Jeff Powells top 10

1. SRR
2.Ali
3.Leonard
4.Hagler
5.Hearns
6.Duran
7.Holyfield
8.Chavez
9. Holmes
10.Frazier

What do you guys make of this??

You can tell the era he grew up watching the sport in...

Yeah he isn't biased to the 80's like.

It's a terrible list if we're being honest. How can Hagler be top four? All the list suggests is Powell does not really know a lot about the history of the sport much before the seventies.

Yep that is true. He might as well of left out Robinson, because he ignored other legends.

Who should be on the list then?

Benny Leonard
Greb
Tunney
Armstrong

Its not a bad list but no Tyson???

Tyson is top 5 for me.

Of the older timers I think you have to have Armstrong in there. The others are less certain, I personally have Langford, Fitz and Greb definitely in my top ten, but opinion differs on these. Is most unusual to see a list without Armstrong in the top ten somewhere.

To be fair it is hard to pick fighters you only hear about.

Armstrong held 3 titles in 3 different weight classes, when weight classes actually meant something.

No peds or any s..t in his day.

Armstrong Charles Greb possibly Tunney Pep, Whitaker before a few on that list. Even Monzon before Hagler arguably. Holy is often underrated but he shouldn't be there.

Tyson top 5? You deserve a spinning back fist for that comment.

Tyson would only make a top 5 list of exciting fighters, or fighters that wasted potential to be great.

Scottrf wrote:Armstrong Charles Greb possibly Tunney Pep, Whitaker before a few on that list. Even Monzon before Hagler arguably. Holy is often underrated but he shouldn't be there.

Tyson top 5? You deserve a spinning back fist for that comment.

Yeah you're right lets ignore the youngest ever fighter to UNIFY the H/W division, the biggest name in boxing for over a decade. Yeah lets just ignore him.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

Yeah you're right lets ignore the youngest ever fighter to UNIFY the H/W division,

Have you got Floyd Patterson at number six?

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:Yeah you're right lets ignore the youngest ever fighter to UNIFY the H/W division, the biggest name in boxing for over a decade. Yeah lets just ignore him.

Agreed.

Tyson isn't a top 5 heavyweight. Maybe on ability, but no chance does he have the record to belong there.

Jeff Powell is a numpty who hasnt got a clue about boxing.

Soldier_Of_Fortune wrote:Jeff Powell is a numpty who hasnt got a clue about boxing.

The same could be said of Brendan Rogers lol

I support UTD by the way.

But Brendan Rogers isn't paid to know about boxing.

I support Utd too.

AdamT wrote:I support Utd too.

We have just interlinked.

we are web brothers from now on.

You me and TRUSS.

Is this Powell's ten greatest ever, or his ten favourite ever? If it's the latter it'd be more understandable.

It's just your typical list from another expert (!) in the mainstream media with the same old method; stick Robinson on top, oversaturate it with too many Heavyweights and then stick a few of the names that the more casual fans will have heard of in a random order.

I'm sure anyone with a half-decent appreciation for the history of the sport would acknowledge that, at the very least, Hagler has serious opposition for the right to be acknowledged as the best Middleweight ever from Greb and Monzon. There's a lazy tendency amongst writers such as Powell to put Robinson at the top of the 160 lb pile as well, or at least very close to it despite his record there not really warranting it, so that's another factor. Then there's Hopkins, who like it or not has a record at Middleweight to at least put him on Marvin's coat tails, albeit he's a little behind in my opinion.

Hagler didn't fight in any other weight class, and right there you've got four others guys who'd you'd expect to be in or at least around the same class as him at that weight alone - and yet Powell puts him at number four all-time across all weights? Even if you give Marv the nod as the best ever at 160, I can't see that.

I'll give Powell some benefit of the doubt because I suspect he didn't give this much thought and just cobbled it together to fill a gap or small obligation, and as I said maybe there's some degree of him wanting to include some of his personal favourites or focussing on post-War fighters. But it's the kind of list anyone could pull apart with ease, really. Stick to articles, Jeff!

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

AdamT wrote:I support Utd too.

We have just interlinked.

we are web brothers from now on.

You me and TRUSS.

I think he is City!

If Powell was to preface the list with an explanation that he was not a big one for reading up on the history of the sport, or watching old time fighters his list would be almost understandable, albeit still flawed. However, if he is doing this how does he have Robinson at the top, just smacks of pandering to the consensus view. Find it hard to believe Powell has sufficient knowledge of Robinson to put him top but knows nothing of anyone else from pre 1970. How can you rate Robinson without having some idea how good Gavilan, Fullmer Zivic or other opponents of his were? It doesn’t really make any sense.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

AdamT wrote:I support Utd too.

We have just interlinked.

we are web brothers from now on.

You me and TRUSS.

The theatre of dreams team. They can munch on prawn sandwiches and spout b*llocks about football and boxing together. Maybe they could form their own forum, so we don't have to read any of it.

only teasing boys

hopefully powell is talking about fighters he's seen. Just about old enough to have seen the end of robinson, but certainly won;t have seen him close to his best, so looks like lipservice. Any top 10 without armstong and greb is leaving itself to ridicule without caveats about seeing them.

The thing I don’t understand is how a journalist can do his job without having a reasonable grasp of history. How can you write about Mayweather hitting 49-0 this weekend without being able to contextualise that and explain the significance of the number. I would think any article about this weekend would have to mention Marciano somewhere along the line. Am not saying you can’t be a decent boxing journalist without having an encyclopaedic knowledge of the career of Sam McVea, but this list shows a staggering lack of knowledge of the sport prior to a very recent era, which must be a hindrance to some extent.

it is pretty embarassing. It's why arrogant prats like mcilvanney get revered.... this is what they're competing with. To be fair it's what daily mail readers deserve.

We just need colin hart now to remind us he picked ali in the rumble, without the full disclosure that he'd never heard of george foreman.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

Soldier_Of_Fortune wrote:Jeff Powell is a numpty who hasnt got a clue about boxing.

The same could be said of Brendan Rogers lol

I support UTD by the way.

What has that got anything to do with Jeff Powell and his boxing wisdom?

Rowley wrote:The thing I don’t understand is how a journalist can do his job without having a reasonable grasp of history. How can you write about Mayweather hitting 49-0 this weekend without being able to contextualise that and explain the significance of the number. I would think any article about this weekend would have to mention Marciano somewhere along the line. Am not saying you can’t be a decent boxing journalist without having an encyclopaedic knowledge of the career of Sam McVea, but this list shows a staggering lack of knowledge of the sport prior to a very recent era, which must be a hindrance to some extent.

Jeff probably doesn't even watch boxing causually, just writes about the odd back page event. He scored Manny v Floyd a draw and tried to back up his claims using Compubox stats

He's probably had a play around with Boxrec to come up with that list.

Boxrec computerised list:

Moore
Robinson
Ali
Louis
Charles
Greb
Mayweather
Monzon
Tiger
Ortiz (Carlos not Victor!)

how does that list work??

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/BoxRec_Ratings_Description

AdamT wrote:how does that list work??

Its simple really. BoxRec.com provides 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.

The All Time ratings include only "Inactive" (retired) boxers. The 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 gain 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 gain 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, mostly 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 may be quite complete. So, for example, while Mike Tyson's own record, and those of his opponents, may be complete--thereby earning Tyson a certain number of points and thus 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 into the database. (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.) However, as BoxRec Editors continue to research older resources and enter “new” historical bouts into the database, or correct bouts/boxers previously entered, the rating of an old-time boxer like Stribling may gradually move up or down, even if his own record is considered complete, if bouts are added to his opponents’ records, or to their opponents' records, and so on.

Finally, 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
1.Every boxer gets a first rating of 0 before his first bout.
2.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).
3.The value of a result varies between v=1 and v=0.
4.The clear decision factor varies between cd=1 and cd=0.
5.The winner cannot lose points for KO, TKO, RTD, DQ, TD and decisions on points with cd=1
6.KO, TKO, RTD are rewarded with full value v=1, cd=1.
7.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.
8.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.
9.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.
10.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.
11.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.
12.All bouts are regarded to have the same weight independent of titles.
13.The winner gets a certain part of the opponent's points and a certain part of the rating difference to the opponent's rating.
14.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.
15. The full relative point reward is 33%. It is in direct proportion to the pre-bout rating of the defeated opponent.
16.The winner can get up to 25 additional points per opponent's launch state rank
17.The maximum launch state rank regarded is 15 - and so the maximum number of additional points is 375
18.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
19.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
20.This value is divided by 25 * the opponent's launch state
21.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
22.Launch states are: 1.0 = no recent win
2.1 = 1 recent win, 2 = 2 recent wins, 3 = 3 recent wins
3.4 = 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
4.7 = 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
5.10 = 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
6.13 = 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

23.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.
24.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.
25.The rating of a boxer is reduced by 50% for every time period of inactivity of 18 months.
26.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.
27.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:
1.the annual rating is the rating at the end of every year the boxer was active
2.annual rank points = 200 / annual rank in division cluster
3.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

Basically Moore is untouchable on Boxrec because of having over 50 fights against top ten ranked opposition spread across three weights.

OAdamT wrote:how does that list work??

It's ok to admit you are sorry you asked

Powell scored the last Crolla fight 120-108.....

Maybe he's in the wrong job.

Too many boxing fans actually think they know about boxing. They know f..k all and just spend too much time reading.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Powell scored the last Crolla fight 120-108.....

Maybe he's in the wrong job.

Yeah sounds to me he should consider a career as a ring judge lol.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Powell scored the last Crolla fight 120-108.....

Maybe he's in the wrong job.

that's just as shameful as this list he has compiled, added to the fact he scored the Floyd/Manny match a draw, I think he should consider putting the pen or computer away and retire

I gave Manny two rounds. 4 and 6 I think. You could maybe make a case for 3, but he definitely didn't deserve a draw.

Colin 'I picked Ali to win' Hart can be just as bad though

Wasn't this a list of fighters Powell had seen box live?

hazharrison wrote:Wasn't this a list of fighters Powell had seen box live?

Nope. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/boxing/article-3233153/Floyd-Mayweather-call-Best-doesn-t-make-10-boxers-time.html

Sure it must be:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/boxing/article-3067996/Floyd-Mayweather-call-Best-doesn-t-make-eight-boxers-time.html

one of the comment's on the comment section made me laugh on that article, a guy say "he is the best ever Mayweather has never come close to losing"

guess he hasn't seen the first Castillio fight or the ODLH fight

I don't think he was close to losing to De La Hoya.

He did lose to castillo and Maidana pushed him.

hazharrison wrote:Sure it must be:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/boxing/article-3067996/Floyd-Mayweather-call-Best-doesn-t-make-eight-boxers-time.html

He should stop using the phrase 'all time'.

In the new article he doesn't mention limiting it at all. He certainly didn't see anything in Robinson worthy of the number 1 spot.

I scored Oscar v Floyd a draw....

You for real??

It’s a strange one because if you’re going to limit it to those you have seen live that would suggest you are basing your rankings on your own eyes, and as Scott has alluded to, did Powell really see enough of Robinson as a child and subsequently, when he was very much on the downward trajectory career wise to rank him above the likes of Leonard, who he would likely have seen in his absolute pomp. if you’re going to base it on how good they were before you started watching them you may as well included everyone and remove having seen them live as your criterion. I have seen Tommy Hearns live, but trust me, nothing I saw that night would justify me putting him anywhere near my top ten if based exclusively on that.

When Holmes is top 10 you know you've got a problem............

The guy that beat him is a lot higher in my alltime list..........Mr Spinks...

Obviously the list is flawed. Joe Louis isn't on it.