**How to figure out: who;s the better boxer formula**

[Orishaman]

Ok, lets say we want to compare two boxers and see which one had the better career…..without any room for argument….

Let say we create what I would like to call “Total Equation” with the following parameters:

W-wins
L-loses
KOL-KO losses
KOW-KO wins
WAWC-wins against world champions
LAWC-losses against world champions

W-L= effective record ER

ER + KOW- KOL= EKO: effective KO

WAWC-LAWC= CE: championship effectiveness

ER + EKO + CE who ever adds to higher numbers, it is simply the better boxer…works everytime... try it...
Say :

RJJ v. BHop...you be surprized who will come on top...

[King Dan]

Ok, lets say we want to compare two boxers and see which one had the better career…..without any room for argument….

Let say we create what I would like to call “Total Equation” with the following parameters:

W-wins
L-loses
KOL-KO losses
KOW-KO wins
WAWC-wins against world champions
LAWC-losses against world champions

W-L= effective record ER

ER + KOW- KOL= EKO: effective KO

WAWC-LAWC= CE: championship effectiveness

ER + EKO + CE who ever adds to higher numbers, it is simply the better boxer…works everytime... try it...
Say :

RJJ v. BHop...you be surprized who will come on top...

I want your job!

[Orishaman]

I want your job!

Take the time and you will see who comes on top!!!

[GazOC]

I hate criticize a mans labour of love but thats a load of nonsense!

[Kostya Zoo]

Take the time and you will see who comes on top!!!

maybe you could just show us the answer.

[brooklyn1550]

I came out with Roy on top

[achillesthegreat]

I want your job!
LOL.

O, your method is ridiculous.

[brooklyn1550]

The older fighters with 125-200 wins will always come out on top with this formula.

[Marnoff]

Draws ought to count for something.

Also, just show your calculations or forget about it.

[thewoo]

I hate criticize a mans labour of love but thats a load of nonsense!

So much for the no room for argument part of the formula.

[A-50]

How many points get subtracted from Jones for having a Glass Jaw?

[justaboxingfan]

You were doomed from the start, no offence. I can't see how you can sum up a fighter using a formula. It's the same with your IQ or any other 'government standand' tests. Its is just too easy to manipulate them with too many non measurables like heart, will, dedication etc. I think trying to figure out the P4P and ATG lists are problem enough.

[MagnificentMatt]

Ok, lets say we want to compare two boxers and see which one had the better career…..without any room for argument….

Let say we create what I would like to call “Total Equation” with the following parameters:

W-wins
L-loses
KOL-KO losses
KOW-KO wins
WAWC-wins against world champions
LAWC-losses against world champions

W-L= effective record ER

ER + KOW- KOL= EKO: effective KO

WAWC-LAWC= CE: championship effectiveness

ER + EKO + CE who ever adds to higher numbers, it is simply the better boxer…works everytime... try it...
Say :

RJJ v. BHop...you be surprized who will come on top...

So, what you are sayin is people like Shannon Briggs could be atgs...

[DaHead242]

So, what you are sayin is people like Shannon Briggs could be atgs...
or Riddick Bowe could be one of the best ever despite a shortened prime and subpar competition for a large part of his career.

[DaHead242]

it may also be hard to beat Primo Carnera.

[Orishaman]

Ok given ...it has it flaws, so how we can improve it to make it happened...

[H .]

Somewhat amusing

[Orishaman]

Ok we need to address quality of opposition, with amultiplier for boxers with winning records and negative multiplier for boxers with losing record..

[djrock247]

No matter how you slice it, it's pure entertainment as there is no surefire way to handicap the sweet science.

However, if you're looking for ways to improve your "formulaic" approach then perhaps you can use a fighter's winning percentage instead of total wins. As an earlier poster stated, those fighters with 250 wins will automatically come out on top. Also, you can take the opposition's winning percentage into account and weigh that against the fighter in question.

[djrock247]

OK

You got me thinking Orishaman. As much as I'm against this formula thing, I think I've got a good one. Really simple and concise.

Fighter's win% x 10
+
Opponent's win% x 5
+
KO% x 3
=
EFFICIENCY RATING
Max efficiency rating = 1,800 pts.

EXAMPLES

Roy Jones Jr.
Win %- 92.7 x 10= 927
+
Opp win %- 84.3 x 5= 421.5
+
KO%- 69.1 x 3= 207.3

EFFICIENCY RATING- 1555.8

Bernard Hopkins- 1491.7
Floyd Mayweather Jr.- 1610.1
Oscar DeLaHoya- 1557.0

[djrock247]

How can De La Hoya be that high with all of his losses? Above Hopkins? Hah, laughable. Above Jones? Hah, again, laughable.

Like I said earlier, I'm not a fan of any sort of formula to determine superiority.

[djrock247]

Wlad Klitschko- 1584.3
Manny Pacquiao- 1570.0

[Orishaman]

Maybe we can combined them and start making sence....

[Orishaman]

Ok, lets say we want to compare two boxers and see which one had the better career…..without any room for argument….

Let say we create what I would like to call “Total Equation” with the following parameters:

W-wins
L-loses
KOL-KO losses
KOW-KO wins
WAWC-wins against world champions
LAWC-losses against world champions

W-L= effective record ER

ER + KOW- KOL x (KOW/KOL)= EKO: effective KO

WAWC-LAWC= CE: championship effectiveness

ER + EKO + CE who ever adds to higher numbers, it is simply the better boxer…works everytime... try it...oh shit..WTF...
Say :

RJJ v. BHop...you be surprized who will come on top...

Ok lets say:

Maybe we need to alocate multipliers to the formula according to importance, were loses by KO gets ahigher multiplier than wins by KO, and adding loses to non rank oppnents by a high multiplier also-

Say:

ER +...oh shit WTF