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

[The Big Dunn]

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.

What I have found interesting is looking at my personal opinion versus this ranking system.

I have argued plenty with the Loma and Manny diehards about what I think is unfair gerrymandering of their competition so I do feel vindicated to a degree. That stated, Kov and GGG will finish much higher than I gave them credit for so I will have to face the fact that in those cases I unfairly judged their comp based more on me not liking them then I did the actual opposition.

[Citizen Koba]

Manny at #9. Yet his minions wanted him to be FOTD.

While the system Cliff uses isn’t perfect, I have long argued if you use the same criteria and apply it equally to all boxers, some of the more popular boxers on this forum will be ranked far below the boxers the forum hates the most.

So far, manny and loma’s ranking have illustrated this perfectly.

This applies to me as well because I wouldn’t have ranked kov this high.

It's all you can ask of any system that it performs consistently and that it's mechanics are transparent. Like the Boxrec P4Ps... it frequently produces shit results, any system based on inflexible alogorithms will, but it removes user bias (except insofar as it's programmed in). At least you know what you're getting and can pinpoint where the faults have entered the system - usually in boxing with the inevitable iffy results - and make allowances for it.

All you can do with this kind of thing is take it for what it is, just an interesting and different way of looking at the decades' achievements by various fighters. Ain't some kinda infallible pronouncement or ranking system, just a way of looking at the numbers.

[b00g13man]

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

Cliff already confirmed Canelo as #1 and Floyd #2 in his article agreeing with Floyd as FOTD.

[xxlefthookxx]

What I have found interesting is looking at my personal opinion versus this ranking system.

I have argued plenty with the Loma and Manny diehards about what I think is unfair gerrymandering of their competition so I do feel vindicated to a degree. That stated, Kov and GGG will finish much higher than I gave them credit for so I will have to face the fact that in those cases I unfairly judged their comp based more on me not liking them then I did the actual opposition.

It should be more about the relative skill level of the opponent than the TBRB ranking within the division. Is a win over co-champ Lemieux by GGG as good as Taylor defeating Prograis? I think not. Was Crawford's win over Indongo worthy of more points than Inoue over Donaire? An active champ in a weak division reaps benefits. Wilder hasn't been listed yet...but is 32-0-1 this decade. Are wins over Ortiz x 2, Breazeale, Stiverne x 2 really worth the high point totals awarded? Probably not.
No perfect system..but at least a starting point for debate.

[The Big Dunn]

It should be more about the relative skill level of the opponent than the TBRB ranking within the division. Is a win over co-champ Lemieux by GGG as good as Taylor defeating Prograis? I think not. Was Crawford's win over Indongo worthy of more points than Inoue over Donaire? An active champ in a weak division reaps benefits. Wilder hasn't been listed yet...but is 32-0-1 this decade. Are wins over Ortiz x 2, Breazeale, Stiverne x 2 really worth the high point totals awarded? Probably not.
No perfect system..but at least a starting point for debate.

Wilder is another one who will end up much higher ranked than I give credit for. I remember when ESPN had him like #10 or 11 p4p and I was disgusted.

[The Big Dunn]

It's all you can ask of any system that it performs consistently and that it's mechanics are transparent. Like the Boxrec P4Ps... it frequently produces shit results, any system based on inflexible alogorithms will, but it removes user bias (except insofar as it's programmed in). At least you know what you're getting and can pinpoint where the faults have entered the system - usually in boxing with the inevitable iffy results - and make allowances for it.

All you can do with this kind of thing is take it for what it is, just an interesting and different way of looking at the decades' achievements by various fighters. Ain't some kinda infallible pronouncement or ranking system, just a way of looking at the numbers.

greenk sent. really good post.

[BoomBapTrap]

Manny at #9. Yet his minions wanted him to be FOTD.

While the system Cliff uses isn’t perfect, I have long argued if you use the same criteria and apply it equally to all boxers, some of the more popular boxers on this forum will be ranked far below the boxers the forum hates the most.

So far, manny and loma’s ranking have illustrated this perfectly.

This applies to me as well because I wouldn’t have ranked kov this high.

Lmfao Manny is the first person you were looking for!

You’re obsessed Mr. Dumb!
Absolutely obsessed!
It’s not good for your mental health!

No doubt in my mind you could be the next mass shooter with your obsessive dissapointed mad at the world persona online!
Get some help Ya Big Dumb!

[NaijaD]

What I have found interesting is looking at my personal opinion versus this ranking system.

I have argued plenty with the Loma and Manny diehards about what I think is unfair gerrymandering of their competition so I do feel vindicated to a degree. That stated, Kov and GGG will finish much higher than I gave them credit for so I will have to face the fact that in those cases I unfairly judged their comp based more on me not liking them then I did the actual opposition.

Hey man fair play for being able to consider that your opinion is not absolute on a subject.... these guys just can't do that, the system is obviously not perfect but at least it has a formula to it which is better or more bias-proof than a random opinion.

The stuff in bold is Green K worthy but I must spread some round before giving it you again lol.

[ruedboy]

It should be more about the relative skill level of the opponent than the TBRB ranking within the division. Is a win over co-champ Lemieux by GGG as good as Taylor defeating Prograis? I think not. Was Crawford's win over Indongo worthy of more points than Inoue over Donaire? An active champ in a weak division reaps benefits. Wilder hasn't been listed yet...but is 32-0-1 this decade. Are wins over Ortiz x 2, Breazeale, Stiverne x 2 really worth the high point totals awarded? Probably not.
No perfect system..but at least a starting point for debate.

The problem is you can't quantify "relative skill level of the opponent", because it would be a matter of opinion.

[crold1]

It's all you can ask of any system that it performs consistently and that it's mechanics are transparent. Like the Boxrec P4Ps... it frequently produces shit results, any system based on inflexible alogorithms will, but it removes user bias (except insofar as it's programmed in). At least you know what you're getting and can pinpoint where the faults have entered the system - usually in boxing with the inevitable iffy results - and make allowances for it.

All you can do with this kind of thing is take it for what it is, just an interesting and different way of looking at the decades' achievements by various fighters. Ain't some kinda infallible pronouncement or ranking system, just a way of looking at the numbers.

This. All I’m aiming for is to look at the decade from this angle. This isn’t meant to be definitive but it does, I think, allow a pause for “oh, forgot how strong that run was” sort of thing. The final part will offer another pair of top 20s to consider in quicker form to compare and contrast.