since the last BoxRec computer calculation.

There admittedly are inaccuracies and anomalies, especially in the All-Time ratings, because of incomplete records in the BoxRec database. Although a boxer’s own record may be complete, his opponents’ records may not be complete. Pre-World War II boxers in particular are at somewhat of a disadvantage, vis-à-vis modern boxers. Their opponents’ records often are quite incomplete--because of the scarcity of source material or Editors' time--while the records of opponents of more current boxers often are quite complete.

So, for example, while the records of Mike Tyson’s opponents may be quite complete--thereby earning Tyson a certain number of points and giving him a high ranking among the All-Time Heavyweights--the records of Young Stribling’s opponents may be extremely lacking, thereby giving Stribling fewer points and a much-lower All-Time rating. And it may appear to the casual BoxRec visitor that Stribling had fought many boxers making their professional debuts or having had only a handful of career bouts, when the truth is that not all of his opponents’ total career bouts have been entered yet into the database by an Editor. (Too many of those old-time bouts are forever lost in history because they were not reported by a newspaper or similar source, or the source was later destroyed.)

But as the BoxRec Editors continue to research older resources and enter “new” historical bouts into the database, the rating of an old-time boxer like Stribling will gradually move up or down, even if his own record is complete--if bouts are added to his opponents’ records, or to his opponents' opponents' records, and so forth. So the BoxRec ratings are continually improving as new bouts are entered into the database. (Presently, some 2,000 current and old-time bouts are entered each week by the BoxRec Editors.)

Further, because of the very few women presently boxing professionally, with some weight divisions having only a handful of active female boxers, a woman with an 0-1 record will appear “world ranked” by BoxRec. This is simply an anomaly due to the few female entries in the database.
Ratings structure

All these ratings evaluate every day all bouts in the database in chronological sequence. A higher rated boxer should be expected to defeat a lower rated boxer with increasing probability by increasing rating difference.
Current ("Active") rating

Every boxer gets a first rating of 0 before his first bout.

After every bout, the ratings of the two boxers involved are changed depending on the bout's official result (KO, TKO, RTD, UD, PTS, NWS, MD, SD, DQ, TD, DRAW).

The value of a result varies between v=1 and v=0.

The clear decision factor varies between cd=1 and cd=0.

The winner cannot lose points for KO, TKO, RTD, DQ, TD and decisions on points with cd=1

KO, TKO, RTD are rewarded with full value v=1, cd=1.

NWS is rewarded with full value v=1 for 12 rounds boxed and more and a lower value related to the number of rounds boxed. Clear decision factor cd=1.

UD, PTS are rewarded with full value v=1 for 12 rounds boxed and more and a lower value related to the number of rounds boxed, clear decision factor cd=1. This is valid, if the score cards are not available.

DRAW is rewarded with full value v=1 for 12 rounds boxed and more and a lower value related to the number of rounds boxed. Clear decision factor cd=0.

MD, SD, DQ, TD are rewarded with full value v=1 for 12 rounds boxed and more and a lower value related to the number of rounds boxed. Clear decision factor cd=0.5. This is valid, if the score cards are not available.

If the score cards are available, the value rewarded is in direct proportion to the rounds boxed, with full value v=1 for 12 rounds boxed and more. The clear decision factor is in proportion to rounds boxed and the mean score difference per judge. cd=1 for a mean score difference per judge of 50% of the rounds boxed.

All bouts are regarded to have the same weight independent of titles.
The winner gets a certain part of the opponent's points and a certain part of the rating difference to the opponent's rating.

For a DRAW the rating of the higher rated boxer is reduced by some part of the point difference; the rating of the lower rated boxer is enhanced by the same amount of points.

The full relative point reward is 33%. It is in direct proportion to the pre-bout rating of the defeated opponent.

The winner can get up to 25 additional points per opponent's launch state rank
The maximum launch state rank regarded is 15 - and so the maximum number of additional points is 375

This value is reduced by the own rating, and it is set in direct proportion to the rounds boxed and the clearness of the decision

This value is multipied by the maximum of 6 * the opponent's launch state+1 and the minimum of the opponent's rating and 25 * the opponent's launch state

This value is divided by 25 * the opponent's launch state

This value is multiplied by the quotient of the maximum of the opponent rating and 18 on one side and the sum of the maxima of the opponent rating and 18 and the maxima of the own rating and 18

Launch states are:
0 = no recent win
1 = 1 recent win, 2 = 2 recent wins, 3 = 3 recent wins
4 = recent win over opponent with state 3, 5 = 2 recent wins over opponent with state 3, 6 = 3 recent wins over opponent with state 3
7 = recent win over opponent with state 6, 8 = 2 recent wins over opponent with state 6, 9 = 3 recent wins over opponent with state 6
10 = recent win over opponent with state 9, 11 = 2 recent wins over opponent with state 9, 12 = 3 recent wins over opponent with state 9
13 = recent win over opponent with state 12, 14 = 2 recent wins over opponent with state 12, 15 = 3 recent wins over opponent with state 12

The ratings are decreased for moving up to higher weight divisions by the square of the reciprocal ratio of the weights limits of the divisions--and they are increased by the same factor for moving down the divisions.

The rating of a boxer is reduced by 0% to 50%, if he didn't box an opponent with a rating of at least 50% to 0% of his own rating points within 18 months.

The rating of a boxer is reduced by 50% for every time period of inactivity of 18 months.

The pre-bout rating of a boxer successfully returning from inactivity is set to the lower value of his own rating before inactivity and the higher value of his own rating after inactivity and the pre-bout rating of his opponent.

The pre-bout rating of a successfully debuting boxer is set to 25% of his opponents pre-bout rating.

Formula
If a boxer with a rating of r_a before the fight defeats a boxer b with a rating of r_b before the fight with result of value v and clear decision factor cd, the new ratings r_a_new and r_b_new after a fight are, earn_f is 33.3%:
earn = earn_f * v * (r_b*cd + (r_b-r_a)/(1+2*cd));
r_a_new = r_a + earn
r_b_new = r_b - earn

Additional points (no additional loss points accounted):
opponent in launch state n: v * cd * (25*n - r_a) * max(6*(n+1),min(r_b,25*n)) / (25*n) * max(r_a,18) / (max(r_a,18) + max(r_b,18))
Rating reduction caused by missing opponent quality:
r_new = r_old * (1 - 0.5*(1 - best_opp/r_old/0.5))

Examples
Boxer a KO boxer b, a has 1000 points, b has 500 points. launch state 4, v=1, cd=1,
earn= 0.33 * 1 * (500*1 + (500-1000)/(1+2*1)) = 111
r_a_new = 1000 + 111 = 1111
r_b_new = 500 - 111 = 389

Boxer a UD 6 boxer b, scores 59:55 58:56 58:56, a has 1000 points, b has 500 points.
A 6 rounder is rewarded with value 6/12, v=0.5
UD is rewarded with cd=1 at maximum
mean score difference per judge is (4+2+2)/3 = 2.667, which is rewarded in direct proportion to half the rounds boxed with cd= 2.667/3 = 0.89 at maximum
so cd=0.89
earn= 0.33 * 0.5 * (500*0.89 + (500-1000)/(1+2*0.89)) = 44
r_a_new = 1000 + 44 = 1044
r_b_new = 500 - 44 = 456

Boxer a SD 4 boxer b, scores 39:37 39:37 37:39, a has 1000 points, b has 500 points
A 4 rounder is rewarded with 4/12, v=0.333
SD is rewarded with cd=0.5 at maximum
mean score difference per judge is (2+2-2)/3 = 0.667, which is rewarded in direct proportion to half the rounds boxed 0.667/2 at maximum\
so cd=0.333
earn= 0.33 * 0.33 * (500*0.33 + (500-1000)/(1+2*0.33)) = -15
r_a_new = 1000 - 15 = 985
r_b_new = 500 + 15 = 515

More complex - Boxer a KO 4 boxer b, a has 30 points, b has 40 points, boxer b is in launch state 3, v=1, cd=1
earn= 0.33 * 1 * (40*1 + (40-30)/(1+2*1)) = 14
r_a_new = 30 + 14 = 44
r_b_new = 40 - 19 = 21
additional points:
1 * 1 * (3*25 - 30) * max(6*4,min(40,3*25)) / 75 * 30 / (30+40)= 1 * 45 * 40 / 75 * 3 / 7 = 10
r_a_new = 44 + 10 = 54

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
the value of 200 annual points for the top boxer is reduced, if the annual rating of #10 in the division cluster is less than 100 for men, - and if the annual rating of #5 in the division cluster is less than 50 for women

Bout Star Ratings

All bouts are rated with 0 to 5 stars.
Men
5 stars = both opponents have 331 ratings points at least ~ best 100 boxers
4 stars = both opponents have 188 ratings points at least ~ best 300 boxers
3 stars = both opponents have 83 ratings points at least ~ best 900 boxers
2 stars = both opponents have 24 ratings points at least ~ best 2700 boxers
1 stars = both opponents have 1 rating point at least = rated boxers
0 stars = one opponents has not even 1 rating point at least = not rated boxers

Women

5 stars = both opponents have 42 ratings points at least ~ best 30 boxers
4 stars = both opponents have 28 ratings points at least ~ best 60 boxers
3 stars = both opponents have 14 ratings points at least ~ best 120 boxers
2 stars = both opponents have 4 ratings points at least ~ best 240 boxers
1 stars = both opponents have 1 rating point at least = rated boxers
0 stars = one opponents has not even 1 rating point at least = not rated boxers

Got it?

Wow

That formula makes the current Boxrec p4p top 10;

1. Floyd Mayweather Jr 1737
2. Andre Ward 1333
3. Wladimir Klitschko 1156
4. Timothy Bradley 1150
5. Juan Manuel Marquez 1109
6. Saul Alvarez 1046
7. Sergio Gabriel Martinez 1028
8. Carl Froch 993
9. Bernard Hopkins 885
10. Danny Garcia 884

Thanks for clearing that up Chris   

What a complicated, energy sapping system to come up with something that is a complete waste of time.

1 Archie Moore 2527  
2 Sugar Ray Robinson 2417  
3 Muhammad Ali 1979  
4 Joe Louis 1899  
5 Ezzard Charles 1649  
6 Tony Canzoneri 1633  
7 Carlos Monzon 1607  
8 Dick Tiger 1576  
9 Carlos Ortiz 1565  
10 Sam Langford 1560
 
 

Using the above, BoxRec have an all-time top ten of:

1 Archie Moore 2527
2 Sugar Ray Robinson 2417
3 Muhammad Ali 1979
4 Joe Louis 1899
5 Ezzard Charles 1649
6 Tony Canzoneri 1633
7 Carlos Monzon 1607
8 Dick Tiger 1576
9 Carlos Ortiz 1565
10 Sam Langford 1560

Lil' Floydy would be at number five with his current rating, then, according to everyone's favourite boxing site. Expect Truss to start referencing this in the near future!

 

88Chris05 wrote:Using the above, BoxRec have an all-time top ten of:

1 Archie Moore 2527
2 Sugar Ray Robinson 2417
3 Muhammad Ali 1979
4 Joe Louis 1899
5 Ezzard Charles 1649
6 Tony Canzoneri 1633
7 Carlos Monzon 1607
8 Dick Tiger 1576
9 Carlos Ortiz 1565
10 Sam Langford 1560

Lil' Floydy would be at number five with his current rating, then, according to everyone's favourite boxing site. Expect Truss to start referencing this in the near future!

 
Think it's two different scoring systems. But FLUFFMAN will still reference it.

Then again, Haz, Mayweather's rating would still put him behind Mr. Bum of the Month, which Truss won't be happy about.

All Time Great wrote:Hi Hampo,

Why don't you use the Top10 voted for by the 606v2 community? It's the best way to eliminate any bias:

1 (1) Floyd Mayweather Jr.
2 (2) Andre Ward
3 (8) Timothy Bradley
4 (20) Guillermo Rigondeaux
5 (6) Wladimir Klitschko
6 (4) Juan Manuel Marquez
7 (5) Sergio Martinez
8 (7) Manny Pacquiao
9 (21) Danny Garcia
10 (3) Nonito Donaire

I wrote mine down at work today and had nine out of the ten but in a slightly different order (Mickey Garcia instead of Danny).

1 Mayweather
2 Ward
3 Rigondeaux

After that you could argue any order for the other seven.  Today I'll go:

4 Wlad
5 Bradley
6 JMM
7 Pacman
8 Martinez
9 Donaire
10 Mickey Garcia

spencerclarke wrote:

All Time Great wrote:Hi Hampo,

Why don't you use the Top10 voted for by the 606v2 community? It's the best way to eliminate any bias:

1 (1) Floyd Mayweather Jr.
2 (2) Andre Ward
3 (8) Timothy Bradley
4 (20) Guillermo Rigondeaux
5 (6) Wladimir Klitschko
6 (4) Juan Manuel Marquez
7 (5) Sergio Martinez
8 (7) Manny Pacquiao
9 (21) Danny Garcia
10 (3) Nonito Donaire

I wrote mine down at work today and had nine out of the ten but in a slightly different order (Mickey Garcia instead of Danny).

1 Mayweather
2 Ward
3 Rigondeaux

After that you could argue any order for the other seven.  Today I'll go:

4 Wlad
5 Bradley
6 JMM
7 Pacman
8 Martinez
9 Donaire
10 Mickey Garcia

Hence, why you go with a majority vote....

Personally I struggle to have Bradley ahead of Pacquiao when Pacman dominated him.

Agreed mate.

Yeah the whole Bradley>JMM>Pacman is what confuses it all. I simply went with most recent to oldest result but couldn't argue with any order. Also a fair few of these could change dramatically depending on their next fight. Donaire for example could slip down if he puts in another below par performance like the one against Vic or rise to as high as 4 with a decent performance for me.