Comments Thread For: The 2010s in the Rankings: The Top Twenty of the Decade - #20-16

[SteveM]

Give Cliff credit for putting together a system that at least holds everyone to an equal standard.

It at least holds everyone equal to any bias in the Ring's ratings panel - and there is plenty of that if you read the articles explaining how they decide to put someone into the top ten or remove them.

I also think the Ring keeps fighters in the top ten for too long overall. They should find a way to weight more recent results because after all the current top ten is based on who is top ten pound4pound now, not 6 months ago.

It's as good as any other methodology though.

[DeeMoney]

I brought up something like this a few months back and most people seemed to disagree with the method, arguing that beating two guys ranked at #5 should not equal beating one guy ranked at #1.

The essence of their argument was summarized that 'a fighter should not be judged by how many mountains he climbs, rather what is the highest peak he has climbed.'

Although I do appreciate this sort of method in that there is something to be said for consistently beating good opponents.

That being written, most fans on here wouldn't consider fighters in the top 10 as being good anyways. There are guys out there who are accused of fighting only bums, who have a resume full of top 10 opponents...this series may ruffle some feathers.

[SteveM]

I brought up something like this a few months back and most people seemed to disagree with the method, arguing that beating two guys ranked at #5 should not equal beating one guy ranked at #1.

The essence of their argument was summarized that 'a fighter should not be judged by how many mountains he climbs, rather what is the highest peak he has climbed.'

There's a difference between Org top 10 and The Ring top ten. The IBFs top ten is especially crap which is why they keep on throwing up crap mandatories.

In general, but not always - as Cliff pointed out with Estrada when Gonzalez thought him - the Ring's top ten is a fair snapshot of the division at that time.

[ShoulderRoll]

Intetesting that Estrada didn't make the top 20.

I think more highly of him than I do of Donnie Nietes. But I guess the numbers don't lie.

[DeeMoney]

There's a difference between Org top 10 and The Ring top ten. The IBFs top ten is especially crap which is why they keep on throwing up crap mandatories.

In general, but not always - as Cliff pointed out with Estrada when Gonzalez thought him - the Ring's top ten is a fair snapshot of the division at that time.

I agree, I always figured using the Ring's top 10 was the best way to go (although I find them to be fairly biased as well).

[DeeMoney]

Intetesting that Estrada didn't make the top 20.

I think more highly of him than I do of Donnie Nietes. But I guess the numbers don't lie.

Had what could be termed as a 'Bad Loss' to start off the decade, probably left him with too deep of a hole to climb out of.

[crold1]

Had what could be termed as a 'Bad Loss' to start off the decade, probably left him with too deep of a hole to climb out of.

Actually, that’s a blown spot from me as I missed adding the Sanchez loss; A correction will be added.

[The D3vil]

Methodology has to be fxcked up.

No way Chocolatito is in the lower tier of the top 20 of the decade.

[Kiowhatta]

I think the mathematical methodology would have been served better by either replacing - or adding the respected record-keeping site BoxRec.

Yes, many scorn this site as a source for noobies and amateur scribes, but my opinion is that possible failing more than makes up for what we know is RING's now unbridled promotion of Golden Boy fighters.

This is arguably levelled out by a respectable editorial line up with much experience, but a tainted source none-the-less.

Baseline conditions which ought to be met are:

A steady increase in opposition only until the fighter has reached an age where competing with the best is implausible.

The number of defences made against top-rated opposition - and not just on their own turf with friendly judges and officials (ahem Mayweather), but did they travel and defend their belt(s) in adverse conditions (ahem Pacquiao)?

Did they receive accolades such as FOTY, etc, during their career?

In the case of Mayweather, once he had established his dominance as a major draw and knew he could pull the requisite PPV numbers, he began to target fighters in their twilight years who still presented enough of a threat to make it interesting.
But this is still cherry-picking, just not the kind where a champion picks a No#250 rated part-timer with a losing record.

Ultimately Mayweather fails in two crucial categories: Never fought outside his hometown, and bought all his influence and power to bear on every slight advantage he could secure.
Finally, Mayweather did not fight the best in their prime in the latter part of his career, even though he still had the ability to do so, so what does that tell you about his mindset?

He did not fight undisputed jr lightweight champ Kostya Tszyu, Mickey Ward, Joshua Clottey, Joel Casamayor, Juan Diaz and many more fighters in their prime in and around his weight division.
One can equally say that Mayweather did test himself earlier in his career, and produced some notable scalps in the second half of his career which weren't mismatches exactly, but tipped in favour of.

[Tecnoworld]

Definitely debateable but as long as you clearly explain your methodolgy and are consistent with it then you've done as good a job as you can. It's the best way to eliminate crap like what I call exposure bias - the inevitable propensity we all have to rate the fighters in the prestige divisions or who get the most airtime more highly even if they ain't actually done more in respoect to their own division(s).


Nice way to approach things actually - like Boxrec, for all the crap they get on here actually have a consistent and well though out methodology even if you can take issue with some of their algorithms and the inevitable eye-openers caused by having to follow official results.

Also gives us a nice look back over the decade, remind us of some of the dudes who have left the sport over these last 10 years and some of the great fights they've given us...


In fact it'd be real nice to do a recap and pick out 20 top fights of the decade as well... you hearing me cliff?

I totally agree and it would be nice to rate also past boxers with the same method, in order to see how they compare to present ones.