The test of greatness!!!

calzaghe a better fighter than hopkins??? both your mind and your ranking system is ****ed up He could be totally wrong, but the WHOLE POINT to the thread is... he's trying to come to a decision based upon something measureable... not just his personal oppinion. Would you still feel that way if it found Bernard to be the better fighter?

I wanted to pit two great fighters against each other. To do this I have developed a fair system for scoring each fighters respective wins. 1 star fights will earn 1pt for a win 2 star fights will earn 2pts for a win 3 star fights will earn 3pts for a win Any loss will mean -3pts Draws and no contests will earn 0 pts In my scoring system I have pitched two great fighters against each other. Hopkins and Calzaghe. I have tried to be as unbiased as possible and believe I have put each fighters opponents in the right classing system. But as always, it will be highly based on opinion. Hopkins Hopkins - Fights before world level = 23 22 Wins 1 Defeat 23pts - 3pts = 20pts 1 star fights - Richie, Hall, Wynn, Aquino, Mercado (2nd fight), Frank, Council, Brown, Allen (NC), Allen, Hakkar, Allen 11 Wins 1 No contest 11pts - 0pt = 11pts 2 star fights - Mercado(D), Lipsey, James, Jackson, Echolls, Vanderpool, Echolls, Holmes, Daniels, Joppy, Eastman, 10 Wins 1 Draw 20pts - 0pts = 20pts 3 star fights - Jones(Loss), Johnson, Trinidad, De La Hoya, Taylor(Loss), Taylor(Loss), Tarver, Wright, Calzaghe(Loss), Pavlik 6 Wins 4 Losses 18pts - 12pts = 6pts Hopkins Overall Points = 57 Calzaghe Calzaghe fights before world level = 22 22 Wins 22pts - 0pts = 22pts 1 star fights - Sobot, Ferreya, Thornberry, Starie, Woodhall, Veit, Mcintyre, Jiminez, Pudwill, Mkrtchian, Salem, Veit , Manfredo, Jones 14 Wins 14pts - 0pts = 14pts 2 star fights - Reid, Sheika, Brewer, Mitchell, Ashira, Lacy, Bika 7 Wins 14pts - 0pts = 14pts 3 star fights - Eubank, Kessler, Hopkins 3 Wins 9pts - 0pts = 9pts Calzaghe Overall Points = 59 Hopkins Overall Points = 57 Calzaghe wins by split decison. This is precisely how boxrec works...hence this is crap. :lol1:

Glad to waste your time. At least my thread is better than the "OMG Pacman da best in galaxy" you come up with. Can you find me that thread? Because I'm not even a Pacman fan. I don't need you to tell me some mathematical equation to prove that Calzaghe is greater, I'll just trust my own judgement as well as the experts. If you can identify 10 well respected boxing experts that agree with you on this, let me know and I'll give you 20K.

I wanted to pit two great fighters against each other. To do this I have developed a fair system for scoring each fighters respective wins. 1 star fights will earn 1pt for a win 2 star fights will earn 2pts for a win 3 star fights will earn 3pts for a win Any loss will mean -3pts Draws and no contests will earn 0 pts In my scoring system I have pitched two great fighters against each other. Hopkins and Calzaghe. I have tried to be as unbiased as possible and believe I have put each fighters opponents in the right classing system. But as always, it will be highly based on opinion. Hopkins Hopkins - Fights before world level = 23 22 Wins 1 Defeat 23pts - 3pts = 20pts 1 star fights - Richie, Hall, Wynn, Aquino, Mercado (2nd fight), Frank, Council, Brown, Allen (NC), Allen, Hakkar, Allen 11 Wins 1 No contest 11pts - 0pt = 11pts 2 star fights - Mercado(D), Lipsey, James, Jackson, Echolls, Vanderpool, Echolls, Holmes, Daniels, Joppy, Eastman, 10 Wins 1 Draw 20pts - 0pts = 20pts 3 star fights - Jones(Loss), Johnson, Trinidad, De La Hoya, Taylor(Loss), Taylor(Loss), Tarver, Wright, Calzaghe(Loss), Pavlik 6 Wins 4 Losses 18pts - 12pts = 6pts Hopkins Overall Points = 57 Calzaghe Calzaghe fights before world level = 22 22 Wins 22pts - 0pts = 22pts 1 star fights - Sobot, Ferreya, Thornberry, Starie, Woodhall, Veit, Mcintyre, Jiminez, Pudwill, Mkrtchian, Salem, Veit , Manfredo, Jones 14 Wins 14pts - 0pts = 14pts 2 star fights - Reid, Sheika, Brewer, Mitchell, Ashira, Lacy, Bika 7 Wins 14pts - 0pts = 14pts 3 star fights - Eubank, Kessler, Hopkins 3 Wins 9pts - 0pts = 9pts Calzaghe Overall Points = 59 Hopkins Overall Points = 57 Calzaghe wins by split decison. Pretty cool idea bud! Not feeling the result tho!

in boxing it's not always as simple as win or losing too a system like +2 bonus pts for every three 3 star opponents fought or something along those lines would further increase accuracy (greatness boosted by willingness to consistently fight top class opposition) only -2pts for losing a controversial or very close fight against an equal it's okay for measuring the simple paper strength of a record but determining greatness of resume is a slightly different matter, imo boxing is a complicated sport and to judge boxers like this you'd need a more complicated method BTW, is this something you put thought into/care about or were you just bored and wanted to make a thread? it could definitely be revised into a respectable method i reckon

Probably a mistake. I will amend it. But as I say, I don't think Eastman and Joppy were 3 star wins.Can't be that bad a system if thats all we are argueing over though... I think honestly, losses are to severe, you should get extra points for 2 and 3 star wins that are total distructions and I agree with SG 5 points for a top rank fight. maybe 3 points for Ko/TKo loss 2 points for UD 1 point for SD/MD? the principle is sound however.

it's slightly flawed the 1 star opposition has too much sway in overall points when in reality they count for virtually nothing compared to wins against the likes of Tarver and Trinidad maybe 1 star = 1 point, 2 star = 3 points, 3 star = 5 points might result in more realitic end scores... or have 5 seperate "stars" of opponenets, worth 1 point each there will always be flaws in a system like this in a sport like boxing... but i guess it's more reasonable than some of the unqualified nonsense you'll hear i would never put Calzaghe's resume on the level of B-Hop's though Yeah you are probably right but I tried to keep it as simple as possible. You have to keep in mind Hopkins benefits off the 1 star fights more because he has had more fights than Calzaghe. It all probably equals out.

LOL. Like you were FORCED to read it. I know right? How hard is it to say, "I don't buy this... I'm not reading anymore." LOL

most of b-hops 3 star wins were against smaller opponents so you have to take a few points off for that, but its a great system overall:boxing:

thanks for wasting my time buddy. LOL. Like you were FORCED to read it. 100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3

it's slightly flawed the 1 star opposition has too much sway in overall points when in reality they count for virtually nothing compared to wins against the likes of Tarver and Trinidad maybe 1 star = 1 point, 2 star = 3 points, 3 star = 5 points might result in more realitic end scores... or have 5 seperate "stars" of opponenets, worth 1 point each there will always be flaws in a system like this in a sport like boxing... but i guess it's more reasonable than some of the unqualified nonsense you'll hear i would never put Calzaghe's resume on the level of B-Hop's though Damn good observation. You my friend sound like you have a background in statistical analysis.... pscyhology major?

Eastman and Joppy should be three star Wins. you also bazaarly took a point off here Probably a mistake. I will amend it. But as I say, I don't think Eastman and Joppy were 3 star wins.

it's slightly flawed the 1 star opposition has too much sway in overall points when in reality they count for virtually nothing compared to wins against the likes of Tarver and Trinidad maybe 1 star = 1 point, 2 star = 3 points, 3 star = 5 points might result in more realitic end scores... or have 5 seperate "stars" of opponenets, worth 1 point each there will always be flaws in a system like this in a sport like boxing... but i guess it's more reasonable than some of the unqualified nonsense you'll hear i would never put Calzaghe's resume on the level of B-Hop's though

thanks for wasting my time buddy. He's at least trying to place some operational definitions into gaging their careers. It's a hell of a lot better than the tossing back and forth of opinions that's gone on for the last several months.

thanks for wasting my time buddy. Glad to waste your time. At least my thread is better than the "OMG Pacman da best in galaxy" you come up with.

i dont care what people say, calzaghe is and was always better than bernard hopkins. Because you have your tongue up his arse...

thanks for wasting my time buddy.

Eastman and Joppy should be three star Wins. As I say it's based on opinion. Try my system yourself if you can be bothered lol.

Thats actually pretty clever. Still, you are going to have arguments that your awarding of stars is biased. But, at least you did your research, fight by fight by fight... so you've done a hell of a job. I agree with the Split Decision also... just not sure to who it should be given. People are so polar when it comes to comparing the resume. The fact is, its hard as hell to compare the two because they are VERY SIMILAR. Loads of mandatories (usually B level fighters) and a few A level fighters. Joe's European resume is the mirror image of B-Hops American resume.

i dont care what people say, calzaghe is and was always better than bernard hopkins.