“On their best night” how much weight does this carry?

[them_apples]

You can make the comparison in the wild, a bear entering foreign territory vs a bear defending its young or den are 2 different animals.

lets look at Ali vs Frazier 1: Ali has throughly gotten under joes skin. Frazier is the heavyweight champ and Ali is stealing the show and calling him “boy” in reference to Joes background. Joe’s personality was that of the bully beater. His role as a youth as we know was sticking up for kids on the way home, probably for extra food. Frazier this night is gonna fight to the death. He’s in phenomenal shape, and in those open rounds Ali hit him with everything but the moon. Frazier ate them and kept coming, even as the majority of the first few rounds Ali was able to slide off a lot of punches that looked like they were landing. Its in those later rounds, with his eyes shut - that Joe timed some very hard flush punches. One to the body, and another to the head that dropped Ali. This was all in rounds that don’t exist anymore.

then lets look at Duran vs Leonard 1. Duran HATES arrogant Americans. He lived as a youth while arrogant Americans occupied his city and belittled his people and mother. Luckily, most americans were scared of Duran. Leonard was their superstar, the next Ali. He wasn’t allowed to be scared of Duran. But inside he was. And in the opening rounds Duran hurt him so bad he was in survival for the next 4. Let me ask you, who could with stand this mental and physical barrage throughout history on that night?

so when we judge fighters, shouldn’t we always be using their best night? And what if some fighters never had the chance to offer their best night.

[DeeMoney]

You can make the comparison in the wild, a bear entering foreign territory vs a bear defending its young or den are 2 different animals.

lets look at Ali vs Frazier 1: Ali has throughly gotten under joes skin. Frazier is the heavyweight champ and Ali is stealing the show and calling him “boy” in reference to Joes background. Joe’s personality was that of the bully beater. His role as a youth as we know was sticking up for kids on the way home, probably for extra food. Frazier this night is gonna fight to the death. He’s in phenomenal shape, and in those open rounds Ali hit him with everything but the moon. Frazier ate them and kept coming, even as the majority of the first few rounds Ali was able to slide off a lot of punches that looked like they were landing. Its in those later rounds, with his eyes shut - that Joe timed some very hard flush punches. One to the body, and another to the head that dropped Ali. This was all in rounds that don’t exist anymore.

then lets look at Duran vs Leonard 1. Duran HATES arrogant Americans. He lived as a youth while arrogant Americans occupied his city and belittled his people and mother. Luckily, most americans were scared of Duran. Leonard was their superstar, the next Ali. He wasn’t allowed to be scared of Duran. But inside he was. And in the opening rounds Duran hurt him so bad he was in survival for the next 4. Let me ask you, who could with stand this mental and physical barrage throughout history on that night?

so when we judge fighters, shouldn’t we always be using their best night? And what if some fighters never had the chance to offer their best night.

I think "their best night" is too small of a sample size to get an accurate impression of what the fighter was. Moreover, there are a lot of external variables that impact what we see on this supposed best night that can muddy up our view of said fighter.

I prefer to look at their prime few years; it gives a more accurate and consistent view of said fighter and can cut through most of the noise brought on by external variables (most notably we are judging them against another fighter who we may not know how close they are to their best night).

[them_apples]

I think "their best night" is too small of a sample size to get an accurate impression of what the fighter was. Moreover, there are a lot of external variables that impact what we see on this supposed best night that can muddy up our view of said fighter.

I prefer to look at their prime few years; it gives a more accurate and consistent view of said fighter and can cut through most of the noise brought on by external variables (most notably we are judging them against another fighter who we may not know how close they are to their best night).

this is a great way of averaging, but also too small of a pool size to make any of a difference, you know what I mean? so when we speak of mythical matchups, should a said night be a better example? I think the discrepancy of ones prime years, usually only involves 5-10 fights - I think the difference between those days would be quite vast still.

I get what you mean in terms of judgement, that's how it should be done. they are faced with various challenges on different days in their "prime years" it's a good indicator of where they should stand and how they might react. But in a mythical matchup, a specific day might be of better concern, other wise whats the sense of picking a fighter over another fighter if you feel he may have lost on a specific day.

A fighters greatest night is the greatest he has ever performed. Any further capability is a guess. A fighter could just as much fold under certain circumstances in the right situation. Look at Foreman vs Ali. Nobody would have predicted that outcome, and by reading the press clippings - nobody did.

[DeeMoney]

this is a great way of averaging, but also too small of a pool size to make any of a difference, you know what I mean? so when we speak of mythical matchups, should a said night be a better example? I think the discrepancy of ones prime years, usually only involves 5-10 fights - I think the difference between those days would be quite vast still.

I get what you mean in terms of judgement, that's how it should be done. they are faced with various challenges on different days in their "prime years" it's a good indicator of where they should stand and how they might react. But in a mythical matchup, a specific day might be of better concern, other wise whats the sense of picking a fighter over another fighter if you feel he may have lost on a specific day.

A fighters greatest night is the greatest he has ever performed. Any further capability is a guess. A fighter could just as much fold under certain circumstances in the right situation. Look at Foreman vs Ali. Nobody would have predicted that outcome, and by reading the press clippings - nobody did.

I agree with that, but like I wrote there is just too much noise from other variables that impact any given fight. The only point of reference we have for how good said fighter was, was the single opponent. If we use the Rumble as Ali's best night (in your example) then how much do we have to consider it not so much Ali's best night as it was Foreman's worst? Did the layoff negatively impact him so much that he was bad, and make Ali look good.

That example is an easy one, but I am sure virtually every other fight has similar subtle issues, primarily from the level the opponent is at, which can skew are perspective.

Now, as you cited, even a given prime is a small sample size (5-10 fights nowadays) but I think it gives us better perspective as to who the fighter is.

In either case, you are correct that an aggregate, median, or average ranking of a perceived prime is just a guess; but I think its a reliable guess. Your points are valid though, just a matter of opinion I believe and which measuring point we like best.

[them_apples]

I agree with that, but like I wrote there is just too much noise from other variables that impact any given fight. The only point of reference we have for how good said fighter was, was the single opponent. If we use the Rumble as Ali's best night (in your example) then how much do we have to consider it not so much Ali's best night as it was Foreman's worst? Did the layoff negatively impact him so much that he was bad, and make Ali look good.

That example is an easy one, but I am sure virtually every other fight has similar subtle issues, primarily from the level the opponent is at, which can skew are perspective.

Now, as you cited, even a given prime is a small sample size (5-10 fights nowadays) but I think it gives us better perspective as to who the fighter is.

In either case, you are correct that an aggregate, median, or average ranking of a perceived prime is just a guess; but I think its a reliable guess. Your points are valid though, just a matter of opinion I believe and which measuring point we like best.

yeah very good points, I see what you are saying.

[The Old LefHook]

A bundle..

[billeau2]

You can make the comparison in the wild, a bear entering foreign territory vs a bear defending its young or den are 2 different animals.

lets look at Ali vs Frazier 1: Ali has throughly gotten under joes skin. Frazier is the heavyweight champ and Ali is stealing the show and calling him “boy” in reference to Joes background. Joe’s personality was that of the bully beater. His role as a youth as we know was sticking up for kids on the way home, probably for extra food. Frazier this night is gonna fight to the death. He’s in phenomenal shape, and in those open rounds Ali hit him with everything but the moon. Frazier ate them and kept coming, even as the majority of the first few rounds Ali was able to slide off a lot of punches that looked like they were landing. Its in those later rounds, with his eyes shut - that Joe timed some very hard flush punches. One to the body, and another to the head that dropped Ali. This was all in rounds that don’t exist anymore.

then lets look at Duran vs Leonard 1. Duran HATES arrogant Americans. He lived as a youth while arrogant Americans occupied his city and belittled his people and mother. Luckily, most americans were scared of Duran. Leonard was their superstar, the next Ali. He wasn’t allowed to be scared of Duran. But inside he was. And in the opening rounds Duran hurt him so bad he was in survival for the next 4. Let me ask you, who could with stand this mental and physical barrage throughout history on that night?

so when we judge fighters, shouldn’t we always be using their best night? And what if some fighters never had the chance to offer their best night.

As long as we are consistent IMO the criteria for best, or worse, does not matter. Another way to look at this is how long a fighter is at prime... Not long! really. But we use it consistently.

[billeau2]

this is a great way of averaging, but also too small of a pool size to make any of a difference, you know what I mean? so when we speak of mythical matchups, should a said night be a better example? I think the discrepancy of ones prime years, usually only involves 5-10 fights - I think the difference between those days would be quite vast still.

I get what you mean in terms of judgement, that's how it should be done. they are faced with various challenges on different days in their "prime years" it's a good indicator of where they should stand and how they might react. But in a mythical matchup, a specific day might be of better concern, other wise whats the sense of picking a fighter over another fighter if you feel he may have lost on a specific day.

A fighters greatest night is the greatest he has ever performed. Any further capability is a guess. A fighter could just as much fold under certain circumstances in the right situation. Look at Foreman vs Ali. Nobody would have predicted that outcome, and by reading the press clippings - nobody did.

There is one glaring weakness to this: Lets call it the Cindarella syndrome... You get Buster Douglas, and for a night he has his pumpkin carriage, his dress, lol. Seriously some fighters have an uncharacteristically great night and that is it.