Comments Thread For: Rethinking P4P: Trying to Measure Who Beat Who...and When

[BIGPOPPAPUMP]

What have you done for me lately? And in a sport where just three fights in a year has become almost a unicorn at the title level, what does lately really mean? In trying to weigh the merits of fighters in different weight classes, we can start by identifying levels of competition relative to weight classes.
[Click Here To Read More]

[Bronx2245]

I like the rating system however some things are more important to me:

"So too is Alvarez’s sheer willingness. Like Lomachenko, he has faced five straight opponents rated by both Ring and TBRB, and Alvarez has done it in three different divisions. As the biggest money draw in the sport right now, Alvarez is in a position to pick and choose few enjoy. Because of that, like Leonard, Mayweather, Pacquiao, and other rainmakers before him, the bar of public opinion is often higher for him than his peers and who he isn’t fighting is often an argument against who he is."

That's Bananas!!! Salute to Canelo!!! Boy, I know the Crawford folks are going to hate this list!!!

[Nash out]

I couldn't be bothered to read about the system, but that list is absolutely dire. There's some on there I wouldn't have in the top 50.

[Combat Talk Radio]

I couldn't be bothered to read about the system, but that list is absolutely dire. There's some on there I wouldn't have in the top 50.

Loma has no case for being above Carnelo. I'm sorry. It's not close.

Carnelo lost to The Best to Ever do it.

Loma lost to Orlando Salido.

Punishing Carnelo over G? G was undefeated, Salido had DOUBLE DIGIT losses!

[crold1]

Loma has no case for being above Carnelo. I'm sorry. It's not close.

Carnelo lost to The Best to Ever do it.

Loma lost to Orlando Salido.

Punishing Carnelo over G? G was undefeated, Salido had DOUBLE DIGIT losses!

Just to clear up: Doesn't punish Alvarez. It's strictly results based. Alvarez got the credit for the draw anyone would have received. It doesn't take either guys loss into consideration because of how long ago it was.

[ShoulderRoll]

One possible tweak to consider for this system is to give a rating score to each weight division. As some of them are weaker than others.

Should Lomachenko get the same amount of credit for beating Anthony Crolla that Usyk gets for beating the cruiserweights he did?

I don't think so.

[crold1]

One possible tweak to consider for this system is to give a rating score to each weight division. As some of them are weaker than others.

Should Lomachenko get the same amount of credit for beating Anthony Crolla that Usyk gets for beating the cruiserweights he did?

I don't think so.

I think the bigger issue is how to solve for something like Bellew which is clearly a quality win but because he was between divisions fell out of ratings in both. Didn't really have a solution for that but wrote about it. As this updates, the three year kickers and last five's will change so it stays liquid. Ultimately, assessing division strength is fine but if you're beating more consistently beating real contenders in the weights you compete that will be less an issue.

[xxlefthookxx]

Cliff...
A nice thought, but the true P4P abilities of each opponent need to be rated, not their rating in TRB.. Crawford's win over Indongo, a two belt holder, should be held in MUCH LOWER REGARD than Dillian Whyte's win over Joseph Parker. Heck, Crawford should get more credit for beating Benavidez than Indongo.... Loma's win over #4 Crolla should not hold as much weight as (in theory) a Canelo win over #4 Andrade. A number beside a name out of default for the depth of the weight class should not supersede overall ability.
When you get that part of the equation correct, you will have a much better picture of 'who has done what'.

[ShoulderRoll]

I think the bigger issue is how to solve for something like Bellew which is clearly a quality win but because he was between divisions fell out of ratings in both. Didn't really have a solution for that but wrote about it. As this updates, the three year kickers and last five's will change so it stays liquid. Ultimately, assessing division strength is fine but if you're beating more consistently beating real contenders in the weights you compete that will be less an issue.

It's easier to beat contenders in a division that is weak.

Usyk went through all the top cruisers in a very stacked division. Canelo as well has had a tough run of opponents.

I just feel those guys deserve extra credit somehow for that. Not sure what the best way would be to mathematically account for it, though.

[UNBANNED]

I like the rating system however some things are more important to me:

"So too is Alvarez’s sheer willingness. Like Lomachenko, he has faced five straight opponents rated by both Ring and TBRB, and Alvarez has done it in three different divisions. As the biggest money draw in the sport right now, Alvarez is in a position to pick and choose few enjoy. Because of that, like Leonard, Mayweather, Pacquiao, and other rainmakers before him, the bar of public opinion is often higher for him than his peers and who he isn’t fighting is often an argument against who he is."

That's Bananas!!! Salute to Canelo!!! Boy, I know the Crawford folks are going to hate this list!!!

Switch Crawford and Spence and list is fine.

I'm not even sure how Spence is a Top 10 PFP at all. Dude is in his 1st division and has had 1 real fight, maybe 2. And hes 30 now. And he arguably drew with Porter until the KD....

Meanwhile Crawford is undefeated without any asterisks in his 3rd division and hes trying to fight better competition but they wont fight him.