Tweet
You're right. No one should make a judgement based on popularity. When analyzing how good a boxer is, it should be based on performance. It should be based on his resume, the quality of his opponents, how he performed against these opponents and in what manner he won those fights.
It should not be based just on generalized perceptions like; he's fast, he's the best defensive boxer, he's got power, the best footwork, best offense, he's got a high boxing IQ, etc.. For all you know, he appears that way, not because he's that good, but maybe because he's been fighting inferior opponents.
Now, when you are analyzing and comparing two boxers, you cannot cannot make a judgement that one is better than the other by merely looking how boxer A performed against an opponent that boxer B has not faced yet. That would be a flawed analysis.
A more accurate approached is to compare how they performed against common opponents. Comparing against just one common opponent would still be unreliable, but when you have at least three examples to compare, you will have a clearer picture.
I did make this comparison by looking at the data available that included the Hatton, DLH and Mosley fights. I deliberately did not include Marquez because I think Manny has not yet evolved into what he is now in that fight.
The results would surprise most observers. Not only did Manny outperformed Floyd in the offense department, he was also better defensively. Floyd was hit more per round on average than Manny was. Floyd also landed less punches per round and when power punches are taken separately, the difference becomes more acute.
Would these findings show who would win if these two boxers finally face each other? Not necessarily. But if I am a betting person, I would seriously look into these data before placing my bet.
I have posted these findings in two or three separate threads so I will assume that most of you have already seen them. If not, let me know and I will try to re-post them.
It should not be based just on generalized perceptions like; he's fast, he's the best defensive boxer, he's got power, the best footwork, best offense, he's got a high boxing IQ, etc.. For all you know, he appears that way, not because he's that good, but maybe because he's been fighting inferior opponents.
Now, when you are analyzing and comparing two boxers, you cannot cannot make a judgement that one is better than the other by merely looking how boxer A performed against an opponent that boxer B has not faced yet. That would be a flawed analysis.
A more accurate approached is to compare how they performed against common opponents. Comparing against just one common opponent would still be unreliable, but when you have at least three examples to compare, you will have a clearer picture.
I did make this comparison by looking at the data available that included the Hatton, DLH and Mosley fights. I deliberately did not include Marquez because I think Manny has not yet evolved into what he is now in that fight.
The results would surprise most observers. Not only did Manny outperformed Floyd in the offense department, he was also better defensively. Floyd was hit more per round on average than Manny was. Floyd also landed less punches per round and when power punches are taken separately, the difference becomes more acute.
Would these findings show who would win if these two boxers finally face each other? Not necessarily. But if I am a betting person, I would seriously look into these data before placing my bet.
I have posted these findings in two or three separate threads so I will assume that most of you have already seen them. If not, let me know and I will try to re-post them.
Comment