The test of greatness!!!

[BetterCallSaul]

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.

[nathan_nall]

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?

[S A M U R A I]

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

[Tony628]

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

[nathan_nall]

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

[BetterCallSaul]

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.

[hammerhiem]

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.

[S.G.]

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

[The Surgeon]

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!

[dans]

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.