"FIGHTER OF THE DECADE" : An Interesting Look

[NYU Alum]

FIGHTER OF THE DECADE: An interesting look

For you guys that know me, you know that I’m a numbers geek and I like to perform statistical analysis. It’s the engineer in me.

So, with that, I decided to take a look at the “Fighter of the Decade” discussion in an objective way, without the influence of politics, popularity, or hype. The numbers below represent the individual and aggregate rankings for Ring Magazines’s annual “100 Best Fighters”.

This is for the purposes of discussion. After all, this is a forum. As a (reasonably) intelligent person, I do not rely purely on numbers. As my Econometrics professor would say (quoting Mark Twain), there are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Here ya go.

Year, Fighter and Rank (1-100, 1 being best)

2001:
Mayweather: 3
Hopkins: 7
Pacquiao: 28


2002:
Mayweather: 7
Hopkins: 1
Pacquiao: 34

2003:
Mayweather: 7
Hopkins: 2
Pacquiao: 32

2004:
Mayweather: 2
Hopkins: 1
Pacquiao: 7

2005:
Mayweather: 1
Hopkins: 10
Pacquiao: 5


2007:
Mayweather: 1
Hopkins: 5
Pacquiao: 3

2008:
Mayweather: 1
Hopkins: 4
Pacquiao: 2

2009:
Mayweather: n/a
Hopkins: 4
Pacquiao: 1


2010*:
Mayweather: 2
Hopkins: 4
Pacquiao: 1

DECADE TOTAL: (lower = better)

2000’s Decade:
Mayweather: 24
Hopkins: 54
Pacquiao: 113


Please note that the ranking typically represents the Ring January issue date, so the ranking is for that previous year. 2001 is for 2000 calendar year, 2010 is for 2009 calendar year. Mayweather was ‘retired’ in 2008. There was no ranking for 2006. Not sure why.

[NYU Alum]

Many people are arguing May vs Pac back-n-forth, but few are taking into account Bernard's consistency.

[Horus]

Dude, people dont want to argue with facts, they rather argue with their heart. Great thread nonetheless

[rommel357]

Great thread and stats. But what did HBO based their criteria, probably not Ring magazines boxer ratings. My point is we don't know what HBO based it on. Could've been performance in the ring and/or quality opponents in the ring. Could it also be that they pick Manny for setting a record and/or winning streak at the same time while beating more quality opponents. Could it also be that they see Floyd ducking all the top WW fighters and champions and that is why they did not pick him instead. To be honest, if Floyd would've been chosen, it wouldn't really bother me that much, i'd be okay with it. Of course I would be dissapointed for Manny not getting it, but i can live with it. But i'm also estatic and proud for Manny getting the FOTD award, well deserve and rightfully so.

[NYU Alum]

Great thread and stats. But what did HBO based their criteria, probably not Ring magazines boxer ratings. My point is we don't know what HBO based it on. Could've been performance in the ring and/or quality opponents in the ring. Could it also be that they pick Manny for setting a record and/or winning streak at the same time while beating more quality opponents. Could it also be that they see Floyd ducking all the top WW fighters and champions and that is why they did not pick him instead. To be honest, if Floyd would've been chosen, it wouldn't really bother me that much, i'd be okay with it. Of course I would be dissapointed for Manny not getting it, but i can live with it. But i'm also estatic and proud for Manny getting the FOTD award, well deserve and rightfully so.

If Floyd was the best fighter of the first 7 years (70% of a decade), and he only lost his 31 slot because he retired...and even then came back as #2, then he probably has a legitimate case for himself.

I'm not saying that these stas prove that Floyd is FOTD.

But the stats seem to indicate that Pac got FOTD based on the Cotto win.

[cherokee]

if Floyd was named FOTD, the *******s will have a very strong argument why pacman should be FOTD and not floyd

and of course, now that Pac gets it from both HBO, Ring Magazine, the floydturds are also presenting their own facts to dispute the decision

good thing FOTD is not decided by members of boxingscene or we could arguing here til kingdom come!

[rommel357]

If Floyd was the best fighter of the first 7 years (70% of a decade), and he only lost his 31 slot because he retired...and even then came back as #2, then he probably has a legitimate case for himself.

I'm not saying that these stas prove that Floyd is FOTD.

But the stats seem to indicate that Pac got FOTD based on the Cotto win.

Like i said, i would accept it and understand if Floyd would've gotten the FOTD award. I just think HBO didn't base their award on Floyd's best fighter of the year for 7yrs. And the fact that he did retire probably didn't help because that was 2yrs he didn't box. So technically he will be only boxing for 8yrs, not ten yrs so he probably shouldn't even be eligible. And him getting the no.2 because he fought the no.2 JMM who was a lightweight doesn't really hold that much weight IMO.

[obaioghill]

The nice thing is we will be able to find out in 2010.

[Titing Kabayo]

Pacquiao's moving from far to number should be considered... not the total score..

[jrosales13]

Many people are arguing May vs Pac back-n-forth, but few are taking into account Bernard's consistency.

Actually I have said it a couple times on here that Hopkins is in the top 3 in the FOTD discussion.

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6662233&highlight=Mayweather+Hopkins+decade#post6662233

I took Hopkins consistency into account. Is really crazy not to.