Thread: A points ranking system to legitimise boxing rankings and championships!!

Originally Posted by yaltamaltadavid

Weight needs to be black and white for fights to determine rankings. I'm sure you accept that a boxer can't miss weight and win a title, so fights over the weight should only affect ranking in the divsion above. It's especially not fair to other boxers who do consistently fight at the lower division.That principle is one standardised rankings need to stick to.

You always need grey areas in boxing. There is no point penalizing two middleweight contenders for fighting each other at a contracted weight a little above 160lbs.

This is still boxing, if a guy chooses to not fight the number 1 contender in favour of a more marquee fighter he has every right to. But if clear, objective rankings are accepted fans and media can see that such a boxer can't pull the wool over the public's eyes and claim he fights the best. Alphabet belts allow boxers to get away with fighting mismatched opponents. And if any rankings body has the power to determine fights it will always be open to influence from promoters. If fair objective rankings became accepted and entrenched they'll in fact have much more success at pushing boxers to take on better competition.

So what you are saying is there is grey areas in boxing then?

There haven't been a 'number' of points ranking systems. I don't think you can name another besides boxrec and the IBO.

Not trying to be pedantic, but...

The IBO is a sanctioning body and a business, and that it sells championships to garbage fighters so it can make money is proof enough that their rankings are worthless. Credible rankings must be independent. The boxrec rankings are not reflective of strict performace because they use so many irrelevant factors in their bizarre algorithym. Even if it did produce rankings reflective of simple accomplishments their system has little appeal because it's not clear and predictable, while what I've proposed is simple and transparent.

But what you have created is a rating of those bastardized organizations. And because your system is so simple and transparent, it will in a sport like boxing be open to abuse. Personally I do not think boxing ratings using mathematical formulas (no matter how simple) work, but if you are serious you need to find a way to measure intangibles.

Boxing to me though, is as much an art as it science, and thus there are certain measurements that are just opinion and totally open, and so cannot be scientifically measured.

Originally Posted by Britkid

Originally Posted by yaltamaltadavid

Weight needs to be black and white for fights to determine rankings. I'm sure you accept that a boxer can't miss weight and win a title, so fights over the weight should only affect ranking in the divsion above. It's especially not fair to other boxers who do consistently fight at the lower division.That principle is one standardised rankings need to stick to.

You always need grey areas in boxing. There is no point penalizing two middleweight contenders for fighting each other at a contracted weight a little above 160lbs.

This is still boxing, if a guy chooses to not fight the number 1 contender in favour of a more marquee fighter he has every right to. But if clear, objective rankings are accepted fans and media can see that such a boxer can't pull the wool over the public's eyes and claim he fights the best. Alphabet belts allow boxers to get away with fighting mismatched opponents. And if any rankings body has the power to determine fights it will always be open to influence from promoters. If fair objective rankings became accepted and entrenched they'll in fact have much more success at pushing boxers to take on better competition.

So what you are saying is there is grey areas in boxing then?

There haven't been a 'number' of points ranking systems. I don't think you can name another besides boxrec and the IBO.

Not trying to be pedantic, but...

The IBO is a sanctioning body and a business, and that it sells championships to garbage fighters so it can make money is proof enough that their rankings are worthless. Credible rankings must be independent. The boxrec rankings are not reflective of strict performace because they use so many irrelevant factors in their bizarre algorithym. Even if it did produce rankings reflective of simple accomplishments their system has little appeal because it's not clear and predictable, while what I've proposed is simple and transparent.

But what you have created is a rating of those bastardized organizations. And because your system is so simple and transparent, it will in a sport like boxing be open to abuse. Personally I do not think boxing ratings using mathematical formulas (no matter how simple) work, but if you are serious you need to find a way to measure intangibles.

Boxing to me though, is as much an art as it science, and thus there are certain measurements that are just opinion and totally open, and thus cannot be scientifically measured.

Indeed 2 is a number, haha. Anyway, your point is taken that no rankings are perfect.. the ATP rankings that I used as broad model aren't perfect either. I would still prefer rankings with consistency, where even suprising rankings could be explained. But the proof will be in the pudding... I'll bump this after the October update to let you know how the September fights affect the rankings.

As far as weight... we obviously just don't agree.

The only way to have a legitimate ranking system is with one governing body. Like in tennis you have the ATP and everyone has a ranking. Or in football with FIFA. The problem with boxing is you have too many organisations, too many world titles. For example the middleweights. People can debate all they want about who's the best, is it Golovkin, is it Martinez, is it Quilin but what most will agree is it certainly aint Geale or Barker, yet they were ranked number 1.

I'm not a regular so apologise for 'agenda-posting'. But I've continued to devote myself to this ranking system with two other people, and managed to show how it holds up over a longer period with ww rankings since 1997.

Through maintaining this I've actually become less enthusiastic about any change unofficial rankings or lineal championship recognition can have. Despite the easy targets of the alphabets, like the post above me noted, the promotional structure of boxing prevents rankings from meaning anything. I'm a big supporter of AIBA's plan to run the whole of boxing as a proper governing body, with a set matchmaking structure. But till then boxing will be basically based on mismatches, and accepting 'fantasy champions' is just sticking your head in the sand. I'd rather make the pointlessness of championships and rankings apparent with our rankings than have people embrace them as the best.

Anyway, I think the system at least has its relative merits and the rankings show some assumptions of others aren't warranted: for example that Porter's a monster after beating Malignaggi, though Malignaggi never beat a ranked welterweight. Rankings should be truly divisional and level of opposition should be paramount.

Home | World Boxing Rankings