Comments Thread For: The 2010s in the Rankings: The Top Twenty of the Decade - #10-6

[The Big Dunn]

With the system there ranked correctly with the way its setup but everyone here in this forum knows manny should be ranked higher than mares thats for sure. The losses are official if we like it or not but we know he won against Bradley an Horn, it sucks having to grade the opposition during that time since look at wards opposition compared to mannys no dam comparison but ward stayed undefeated officially while Manny lost a couple of times in the decade. Without this system manny an ward could be interchangeable but with it ward edges it out

But losses should count, right? While I agree with you Bradley was a robbery, I disagree that Horn was.

I think the system has flaws but counting losses isn’t one of them.

[Oregonian]

So Manny was rated this low because his W against Margarito was unrated and his controversial Ls to Bradley and Horn were big minuses in their point system. Ok....

Anyway, my guess for the top 5 rankings are gonna be:

5. M.Garcia
4. Spence
3. GGG
2. Canelo
1. Mayweather

————
It wasn’t justhis fights with Margarito, Horn and Bradley.
Think about this (while using the point system too);
Manny got KO’d by JMM
He fought Brandon Rios, Mathysse, and Broner (all journey men)
He fought Mosley and Clottey right after both were coming off losses.

Those alone keep Manny at # 9 and that’s being generous.

I agree with your top 5 list but I’d switch out Garcia for Porter. Porter is the only boxer who still looks good coming off losses.
All his losses have been extremely close and one could make a case for him winning some. While Garcia is a solid number, his ill fated and dumb attempt at beating Spence cost him not just his 0 but probably his career. I don’t see him being a force at 135 or 140 anymore.

[xxlefthookxx]

I think it will be Canelo/GGG as 1 and 2 due to the number of bouts they have had during the decade..which makes sense. Using the TBRB instead of a hybrid TBRB*P4P factor means that someone fighting in a weak division (see Mares) with wins over "top 10" fighters will be easily and greatly rewarded. GGG is 21-1-1 this decade, Canelo 32-1-1. An average of 5 pts/win gives Canelo 150+ points, GGG over 100. Mayweather with 10 wins, lets pretend his average is 8/fight, maxes out due to inactivity.

[1hourRun]

[NaijaD]

Based on this system it looks like Canelo will end up as number 1.

[The Big Dunn]

Based on this system it looks like Canelo will end up as number 1.

I agree. I think it will be Canelo #1 and Floyd #2.

[CocoonOfHorror]

Really interesting quantitative approach. Obviously you can quibble with some aspects, like how to handle robberies and narrow decisions, how to adjust for a weak division, etc. But it's refreshing to see an objective system applied to boxing rankings.

It might be useful to apply some adjustment for beating pound-for-pound ranked opponents to partially compensate for weak divisions. For example, Mikey probably got more points for beating Lipinets (who was TBRB #2 at the time) than anyone would get for beating Crawford (TBRB #3 welterweight) right now. Obviously, there's no comparison between the quality of those wins.

[NaijaD]

I agree. I think it will be Canelo #1 and Floyd #2.

I think Golovkin might be number 3, don't know who 4 and 5 will be. I can't remember if Crawford has been listed already.

[The Big Dunn]

This article had Abner Mares over Pacquiao in the decade, it shows you how reliable their assessment is to a fighter. Clown fest.

could it be you forgot about Mares run early in the decade? I do think not getting points for Margs does show some flaw with the system. That said, their fight was at 151 so you can't count it as WW Margs, right?

[RuleOfTheSpear]

Inoue skipping over flyweight was criminal.

If he really wanted to prove greatness there was his chance.

Nietes was there. Too crafty for Inoue at that time.

Might be the same turnout as Ioka vs Ruenroeng