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

[Cypocryphy]

One of the main reasons I steer well clear of P4P is the sheer impossibility of coming up with any objective way of comparing the 'strength' of the different divisions.

I think you can do so, actually. The problem, in my opinion, is that do quantify almost every single aspect would take an enormous amount of time and effort, to the point where you would ask yourself, "Is this really worth it when a year from now it could all change?"

[ShoulderRoll]

One of the main reasons I steer well clear of P4P is the sheer impossibility of coming up with any objective way of comparing the 'strength' of the different divisions.

But if that is accounted for in some way then this system would be pretty darned solid. That's why it's worth mentioning.

Maybe rate the divisions based on how many of the top 100 fighters are in them. Which of course brings up the question of which top 100 ranking to use...but it feels doable.

[Curt Henning]

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.

lmao

what a dunce

crawford doesnt have a single win as good as porter, mikey or brook

crawford is trying to fight everyone? lol

thats funny...because i specifically remember arum and crawford both saying they were looking at shawn porter before and after the mean machine fight...well about a week after the mean machine fight....because when kenny porter said "hey call us we make a fight" they both did a 180 and said "thats not on our radar".....and i have proof and quotes.....they liked to run their mouths about porter and the pbc guys when they dont think theyll mention crawford or respond or talk back....when porters dad talked back they got real quiet

take your "i hate haymon the pbc" sunglasses off....theyre for women anyway

[Citizen Koba]

I think you can do so, actually. The problem, in my opinion, is that do quantify almost every single aspect would take an enormous amount of time and effort, to the point where you would ask yourself, "Is this really worth it when a year from now it could all change?"

Boxrec, of course, attempts to do just that - and if you work through their algorithms they've genuinely given it a reasonable shot - but still still falls down in a number of significant ways. Computerised - mathematical - systems are always gonna be too inflexible and subjective systems are always goona be too subject to cognitive bias... IDK I've tinkered with a few ideas of combining the two somehow, but I've yet to come up with anything remotely satisfactory.

[Citizen Koba]

But if that is accounted for in some way then this system would be pretty darned solid. That's why it's worth mentioning.

Maybe rate the divisions based on how many of the top 100 fighters are in them. Which of course brings up the question of which top 100 ranking to use...but it feels doable.

Indeed, you hit right on the key of the problem at the end there. If you could get a top 100 ranking that was free of bias that would be a solid approach to the problem, but where would you find such a listing and who would you trust to make it? Inevitably - irrespective of our individual preferences - we're more prone to rate the fighters who are in front of most more highly than those who we rarely see. And none of us, no matter how independent minded we feel we are, are immune to hype or advertising even if we sometimes react negatively to it.

IDK, it's fun discussion I guess, and I ain't got an objection to it at all, but it ain't for me personally. I guess I got one of them brains that just gets itchy when faced with an insoluable problem.

I'm cool just having a general idea of who I think the top dozenish fighters are at any given time, or maybe those on a real hot run... outside of that I tend to treat the divisions pretty much seperate from one another, or at least prefer to only compare fighters who have some realistic possibility of facing each other in the ring at some point.

[The D3vil]

The list is based upon the assumption that rankings have any validity and that is simply a false premise.

Rankings mean nothing today, they are bought, sold and ignored by corrupt sanctioning bodies and if you don’t get that you’re part of the flat earth anti vaxxer camp.

What is a Franchise champion and were do they rank? Interim, diamond, Silver, Eternal and the anointed champion that has never beaten a belt holder???? How is style avoidance and PED use factored into the ethereal P4P list? I’m sorry but any list based on rankings controlled by stationing bodies with the most prestigious run by mauricio sulaiman is like throwing a rock in the air and not expecting it to hit you because you suspended your belief in gravity.

The ******uous relationship between rankings and money are blatantly transparent easily verified.

I do appreciate the higher level of intelligent debate the list has attracted but I feel like the P4P list is too often cheapened by those that treat with no more care than some impulse item at the dollar store.

All this here

[budfr]

Fighters with less than 20 fights...ridiculous. Loma is an exception because of his amateur fights but still not p4p in my eyes.

[buge]

There's not nearly enough of a penalty or bonus for jumping weight classes.

By this metric, Fury pulling Rigondeaux up to HW would get 11 * (122/201) = 6.7 points, or would be a higher quality win than beating the #5 HW (6 points).

The weight class adjustment needs raised to some high power, or totally changed.

[Cypocryphy]

Boxrec, of course, attempts to do just that - and if you work through their algorithms they've genuinely given it a reasonable shot - but still still falls down in a number of significant ways. Computerised - mathematical - systems are always gonna be too inflexible and subjective systems are always goona be too subject to cognitive bias... IDK I've tinkered with a few ideas of combining the two somehow, but I've yet to come up with anything remotely satisfactory.

Ha! Challenge accepted!

Anyway, Boxrec has a monetary incentive for making such a list. If we were to make one in our free time, well ... it would be just that: Free. But it would be fun to try to put together a system that's fairly comprehensive. And to make it so it's not corrupted by the sanctioning bodies, a little leg work would have to be done by looking at archives, periodicals, etc. Some good old fashioned research. I mean, going back to the get-go and accessing the fights, watching old film again, and seeing what happened behind the numbers. Then trying to quantify that and turn it into an algorithm, in a sense. That's what I'm thinking now (while half asleep).

[Cypocryphy]

All this here

Nice list in your signature. I would remove Tyson Fury, however. I think he needs to do a little more, still