Blind Resumes FOTD

[DeeMoney]

Dunno if this is history enough (as it is about this decade), but it does go back to 2010 technically. I'll post in NSB board as well just in case.

So let me begin by writing that I KNOW that not all top 5 fighters are equal (ditto top 10), and I know most of you can just figure out who is who anyways, but I thought it would be fun to look at some blind resumes of fighters who are candidates for Fighter of he Decade.
Here was my process: looked at a fighters resume for strictly the 2010s, then I pared off any opponent past their prime- for the sake of argument I went with anyone 35 or older; while primes all take place at different ages I felt this was a safe number in that pretty much everyone is past prime by then. Next I looked at where their opponent ranked in Ring’s end of year top 10 by weight class (not perfect, and everyone’s list is different but it is an industry standard) for the year before and the year of the fight. Please note I looked at their ranking only in the weight where the fight took place.

Below is the list of fighters with their names erased, they have their wins vs top 5 opponents (with total fights vs top 5 listed parenthetically afterwards) then the same for fights vs top 10 opponents; so it reads Fighter- Wins(Total fights). Based on what you see below who do you think has the best resume over the past decade?

Fighter…………Top 5…………Top 10
Fighter A……….2 (2)…………..3 (3)
Fighter B……….5 (6)…………..6 (7)
Fighter C……….5 (5)…………..8 (8)
Fighter D……….3 (5)…………..4 (6)
Fighter E……….6 (7)……………8 (9)
Fighter F……….6 (7)……….…..7 (8)
Fighter G………..4 (4)………….6 (6)
Fighter H……….4 (6)…………..8 (10)
Fighter I...........3 (3)…………..6 (6)

[OctoberRed]

IMO - this might be a bit confusing to most. I had to read it a few times myself.

[aboutfkntime]

Dunno if this is history enough (as it is about this decade), but it does go back to 2010 technically. I'll post in NSB board as well just in case.

So let me begin by writing that I KNOW that not all top 5 fighters are equal (ditto top 10), and I know most of you can just figure out who is who anyways, but I thought it would be fun to look at some blind resumes of fighters who are candidates for Fighter of he Decade.
Here was my process: looked at a fighters resume for strictly the 2010s, then I pared off any opponent past their prime- for the sake of argument I went with anyone 35 or older; while primes all take place at different ages I felt this was a safe number in that pretty much everyone is past prime by then. Next I looked at where their opponent ranked in Ring’s end of year top 10 by weight class (not perfect, and everyone’s list is different but it is an industry standard) for the year before and the year of the fight. Please note I looked at their ranking only in the weight where the fight took place.

Below is the list of fighters with their names erased, they have their wins vs top 5 opponents (with total fights vs top 5 listed parenthetically afterwards) then the same for fights vs top 10 opponents; so it reads Fighter- Wins(Total fights). Based on what you see below who do you think has the best resume over the past decade?

Fighter…………Top 5…………Top 10
Fighter A……….2 (2)…………..3 (3)
Fighter B……….5 (6)…………..6 (7)
Fighter C……….5 (5)…………..8 (8)
Fighter D……….3 (5)…………..4 (6)
Fighter E……….6 (7)……………8 (9)
Fighter F……….6 (7)……….…..7 (8)
Fighter G………..4 (4)………….6 (6)
Fighter H……….4 (6)…………..8 (10)
Fighter I...........3 (3)…………..6 (6)

the bold, is the problem.....

so the result of that list is pretty much meaningless

you would need to rank each opponent with a score out of 10, not just group them in a top 5, or top 10

and the biggest problem you will have is, fans will bunch wins together..... thinking that a pile of "goods" beat 1x "very-good"

insane, I know

beating 1x (9) > beating 4x (8)..... but most will not understand that

most don't understand that true ATG discussion is about, how high was the mountain that he climbed?..... not, how many times did he climb a lower-level mountain

also, regarding the opponent ranking.....

we got one guy running around here insisting that Martin Murray, David Lemieux, Willie Monroe, and Vanes..... are better wins for Golovkin..... than Lara, Cotto, Trout, and Mosley, were..... for Canelo

not even kidding

so it can't be subjective, there would need to be a firm ranking system for the opponents..... similar to how historians rate greats of the past, by FULLY understanding the boxing landscape at that point in time

one other thing, you cannot blindly exclude opponents over 35, that is flawed logic..... you cannot put an age on prime.....
what, 34 is DEFINITELY NOT past-prime, but 35 DEFINITELY is?

that can and will (because I know the era) badly skew the results

also, many over 35yo legends are MUCH better than some of the supposed top 5 fighters..... we saw that just last weekend with Pac/Thurman

not sure if using ABC ranking is that accurate

if you were referring to middleweight, Lemieux would be top 5..... but he is not a genuine world-class fighter..... likely C/B+, with A- power..... there is a HUGE difference between him and someone like Golovkin

the opponent ranking would need to be way more accurate

[OctoberRed]

the opponent ranking would need to be way more accurate

That's what I was thinking.