Thread: If you were in charge of a sanctioning body how would you run your rating system?

We all blast these sanctioning bodies because of the way their rating system is set up and in truth some are just outright criminal but if you were in charge of the ratings how would you have them set up?

Me I would of course have the Champion- Then the minor belt holder EG-

WBO-

Champion-

#1- NABO title holder
#2-
#3-

And so on I would rank my fighters on not who they beat in terms of skill opion wise but use actual win loss ratios on the opp they beat....

EG- A guy who beats 15 fighters with records under 60%, 50% etc is not getting ranked as high as the guy who has beaten only 4 fighters in a rtow but those 4 fighters have a combined 85% win ration between them...I know that santioning bodies should or have tried similar methods but they do not seem to enforce them well.....I know there would be other factors I would need to think about but as a Base on how I come up with the opinion is the way I mentioned above..

Anoy other opps on how you would run your rating system

Interesting idea,


Dont know if I would use a points scoring system, or if thats how the UFC determine the fights they make, but I would certainly look at how they do it. Regardless of name and standing in the game, at least the UFC get the top dogs fighting each other regularly. If I think you deserve a shot at the title then you will get one. You will always have a pool of at least 10 guy's that ya think would always give the Champ a run for his money, so allow these to fight it out and deserve his shot.

Have to give the UFC credit for that they do try to make the best matchups available....I am not sure if they even really nhave a rating system they use?...Don't know that much about how mthey do things but one thig for the UFC that is different for boxing is there is only 1 champion per division.....Makes things a whole lot simpler?

Originally Posted by DaxxKahn

Have to give the UFC credit for that they do try to make the best matchups available....I am not sure if they even really nhave a rating system they use?...Don't know that much about how mthey do things but one thig for the UFC that is different for boxing is there is only 1 champion per division.....Makes things a whole lot simpler?

Exactly, could you imagine just one Champ per weight in boxing, how much more competitive it would be, and how many more top class fights we would have as they would all be vy-ing for that one elusive shot at the Champ!!

As far as im aware UFC do not have a points system to determine the challenger, it's simply based on If you deserve it or not in the eyes of the owners of the company!!

No politics to worry about, simple and effective !

There is no official rating system in UFC BUT, It's alot easier to make the best match ups here. There is ONE champion, and he is going to defend his title against the BEST challenger out there. If there was a similar system in boxing we shouldn't worry about Haye vs Klitschko or about Floyd vs Pacman, You are either going to fight the best of the best, or get out. WBC, WBA, IBF, IBO, WBF, etc etc paper belts are a mess and in the same time 4-5 guys call themself champions. It would be great if the major 4 sanctioning bodies in boxing merge, but i highly doubt it will ever happen.

I might be wrong on this one but I thought UFC fighters were supplied to a puyrse contract for s certain amount of fights...EG- Fighter A will have 5 bouts and his contract will be for $100,000.....When they become Champion they get a certain amount of money for a defense or a certain amount pof money depending on the PPV intake or Gate etc....I do know that many MMA fighters make the gross amount of their money off of sponsors.....The better you do the more sponsors you will get I suppose?....If this is the case it makes sense that this is why they don't have such drawn out contract debates....

Isn't that why guys like Randy Coture had negotiation problems and were out of action for long periods of time they were in contract negotiations....Or do they negotiate for each bout?...I don't know an overly a lot whenh it comes to that side of MMA...I just know that on TUF they are competing for a 6 figure contract and not for one big bout....Plus the UFC offers bonuses for fight of the night fighter of the night etc...It gives guys more incentive....

Or is just pretty much fight who we tell you and take this amount or you are as out?

Id have a system similar to how boxrec works. Only without the random sudden jumps in points!

So the amount of points you get depends on who you fight and how many points they have.

E.g- Wlad would get fuck all points for beating Chisora and Chisora would lose hardly any for the loss.


That's far to honest though, if we had that though we would never have PAC

IBO Top 100 - Computerized Rankings - International Boxing Organization

The IBO have a good rating system. Completely subjective.

I'm not sure why this thread was started because I see no problem with what we have now.

We have Diamond Champions, Super Champions, Interim Champions, Silver Champions, Champion Emeritus, Champions "In Recess" and of course our normal run of the mill regular champion. In some cases we have more than one interim champion but they unify their interim titles so that isn't a problem. We also have numerous governing bodies with numerous champions in their governing body. I think by giving everyone a belt it makes them feel happier. Kinda like in pre-school, when everyone gets a medal regardless of where you finish in the race. I think it's nice. We should start handing out belts to the loser too!

Originally Posted by bzkfn

I'm not sure why this thread was started because I see no problem with what we have now.

We have Diamond Champions, Super Champions, Interim Champions, Silver Champions, Champion Emeritus, Champions "In Recess" and of course our normal run of the mill regular champion. In some cases we have more than one interim champion but they unify their interim titles so that isn't a problem. We also have numerous governing bodies with numerous champions in their governing body. I think by giving everyone a belt it makes them feel happier. Kinda like in pre-school, when everyone gets a medal regardless of where you finish in the race. I think it's nice. We should start handing out belts to the loser too!

A belt with a wooden spoon on it would be brilliant!

I would have many different weight classes and many interim belts so that every fight became a "special championship event."
Also I would let old inactive boxers hold onto their belts for many years without even fighting in that weight class.

I would sell belts. When I ran out of belt ideas I would just buy another sanctioning body and work from several angles to get the unification fights I wanted.

I would appoint the worst judges and when they did a terrible job I would reward them with more top tier fights. Nepotism would be the only way I did things. A shitty job done by someone with mob ties or my cousin is much better than competency, because I decide who fights and wins anyway.

I would have a stable of known, albeit aging fighters, and I would round robin them throughout the years against each other so that we could all keep the money between us!

Originally Posted by boozeboxer

I would have many different weight classes and many interim belts so that every fight became a "special championship event."
Also I would let old inactive boxers hold onto their belts for many years without even fighting in that weight class.

I would sell belts. When I ran out of belt ideas I would just buy another sanctioning body and work from several angles to get the unification fights I wanted.

I would appoint the worst judges and when they did a terrible job I would reward them with more top tier fights. Nepotism would be the only way I did things. A shitty job done by someone with mob ties or my cousin is much better than competency, because I decide who fights and wins anyway.

I would have a stable of known, albeit aging fighters, and I would round robin them throughout the years against each other so that we could all keep the money between us!

....So what you are saying is you would not change a thing from the way things are now

I'd use an independent ranking (Ring) to insure a little more credibility.

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

I'd use an independent ranking (Ring) to insure a little more credibility.

No one is ever independent. Not forever anyway.

In the next world
Imagine a tiered ladder system in each weight like football, you get the boot off your own ladder you go down into B division or C. Top man goes up next ladder or fights for the place with bottom man off the next ladder, whatever works best to suit the numbers of fighters odds or evens. Everyone either fights the man above them or the one below them, no escape no excuses: top money and points at the top lower money and points at the bottom.