# Matt Hamilton's mathematical top 100 boxers



## Vano-irons (Jun 6, 2012)

Just a little background. Matt is a South African mathematician who know lives in london. He has drawn up his own mathematical formula and come up with the greatest 100 boxers on an order of merit basis. He ranks every fighter who has 'more than 10 'credible' wins' and drawn up a list. It has taken him 6 months, and here is the outcome.



> Below follows a near-exhaustive* analysis of the greatest boxers who've ever lived by achievement. To qualify for consideration for inclusion each fighter needs to have a) won 10 fights against credible opposition; b) hold more credible wins than sub-elite level losses & c) no more than 17.5% of a fighter's fights ended in a loss to a sub-elite level opponent at the time of the contest. Fighters in red have not met the criteria for inclusion in the Final Order of Merit.
> 
> Among several tens of thousands of bouts that were considered for this ranking analysis the only match up that was completely ignored was Azumah Nelson vs. Jeff Fenech 3 in 2008 as I chose to view that as ostensibly an exhibition match. It is not possible to comment on these rankings because the only people whose opinions on the matter I care to consider have already been consulted. This listing attempts to apply logic & to quantify that logic. I hope you will find food for thought in the examination that follows. I have sought to carve out a formula that is impervious to the whims; inadequacies & intermittent corruption of sanctioning bodies. Note all wins & losses taken into consideration are based on the standing of the opponent at the time he entered the ring.
> 
> ...


Immediate thoughts on this?


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Doesn't take into account HOW you beat them as Griffith shouldn't have 3 victories over Rodriguez.

Nice but flawed idea.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Awful list actually.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

Yup, too simplistic. Props for the guys effort though.


----------



## scribbs (Dec 8, 2012)

This is a bit like the WAR rating for baseball players. Good on maths theory, little to do with the human element. Having Greb so low is ridiculous, that's why I refuse to do lists, just an opinion that can be counter-acted by a reasonable debate. I went through this with Klompton who was moaning about Mike Casey's list - it means nothing but to the person who makes the list.

I really wish people would stop using stats as the be all and end all - as they say, there's lies, damn lies and statistics or something like that. Rant over!


----------



## Vano-irons (Jun 6, 2012)

I don't understand how he says Robinson's win over Bobo in 55 is a grade AAA win, but Duran's over Leonard is only a grade AA



> Sugar Ray Robinson
> 
> 1951/09/12 Randy Turpin
> 1955/12/09 Bobo Olson
> ...


He also has a few other lists



> Number of Wins Against Opponents Deemed Credible At The Time They Were Beaten
> Maxie Rosenbloom 109
> Sugar Ray Robinson 101
> Harry Greb 92
> ...


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

:lol: Lopez and Khaosai with none.

Love this list :yep


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

How is he deciding if an opponent was deemed credible or not?


----------



## Vano-irons (Jun 6, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> How is he deciding if an opponent was deemed credible or not?


It is totally down to him. He says that Pacquiao has 5 'sub elite level losses' which I really disagree with. Also, because Leonard 'had only beaten Benitez' before Duran outpointed him, it is only a grade AA win, not an AAA, despite it being one of the best single wins in history


----------



## kf3 (Jul 17, 2012)

that's pretty interesting and probably took a good while, i don't agree with some of the criteria, especially the sub elite losses, any list without gans or langford needs some work.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> How is he deciding if an opponent was deemed credible or not?


The same way you and I do I imagine. It's as much a subjective list as any found on these forums.



> It is totally down to him. He says that Pacquiao has 5 'sub elite level losses' which I really disagree with. Also, because Leonard 'had only beaten Benitez' before Duran outpointed him, it is only a grade AA win, not an AAA, despite it being one of the best single wins in history


That's complete horseshit.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Am I right in thinking that his criteria would have Brandon Rios ranked higher than Khaosai Galaxy?


----------



## Vano-irons (Jun 6, 2012)

kf3 said:


> that's pretty interesting and probably took a good while, i don't agree with some of the criteria, especially the sub elite losses, any list without gans or langford needs some work.


Yup. Langford, Gans and Benny Leonard are a top 20 lock, for me anyway.



Pedderrs said:


> The same way you and I do I imagine. It's as much a subjective list as any found on these forums.
> 
> That's complete horseshit.


Yup. While the maths is good, at the end of the day the category wins is entirely subjective.



Pedderrs said:


> Am I right in thinking that his criteria would have Brandon Rios ranked higher than Khaosai Galaxy?


:lol:


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Vano-irons said:


> It is totally down to him. He says that Pacquiao has 5 'sub elite level losses' which I really disagree with. Also, because Leonard 'had only beaten Benitez' before Duran outpointed him, it is only a grade AA win, not an AAA, despite it being one of the best single wins in history


Leonard had a fair few quality wins to his name.

I would suggest this fellow has no fucking clue what he's talking about. Fuck him.


----------



## Vano-irons (Jun 6, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> Leonard had a fair few quality wins to his name.
> 
> I would suggest this fellow has no fucking clue what he's talking about. Fuck him.


Yeah that's what I said, but they were not 'elite' level.

Matt is on my Facebook friends list if you want to ask him about it


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Vano-irons said:


> Yeah that's what I said, but they were not 'elite' level.
> 
> Matt is on my Facebook friends list if you want to ask him about it


Not really. He has nothing to offer me.


----------



## Yiddle (Jul 10, 2012)

Vano-irons said:


> Just a little background. Matt is a South African mathematician who know lives in london. He has drawn up his own mathematical formula and come up with the greatest 100 boxers on an order of merit basis. He ranks every fighter who has 'more than 10 'credible' wins' and drawn up a list. It has taken him 6 months, and here is the outcome.
> 
> Immediate thoughts on this?


I take my hat off to him for the time and effort it must of taken but I could be wrong but I couldn't jack kid berg in there and even more of a surprise no ted kid lewis

Ok just noticed no Benny leonard


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Yiddle said:


> I take my hat off to him for the time and effort it must of taken but I could be wrong but I couldn't jack kid berg in there and even more of a surprise no ted kid lewis


It took Matt Hamilton 6 months to come to the conclusion that Brandon Rios is a greater fighter than Khaosai Galaxy. Matt Hamilton will never get that time back, Yiddle.


----------



## Yiddle (Jul 10, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> It took Matt Hamilton 6 months to come to the conclusion that Brandon Rios is a greater fighter than Khaosai Galaxy. Matt Hamilton will never get that time back, Yiddle.


Good point ,although as that's his conclusion perhaps he deserves six months inside


----------



## Bill Jincock (Jun 19, 2012)

How could Ingemar Johannson, Carnera and zora Folley possibly accrue more points than someone Like Whitaker under the conditions he lays out?


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> How is he deciding if an opponent was deemed credible or not?


Pure guess work
The South African simply doesn't know how to rate individual wins though it's very subjective anyway.
Some rate Duran's win over Leonard as the best ever, others simply think Leonard fought the wrong fight.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Bill Jincock said:


> How could Ingemar Johannson, Carnera and zora Folley possibly accrue more points than someone Like Whitaker under the conditions he lays out?


He gave a good framework to rate fighters.
But the flawed point is that the South African simply doesn't know how to rate wins.

Also Kostya Tszyu >>> Sam Langford (It's proven by math )
@McGrain
It's about time you stopped overrating that fighter, he was good, but not great. (As proven by a mathematician)


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

I've sat and tried to make systems up before but they don't work, you just gotta go with your own opinion and obviously the more you watch then if can change quite often. There is no way of putting it down on paper and making a system to rank people, too many variables and too many considerations that aren't taken (no matter what system you use).

Matt's a good guy though and fair play for having a crack but as we all do the best way is just to watch, read, learn and inform an opinion. Some will agree, others won't and that's just the way it is.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

71 Primo Carnera ƒ23.45
72 Roberto Duran ƒ23.28

I'm figuratively vomitting right now.


----------



## Vano-irons (Jun 6, 2012)

Chatty said:


> I've sat and tried to make systems up before but they don't work, you just gotta go with your own opinion and obviously the more you watch then if can change quite often. There is no way of putting it down on paper and making a system to rank people, too many variables and too many considerations that aren't taken (no matter what system you use).
> 
> Matt's a good guy though and fair play for having a crack but as we all do the best way is just to watch, read, learn and inform an opinion. Some will agree, others won't and that's just the way it is.


Agree with every word. I like Matt, but it's impossible to do it via the math and math alone, as it is still subjective.

No Langford, Benny Leonard and Gans is criminal


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)




----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

It's doubtful a better mathematician than I will ever write in these boards and even I can tell you it's bs because they're applying objective criteria to a subjective sport.

By that I mean let's say x beats y. And one man says that win in AAA yet another says it's B. In that case y equals not y hence the formula is based upon a gut feeling which again defeats the objective of a formula.

That's even getting into how wins/losses are actually perceived.


----------



## Mr. Brain (Jun 4, 2013)

Vano-irons said:


> Just a little background. Matt is a South African mathematician who know lives in london. He has drawn up his own mathematical formula and come up with the greatest 100 boxers on an order of merit basis. He ranks every fighter who has 'more than 10 'credible' wins' and drawn up a list. It has taken him 6 months, and here is the outcome.
> 
> Immediate thoughts on this?


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

This lad should just kill himself. He has nothing to offer the world.


----------



## Vano-irons (Jun 6, 2012)

He is getting a little defensive with me now on Facebook. I think he is trying to claim his list is the best all and end all because it has a few numbers thrown in.

Regarding Langford I was told:



> maybe he was [ I said he can be considered the best ever]- my list never sought to discern that. my list sought to establish who achieved the most & in that regard on a straight achievement basis I have 107 guys who achieved more. 26 credible wins; whether he was the best guy who ever fought or not is neither here nor there - what does he have to show for it? 26 credible wins for me. if you'd care to offer a listing of all the wins you think qualify as credible & were you to offer me a substantial selection of ones outside my 26 I'd be happy to reconsider but I have my reservations.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> This lad should just kill himself. He has nothing to offer the world.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


>


:rofl Bravo!


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

To be fair to Matt, Rios probably would win if the two faced off at Junior Welterweight some time this year.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> To be fair to Matt, Rios probably would win if the two faced off at Junior Welterweight some time this year.


He wouldn't touch Khaosai in a karaoke contest though.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> He wouldn't touch Khaosai in a karaoke contest though.


:hey Daiki Kameda vs Khaosai Galaxy is a tasty fantasy Karaoke contest. I'd loved to have seen it.


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

His subjectivity corrupts the chrystalline objective verity of mathematics...he should apply his mathematics to something other than boxing. There are too many variables that again, require subjective decision making. His ship doesn't really leave the harbor.


----------



## KuRuPT (Jun 10, 2013)

I actually like this list... my boy JJW makes the top 50... I see no issue with this list what so ever


----------



## Vano-irons (Jun 6, 2012)

All this does is let everyone know once and for all maths plays just as much part in ranking boxers as the type of jockstrap each of them wore to the ring.

Looking at the 6 numbers beside a guy's name on Boxrec doesn't give you a conclusion on who the greatest ever was, no matter what fancy formula is created


----------



## Vano-irons (Jun 6, 2012)

I've just noticed his top 15 heavyweight list would read:

1 Joe Louis
2 Muhammad Ali
3 Floyd Patterson
4 Rocky Marciano
5 Jersey Joe Walcott
6 Sonny Liston
7 Ingemar Johansson
8 Larry Holmes
9 Joe Frazier
10 George Foreman
11 Primo Carnera
12 Max Schmeling
13 Max Baer
14 Lou Nova
15 Lennox Lewis

Surely this proves math is wrong


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Vano-irons said:


> I've just noticed his top 15 heavyweight list would read:
> 
> 1 Joe Louis
> 2 Muhammad Ali
> ...


Or you just don't know shit about boxing...
I'm actually pretty ok with that top 2.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

The guy is completely insignificant and knows nothing. His list means nothing. Let's just forget about it.


----------



## sweet_scientist (Jun 16, 2013)

Bad criteria, bad results.


----------



## Theron (May 17, 2013)

Carnera ahead of Duran :hey


----------



## Vano-irons (Jun 6, 2012)

He deleted me last night after I said the entire point of his list was worthless as boxing is too subjective


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Vano-irons said:


> He deleted me last night after I said the entire point of his list was worthless as boxing is too subjective


I left a comment on his page in the end.


----------



## Vano-irons (Jun 6, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> I left a comment on his page in the end.


:lol: what did you say?


----------



## Scalinatella (Jan 12, 2013)

Well, I salute the man for his efforts, which look considerable, even if they were flawed from the moment he used an inherently subjective term ("credible") and then tried to quantify comparisons. To be fair to him though, look at those all-time P4P lists that don't even attempt to use objective criteria and see blasphemies all day long like Ali at #1 or Roy Jones in the top ten.


----------



## fists of fury (May 24, 2013)

Interesting list, but proof that maths has no place in the world of boxing, unless it is to count $.


----------



## Mugshot (Jun 11, 2013)

This list only solidifies the point I've been trying to make ever since I was 3 years old. That being, AFRICANS DONT KNOW SHIT ABOUT BOXING! Oh, and Maths is for ass hats.


----------



## It's Ovah (Jun 6, 2013)

fists of fury said:


> Interesting list, but proof that maths has no place in the world of boxing, unless it is to count $.


I'd argue that stats have a place, a very small place, in discussions like these, but ultimately it always comes down to subjective arguments and a good dose of public opinion. Manipulation of numbers alone cannot prove something as unquantifiable as "greatness"; there's always going to be a human element involved, and when that element is flawed, as it is here, then you end up with shitty lists that make no one happy.


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

Dempsey not on...but carnera is?


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Johnstown said:


> Dempsey not on...but carnera is?


Of course, an equation was used so it is 100% correct.


----------



## Danny (May 31, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> It took Matt Hamilton 6 months to come to the conclusion that Brandon Rios is a greater fighter than Khaosai Galaxy. Matt Hamilton will never get that time back, Yiddle.


:lol:


----------



## Jack Dempsey (Jun 4, 2013)

Just heard this mentioned on the ESPN podcast so thought I would check it out, interesting way of going about it I guess


----------



## Johnstown (Jun 4, 2013)

didn't box rec use to be heavily math based..but it meant they would come up with some goofy picks..so they more or less scrapped that?


----------



## FelixTrinidad (Jun 3, 2013)

This list needs to go H2H against mine once I complete it.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Bump because this thread deserves a bump.

Everybody should know that Kostya Zoo is greater than Langford.


----------



## Boxed Ears (Jun 13, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> It took Matt Hamilton 6 months to come to the conclusion that Brandon Rios is a greater fighter than Khaosai Galaxy. Matt Hamilton will never get that time back, Yiddle.


lol and this is a major Riotard saying this. Hey Riotard, how'd it feel when Manny took your boy to school and taught to talk Tagalog. lol


----------



## Theron (May 17, 2013)

Carnera in there between Walker and Duran, where he should have always been


----------



## Chinny (Jun 10, 2012)

Just discovered this.. @Flea Man great value here, started off admiring the guys efforts, reviews list, gets angrier and wants him dead! :lol:


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Chinny said:


> Just discovered this.. @Flea Man great value here, started off admiring the guys efforts, reviews list, gets angrier and wants him dead! :lol:


I hassled him on facebook recently.

He's a joke!


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> I hassled him on facebook recently.
> 
> He's a joke!


You just can't handle Primo Carnera being greater than Duran.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

dyna said:


> You just can't handle Primo Carnera being greater than Duran.


I couldn't handle him saying Jimmy Wilde's 'actual record was about 16-4.


----------



## Casual Benson's Unknown (Jun 5, 2012)

Bobo Olson 67 places above Whitaker and Mosley in ahead of Sanchez 

Science mother fuckers


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)




----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

McGrain said:


>


:lol:


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Luf said:


> It's doubtful a better mathematician than I will ever write in these boards and even I can tell you it's bs because *they're applying objective criteria to a subjective sport.*
> 
> By that I mean let's say x beats y. And one man says that win in AAA yet another says it's B. In that case y equals not y hence the formula is based upon a gut feeling which again defeats the objective of a formula.
> 
> That's even getting into how wins/losses are actually perceived.


Or subjective criteria at least and are how high a level did you get to mate, degree in Maths was it?



Flea Man said:


> This lad should just kill himself. He has nothing to offer the world.


:lol:


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Powerpuncher said:


> Or subjective criteria at least and are how high a level did you get to mate, degree in Maths was it?
> 
> :lol:


first class honours degree and then a teaching degree mate.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Luf said:


> first class honours degree and then a teaching degree mate.


Good lad, never wanted to go down the econometrix or finance paths? Plan on staying in teaching or do you have an exit strategy. My missus wants to leave teaching (English) now we've started a family.


----------



## rossco (Jun 9, 2013)

Props for the effort but that list looks utter wank.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

he should be shameful about this until the day he dies. On his deathbed he should pray that god forgave him for this abortion of a list of greats.


----------



## DB Cooper (May 17, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Yup, too simplistic. Props for the guys effort though.


Sums up my thoughts adequately too.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Chatty said:


> he should be shameful about this until the day he dies. On his deathbed he should pray that god forgave him for this abortion of a list of greats.


:lol:


----------



## It's Ovah (Jun 6, 2013)

Should be imprisoned for five years (with chance of parole in ten months) for that list.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

He also gave the Duran win over Leonard an AA grade instead of an AAA grade.

I guess he's right, after all Leonard did fight Duran's fight. :hey


----------



## Vano-irons (Jun 6, 2012)

Latest update- Hamilton is trying to raise 20 million quid to save British boxing!


----------



## AndyPaterson (May 26, 2014)

Vano-irons said:


> Latest update- Hamilton is trying to raise 20 million quid to save British boxing!


so far he has raised the princely sum of 2 bob and a shit load of abuse and trolling :lol:


----------



## Back to Bill (Jun 5, 2012)

Vano-irons said:


> Latest update- Hamilton is trying to raise 20 million quid to save British boxing!


Did he use his mathematical criteria to come up with that sum, at the risk of him threatening to have me shot, he's a clueless cunt.


----------



## karlbadboy (Mar 5, 2014)

I ain’t seen him on social media pass few year . He was meant to be the South Africans version on Al Haymon . Extract from a bio “Matt makes recommendations in regard to clients options. In addition to finding income sources, he handles public relations matters for clients. He is able to manage various aspects of client’s finances, from investments to taxes.”


----------



## ant-man (Jun 11, 2014)

Matt Hamilton should just bloody well stick to motor racing.


----------



## Strike (Jun 4, 2012)

I just saw this for the first time, even though it's 5 years old. His ingenious maths skills managed to create the worst list I've ever seen on any subject. I guess that's an achievement of sorts.


----------



## Mexi-Box (Jun 4, 2013)

Yeah, I never saw this thread before until recently. I think maybe an association network _might_ be better. I'd imagine it'd be a case of ridiculous hard work getting every name ever into a matrix. If someone were to give me a project to do a mathematical ranking system, that'd be my first thought, though. You'd probably incure a lot of bias if you're fighting more people, though. I can already see issues, but damn, I think everything you can do for rankings has issues.


----------

