Max Kellerman All Time P4P List

[hugh grant]

You didn't post any polls.

Oh you must be talking about when they surveyed 10 Floyd boys who was the best of Floyd's generation?

I can't see how floyd can be higher pfp. I mean every big guy floyd beat, Pac beat also. Plus pac win titles in 8 divisions

[DeeMoney]

I can't see how floyd can be higher pfp. I mean every big guy floyd beat, Pac beat also. Plus pac win titles in 8 divisions

People utilize different criteria. For some, moving up weight classes and gathering belts isnt as important as other factors; some people dont use the same formula of: top wins + weight classes with titles = p4p ranking.

I personally like to focus on relative dominance to weight class during a fighters prime as the most heavily weighted factor. I put less stock in moving weight classes than most. In essence, people may be defining p4p differently.

[djtmal]

I can't see how floyd can be higher pfp. I mean every big guy floyd beat, Pac beat also. Plus pac win titles in 8 divisions

Manny has a case for being p4p higher than Floyd, as well as best of his generation as max points out

[ELPacman]

Specifically to this point, and not to Kellerman's list as a whole. But what access to information does Kellerman have that most other's don't? This being the information age, we all have the same access to fighter's records, resumes, news articles, and fight footage. This isn't to say that some don't have better discernment as to reviewing the data, or that some "kid's on youtube" don't make assessments without yet reviewing the data. This is just to say that we now have access to the same information, so what makes Max Kellerman (who I only single out because he was the topic of the post) any more of an expert than anyone else.

There should be no Appeal to Authority Fallacy, rather let the data (which we all have equal access to) be the authority.

I'm not saying Kellerman is the gold standard, but I respect folks who have been in the business and know their history. Having a majority of opinions with these like minded folks where they come to similar conclusions would probably provide a more accurate assessment.

[QueensburyRules]

Specifically to this point, and not to Kellerman's list as a whole. But what access to information does Kellerman have that most other's don't? This being the information age, we all have the same access to fighter's records, resumes, news articles, and fight footage. This isn't to say that some don't have better discernment as to reviewing the data, or that some "kid's on youtube" don't make assessments without yet reviewing the data. This is just to say that we now have access to the same information, so what makes Max Kellerman (who I only single out because he was the topic of the post) any more of an expert than anyone else.

There should be no Appeal to Authority Fallacy, rather let the data (which we all have equal access to) be the authority.

- - Maxie Jellymon an insider like Loony Teddy who's still searching for his email that shows Manny on Peds.

[DeeMoney]

I'm not saying Kellerman is the gold standard, but I respect folks who have been in the business and know their history. Having a majority of opinions with these like minded folks where they come to similar conclusions would probably provide a more accurate assessment.

Probably, but I have seen (and am speaking in general here not just of boxing or Kellerman) plenty of times where those who are experts can be blinded by their expertise.

The most prominent example is the money-ball example. So many scouts- folks who had been in the business and knew their stuff- bought in to their self re-assuring consensus that they refused to grow in their opinion. In essence, the experts all agreed so they must be right, even though there was a flaw in their logic they were the experts. There also becomes a sort of 'hipsterism' amongst historians, where citing what they believe to be somewhat esoteric knowledge allows them to hold a superior viewpoint and ergo go against the masses. They'll highly rank someone who was obscure just so they could show superiority by knowing this obscure fighter.

In the end, when it comes to discussions such as these, if we have all the same data and info to make our analysis on, then let the data and info be your trump card, not an appeal to some expert

[ELPacman]

Probably, but I have seen (and am speaking in general here not just of boxing or Kellerman) plenty of times where those who are experts can be blinded by their expertise.

The most prominent example is the money-ball example. So many scouts- folks who had been in the business and knew their stuff- bought in to their self re-assuring consensus that they refused to grow in their opinion. In essence, the experts all agreed so they must be right, even though there was a flaw in their logic they were the experts. There also becomes a sort of 'hipsterism' amongst historians, where citing what they believe to be somewhat esoteric knowledge allows them to hold a superior viewpoint and ergo go against the masses. They'll highly rank someone who was obscure just so they could show superiority by knowing this obscure fighter.

In the end, when it comes to discussions such as these, if we have all the same data and info to make our analysis on, then let the data and info be your trump card, not an appeal to some expert

I suppose the way science is supposed to treat truths is how we should treat this. I believe Neil Tyson says something along the lines that you need to create an experiment and then have multiple people prove that same thing over to conclude it's a fact. Something that can be replicated. Though considering rankings are mostly opinionated, I'm not sure if another system would have to get involved that applies points based on criteria to each fighter and once those points are all added up, you get a final conclusion of who ranks where. Though even how those points are established needs to be defined and multiple folks need to agree on them to make them valid.

[QueensburyRules]

Specifically to this point, and not to Kellerman's list as a whole. But what access to information does Kellerman have that most other's don't? This being the information age, we all have the same access to fighter's records, resumes, news articles, and fight footage. This isn't to say that some don't have better discernment as to reviewing the data, or that some "kid's on youtube" don't make assessments without yet reviewing the data. This is just to say that we now have access to the same information, so what makes Max Kellerman (who I only single out because he was the topic of the post) any more of an expert than anyone else.

There should be no Appeal to Authority Fallacy, rather let the data (which we all have equal access to) be the authority.

- - Maxie Jellymon an insider like Loony Teddy who's still searching for his email that shows Manny on Peds.

Still, he's not too off with his 1st 3 picks...

[DeeMoney]

- - Maxie Jellymon an insider like Loony Teddy who's still searching for his email that shows Manny on Peds.

Still, he's not too off with his 1st 3 picks...

Yeah, I think he's got a fine list, and I am okay with Kellerman, though I liked him more as a radio host than a boxing analyst. But was always glad to have someone in the more mainstream media who was willing to talk boxing.

[DeeMoney]

I suppose the way science is supposed to treat truths is how we should treat this. I believe Neil Tyson says something along the lines that you need to create an experiment and then have multiple people prove that same thing over to conclude it's a fact. Something that can be replicated. Though considering rankings are mostly opinionated, I'm not sure if another system would have to get involved that applies points based on criteria to each fighter and once those points are all added up, you get a final conclusion of who ranks where. Though even how those points are established needs to be defined and multiple folks need to agree on them to make them valid.

Yes, it being more of an opinion argument than a factual argument is the reason why I don't think the appeal to authority is needed. Well, that and the fact that we all have the same basic information to make our judgements on.