David McWater & His Moneyball-Like Tactics In Measuring Prospects

[HeadBodyBodyBody]

I bet you had trouble in algebra & beyond in school.

ANYTHING can be given a value.

I don't doubt that it is possible to put a value on anything, the problem is that when applying value to human phenomena it won't tell you anything useful. It would probably tell you more about yourself than anything else. A number is just a number, the trick is to interpret it correctly. Just think of the scientific revolution, and the lack of a science of man. What is the purpose of quantifying; you are looking for generalisations, and laws, no? This is much easier in the realm of physics, and to a lesser degree, chemistry, but once we get to biology, we arrive at a state of relative lawlessness, and things that happen in the social world are even more variable and less generalisable. What people have started arguing for in the social sciences is that we shouldn't expect to find laws, but only an appreciation or something like this, and that the methods of science need not look similar across disciplines. Hence, why you can now find sociology PhD theses replete with artwork.

Maybe there are some ceteris paribus laws you can apply to boxing performance. We have q. a lot of boxing data to look back on. My hunch is that if someone were to try and formulate a theory (or generalisation, or law, or whatever) out of that data, it would be a wild goose chase; you're looking for something that is not there. Pessimistic, maybe. But the flip-side of that coin is that anybody claiming the opposite is being optimistic, and wildly so in my opinion. As I say, look at the huge technological leaps we have seen in physics compared to the comparative cluster*** that is the social sciences (not to necessarily denigrate the social sciences).

Thanks for raising awareness to McWater, interested to see how he gets on. Those scout reports didn't look very quantitative to me...

[YoungManRumble]

Baseball has a billion stats. Boxing has basically none, no relevant ones anyway. Especially when it's someone coming up beating up a bunch of cans or lesser skilled ams. How can you measure that against the best? It's all situational and subjective. The scouting reports have no stats and just prove what everyone else has argued. A subjective critique based on current form and current competition. Sure you can assign your own numbers to your own system of stats but they're just subjective stats you basically arbitrarily decided.

Don't get me wrong though it's an interesting topic of discussion especially with how crap the board has been lately. It just seems fundamentally flawed in my opinion.

[Eff Pandas]

I don't doubt that it is possible to put a value on anything, the problem is that when applying value to human phenomena it won't tell you anything useful.

Of course it does. That's what putting a value on attributes automatically does. I got no idea what all their criteria are but let's say they got 15 main attributes they use that run on a scale of 1 to 50 & a guy like Teofimo scored the 630 they brought up for a average score of 42 in those 15 main attributes. That means he's more likely to reach a title fight, which hes already done since the podcast where this was mentioned, than others that scored lower which is what his system is trying to quantify. It's not brain surgery. It's just coming up with values to find the likeliness of success in a neutral environment of which boxing isn't but it's still able to find guys the most attributed to find success if all things were fair.

A number is just a number, the trick is to interpret it correctly.

Well yea no sh^t. I've mentioned already that coming up with the right value for an attribute isn't gonna be perfect. That still doesn't change the fact if you are a good scout & judger of attributes & can fairly assign these numbers to guys competing against each other in the amateur game you can gradually improve on those figures through trial n error when things you previously thought true are disproven in competition. It sounds like these guys are watching the amateur system closely so I got lil doubt these figures move up & down as guys show more or less consistently & talent.

My hunch is that if someone were to try and formulate a theory (or generalisation, or law, or whatever) out of that data, it would be a wild goose chase; you're looking for something that is not there.

This makes zero sense. Do you think measuring various attributes & assigning values to those attributes & coming up with a overall value for a fighter is less of a wild goose chase them just watching someone spar in the gym & knowing he won the national Golden Gloves title last year before signing them? Come on man that's fooking silly.

Those scout reports didn't look very quantitative to me...

You clearly didn't listen to the podcast so are just typing to read your own words. The system McWater uses is his own system & he hasn't shared how it works with the public. I believe he's said it's something he might offer to other ppl in the business for a price on the future but that might be something I'm misrecalling cuz the podcast was over a year ago now. Those scouting reports are just the tip of the iceberg of the info they collect & quantify.

[HeadBodyBodyBody]

Of course it does. That's what putting a value on attributes automatically does. I got no idea what all their criteria are but let's say they got 15 main attributes they use that run on a scale of 1 to 50 & a guy like Teofimo scored the 630 they brought up for a average score of 42 in those 15 main attributes. That means he's more likely to reach a title fight, which hes already done since the podcast where this was mentioned, than others that scored lower which is what his system is trying to quantify. It's not brain surgery. It's just coming up with values to find the likeliness of success in a neutral environment of which boxing isn't but it's still able to find guys the most attributed to find success if all things were fair.

Well yea no sh^t. I've mentioned already that coming up with the right value for an attribute isn't gonna be perfect. That still doesn't change the fact if you are a good scout & judger of attributes & can fairly assign these numbers to guys competing against each other in the amateur game you can gradually improve on those figures through trial n error when things you previously thought true are disproven in competition. It sounds like these guys are watching the amateur system closely so I got lil doubt these figures move up & down as guys show more or less consistently & talent.

This makes zero sense. Do you think measuring various attributes & assigning values to those attributes & coming up with a overall value for a fighter is less of a wild goose chase them just watching someone spar in the gym & knowing he won the national Golden Gloves title last year before signing them? Come on man that's fooking silly.

You clearly didn't listen to the podcast so are just typing to read your own words. The system McWater uses is his own system & he hasn't shared how it works with the public. I believe he's said it's something he might offer to other ppl in the business for a price on the future but that might be something I'm misrecalling cuz the podcast was over a year ago now. Those scouting reports are just the tip of the iceberg of the info they collect & quantify.

The point of a law would be that it holds, for everyone, at all times... What McWater is doing is something much more subjective and constrained, as you more-or-less say so yourself. So, in the end, it's just a fancy opinion isn't it. I don't know why you are reacting so aggressively, you seem quite invested in this idea somehow.

[Eff Pandas]

Baseball has a billion stats. Boxing has basically none, no relevant ones anyway. Especially when it's someone coming up beating up a bunch of cans or lesser skilled ams. How can you measure that against the best? It's all situational and subjective. The scouting reports have no stats and just prove what everyone else has argued. A subjective critique based on current form and current competition. Sure you can assign your own numbers to your own system of stats but they're just subjective stats you basically arbitrarily decided.

Don't get me wrong though it's an interesting topic of discussion especially with how crap the board has been lately. It just seems fundamentally flawed in my opinion.

I guess you've never heard of baseball scouts. They assign numbers to attributes. Again I'm surprised ppl are misinterpreting this so badly.

It's a simple matter of measuring more data leads to a more likely to be correct answer to a imperfect question where variance & intangibles are in play.

This isn't really a controversial thing in most other sports. They just got it all aligned a lot better & there are less controversial or subjective ways to measure athletes against each other with things like the NFL scouting combine.

[Eff Pandas]

The point of a law would be that it holds, for everyone, at all times... What McWater is doing is something much more subjective and constrained, as you more-or-less say so yourself. So, in the end, it's just a fancy opinion isn't it. I don't know why you are reacting so aggressively, you seem quite invested in this idea somehow.

Who's saying it's a "law"? Even Blue Chip prospects that everyone agrees are the best guy turning pro in other sports sh^t the bed sometimes. It's a imperfect science in sports with much easier defined & measured skills & attributes.

I just think the argument you and others are making that cuz this isn't perfect it's a sh^t concept. That's a silly stance cuz nothing is perfect. Perfect is unattainable. If this guy is right 13% of the time he's a genius & the best in the game at scouting talent. That's the threshold set by TR. If he's right 10% of the time he's among the best in the game. More info is ALWAYS gonna lead to better answers. And these guys are looking at more info then anyone in the game right now I feel.

[HeadBodyBodyBody]

Who's saying it's a "law"? Even Blue Chip prospects that everyone agrees are the best guy turning pro in other sports sh^t the bed sometimes. It's a imperfect science in sports with much easier defined & measured skills & attributes.

I just think the argument you and others are making that cuz this isn't perfect it's a sh^t concept. That's a silly stance cuz nothing is perfect. Perfect is unattainable. If this guy is right 13% of the time he's a genius & the best in the game at scouting talent. That's the threshold set by TR. If he's right 10% of the time he's among the best in the game. More info is ALWAYS gonna lead to better answers. And these guys are looking at more info then anyone in the game right now I feel.

If McWater uses his system and picks out a certain prospect... and some other scout uses a similarly quantitatively-informed method, but with slightly different values applied, and picks out another certain prospect... how are we to differentiate who has the more successful system, in your view? If the two prospects meet, does the winner of this meeting decide who is the better scout? Or are we to look at earnings? Number of titles won? Making it to the world stage?

[Eff Pandas]

Just to keep tabs on the progress of this system & it's success rate I'm gonna list all their fighters signed from the class of 2016 on to see how they progress towards (or already have had) a title fight.

2016

Marcus Carter, 22yrs, 5-0 (5), HW, Inactive
Mark Dawson, 22yrs, 6-0-1 (3), 147lbs
Janelson Figueroa Bocachica, 21yrs, 15-0 (10), 147lbs
Ardreal Holmes, 25yrs, 11-0 (5), 154lbs
Isiah Jones, 25yrs, 8-1 (3), 154lbs
Teofimo Lopez, 22yrs, 15-0 (12), 135lbs, WON A TITLE
Botirali Mamajonov, 28yrs, 5-0 (3), 200lbs, Inactive
Raquel Miller, 35yrs, 10-0 (4), 154lbs, Female, Won a interim title
Marquis Moore, 28yrs, 10-0 (6), 168lbs
Hurshidbek Normatov, 27yrs, 10-0 (3), 154lbs
Abraham Nova, 26yrs, 18-0 (14), 130lbs
Iegor Plevako, 29yrs, 6-0 (3), HW, Inactive
Isaiah Steen, 23yrs, 14-0 (11), 168lbs
Boubacar Sylla, 25yrs, 11-0 (7), 147lbs
Joshua Temple, 27yrs, 8-2 (6), HW
Fred Wilson Jr, 25yrs, 6-0--2 (2), 154lbs

2017

Charles Conwell, 22yrs, 12-0 (9), 154lbs
Brandon Glanton, 28yrs, 11-0 (9), 200lbs
Poindexter Knight, 24yrs, 6-0 (3), 147lbs
Money Powell IV, 22yrs, 10-1 (6), 168lbs
Antonio Vargas, 23yrs, 11-1 (5), 118lbs

2018

Brian Ceballo, 25yrs, 11-0 (6), 147lbs
Diego Pacheco, 18yrs, 8-0 (7), 168lbs
Rolando Vargas, 20yrs, 5-0 (5), 140lbs

2019

Ebanie Bridges, 33yrs, 4-0 (2), 118lbs, Female
Sonny Conto, 24yrs, 6-0 (5), HW
Otha Jones III, 20yrs, 5-0 (2), 135lbs
Vikas Krishan, 28yrs, 2-0 (1),154lbs
Eric Puente, 20yrs, 2-0, 135lbs

2020

(If they signed anyone this year they either haven't fought or aren't listed on the Boxrec page)

So far 1 of 29 fighters from 2016 to now that's fought for & won a belt. That's a 3.4% success rate already with 19 of these other 28 fighters still just 25 or younger & still in the prospect stage. I'll try to bump this as cats win belts or once every 6 to 12 mos to get a clearer picture on this long term.

[Eff Pandas]

If McWater uses his system and picks out a certain prospect... and some other scout uses a similarly quantitatively-informed method, but with slightly different values applied, and picks out another certain prospect... how are we to differentiate who has the more successful system, in your view? If the two prospects meet, does the winner of this meeting decide who is the better scout? Or are we to look at earnings? Number of titles won? Making it to the world stage?

I don't think it's that simple. Certainly one fight wouldn't prove anything towards one guy or the other having the better system. You'd need a 100 fights, a 1000 fights, a million fights to wade through the variance & intangibles. I assume you'd have to look at each system & see what each is looking at & what their fighters have done overall. If you looked at 100 guys by each guy you might start seeing an edge one way or another.

Mostly I just see more info being digested & quantified is gonna equal better odds of success. I think that's undisputable. I mean there is a reason guys who run a bad 40 at the NFL combine drop down in the draft. Numbers matter. Even if they are more subjective numbers. It's not like a guy with slow jab, bad defensive habits & a low ability to be coached is gonna find much dispute among knowledgeable boxing ppl on those realities. Nor will be THAT much dispute on the guy with the great jab, a tight defense & who listens & learns from coaches like God is talking to him. I don't doubt there is a margin of error to be found, but it's not like you can't input that into your formula too. It's hard to argue with math.

And again to be clear these are human beings having a number put on them that's suggesting the best chance of success. It's not guaranteeing anything. A human being can feel the pressure of expectations of potential success n choke. They can break up with their gf & lose focus & desire. Their mom could die n that fooks them up. Not being able to account for everything doesn't make the things you can account for of no value which is what you seem to think.

[Citizen Koba]

Just to keep tabs on the progress of this system & it's success rate I'm gonna list all their fighters signed from the class of 2016 on to see how they progress towards (or already have had) a title fight.

2016

Marcus Carter, 22yrs, 5-0 (5), HW, Inactive
Mark Dawson, 22yrs, 6-0-1 (3), 147lbs
Janelson Figueroa Bocachica, 21yrs, 15-0 (10), 147lbs
Ardreal Holmes, 25yrs, 11-0 (5), 154lbs
Isiah Jones, 25yrs, 8-1 (3), 154lbs
Teofimo Lopez, 22yrs, 15-0 (12), 135lbs, WON A TITLE
Botirali Mamajonov, 28yrs, 5-0 (3), 200lbs, Inactive
Raquel Miller, 35yrs, 10-0 (4), 154lbs, Won a interim title
Marquis Moore, 28yrs, 10-0 (6), 168lbs
Hurshidbek Normatov, 27yrs, 10-0 (3), 154lbs
Abraham Nova, 26yrs, 18-0 (14), 130lbs
Iegor Plevako, 29yrs, 6-0 (3), HW, Inactive
Isaiah Steen, 23yrs, 14-0 (11), 168lbs
Boubacar Sylla, 25yrs, 11-0 (7), 147lbs
Joshua Temple, 27yrs, 8-2 (6), HW
Fred Wilson Jr, 25yrs, 6-0--2 (2), 154lbs

2017

Charles Conwell, 22yrs, 12-0 (9), 154lbs
Brandon Glanton, 28yrs, 11-0 (9), 200lbs
Poindexter Knight, 24yrs, 6-0 (3), 147lbs
Money Powell IV, 22yrs, 10-1 (6), 168lbs
Antonio Vargas, 23yrs, 11-1 (5), 118lbs

2018

Brian Ceballo, 25yrs, 11-0 (6), 147lbs
Diego Pacheco, 18yrs, 8-0 (7), 168lbs
Rolando Vargas, 20yrs, 5-0 (5), 140lbs

2019

Ebanie Bridges, 33yrs, 4-0 (2), 118lbs, Female
Sonny Conto, 24yrs, 6-0 (5), HW
Otha Jones III, 20yrs, 5-0 (2), 135lbs
Vikas Krishan, 28yrs, 2-0 (1),154lbs
Eric Puente, 20yrs, 2-0, 135lbs

2020

(If they signed anyone this year they either haven't fought or aren't listed on the Boxrec page)

So far 29 fighters from 2016 to now that's fought for & won a belt. That's a 3.4% success rate already with 19 of these other 28 fighters still just 25 or younger & still in the prospect stage. I'll try to bump this as cats win belts or once every 6 to 12 mos to get a clearer picture on this long term.

Good work, man, funny enough (and quite independently) I've just started putting together a series of focus threads on top prospects that I'm hoping to link or merge into a masterthread at some point and hopefully get permastickied. I'm thinking about an ongoing project which I try to keep up date with new developments in the dudes careers, though I'm hoping I'll be able to rope in a coupla other posters to help out cos I reckon it'll be a lot to keep on top of and I ain't made of time.

Looks like your stuff here and McWaters work could be very complimentary and beneficial to that project. If you'd be interested in doing focus threads something like these:

https://www.boxingscene.com/forums/editpost.php?do=updatepost&p=20393781

https://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=840792

-on some of the prospects you've picked up here - especially if they include the scouting reports too, it'd be a brilliant addition, or with your permission I might pick out a couple of em to do pieces on myself.