A points ranking system to legitimise boxing rankings and championships!!
After the Ring made the changes it did to its championship policy last year like many fans I felt its championship had lost credibility. But I now realise that both the Ring championship as well as the TBRB championship which attempted to replace it are flawed for a more fundamental reason and the same reason that all organisations that rank boxers are flawed: to truly establish legitimate champions rankings just cannot be determined by opinion polls. Even if the TBRB panel is free of promotional or business influence, its members are going to have varying awareness of boxers, especially of boxers in different areas of the world, and are also going to have individual prejudices based on their knowledge of the sport. A panel is necessarily an oligarchy arbitarily determining the ranking of boxers.
That opinion polling is not sufficient to rank boxers was made apparent when I looked up why Mayweather was not the legitimate welterweight champion. Mayweather should definitely not have won a vacant championship by beating Guerrero, but there is a case to be made for him becoming champion when he beat Mosley. The Cyber Boxing Zone did consider the 2009 Margarito-Mosley fight to be for the vacant lineal championship. Deciding that this was a championship fight was clearly subjective, because it depended on whether Mosley was considered number 2 or not. Margarito would have moved to number 1 when he beat Cotto. The Ring only dropped Cotto to number 2, but if someone felt the loss should move Cotto further down then they would make Mosley number 2.
If opinion polling is used to determine ranking there will every now and then be situations where it is not clear who the number 1 or 2 boxer is. There needs to be an objective and systematic way of ranking boxers strictly on accomplishment. I'm also a tennis fan, and I think it might be possible to create a points ranking system for boxing similar to what tennis uses. The ATP has a system where players are given a set amount of points based on their success at different levels of tournaments. Players retain the points they have accrued over the last exact year, so their current points and ranking is reflective of their success over the last year.
For a ranking system to be accurate the top 30 boxers in each division would need to be ranked. 10 would not be enough.
Ranking points would be earned based on quality of opposition and success. If a boxer faces the number 30 ranked contender he would earn 1 point, if he faces the number 29 ranked contender he would earn 2 points, and so on, to if he faces the number 1 ranked contender he would earn 30 points. Fighting a champion would earn 33 points. If a boxer beats a top-30 ranked contender or champion he would earn DOUBLE the points he earned for taking the fight. Ranking points accrued over the last three exact years would be retained.
Perhaps an exhaustive panel would conduct a one-time opinion poll to determine the initial top-30 divisional rankings. Then each ranked boxer would retroactively be given the points he would have accrued from his fights over the last three years, based on the opinion poll-determined top-30 ranking of his opponents. The top-30 would then be reordered by points. It may not be sufficiently reflective of the quality of those fights to earn points from fights that occured almost three years ago based on the current top-30, but some level of objective standard would need to be established immediately. Over the next year ranking points would become more precisely indicative of the performance of boxers from the previous three years. After the top-30 rankings are first tabulated the rankings would naturally expand beyond 30 as unranked boxers fight ranked boxers, or even decrease to less than 30 if ranked boxers went more than three years without fighting another ranked boxer.
Boxers would only be able to earn ranking points in fights scheduled for 10 or 12 rounds.
Ranking points for a division could only be earned if a boxer weighs-in under the division's weight limit.
If a ranked boxer or champion is inactive in a weight division for more than 15 months he would be removed from the rankings and lose all his ranking points.
The champions as currently recognised by the TBRB would retain their championship status till beaten in a championship fight, or they are inactive for more than 15 months.
A vacant championship can only be filled when the top two boxers in a division fight.
A boxer competing in a championship fight must weigh in under the division limit to be eligible to win the championship.
Ranking points would be calculated and divisional rankings updated on the 1st and 15th of every month, for the previous three exact years. For example, the update on the 1st of December 2016 would be for fights that took place from the 1st of December 2013 to the 30th of November 2016. For recordkeeping purposes all boxers with ranking points in a division should be listed, with their ranking and points indicated. In addition to ranking points accrued over the last three years, points accrued over the current calender year could also be listed for each boxer. This would be a good indication of the most accomplished boxers of the year.
A points ranking system is important because if accepted by fans, media, boxers, and especially promoters it would force boxers to fight more often and fight boxers ranked above them if they wanted to move up the rankings and earn a shot at the championship.
I'll add that the obvious misranking of boxers in the Boxrec rankings is no argument against a points ranking system. The factors that the Boxrec system uses to determine a boxer's ranking often aren't even an indication of his success, and the system is generally bizarre and confusing.
Of course more about the system and its organisation would have to be worked out and I'm open to reconsidering anything I've proposed. Anyone who would like to offer constructive criticism, or even better would like to be part of organising and implementing this idea should contact me. This needs to be a completely democratic process, and not my personal project.
worldboxingrankings@fastmail.fm
Re: A points ranking system to legitimise boxing rankings and championships!!
What exactly would it change?
Re: A points ranking system to legitimise boxing rankings and championships!!
So you would earn twice as many points fighting number 29 rather than number 30?
That seems fair and well thought out...
Re: A points ranking system to legitimise boxing rankings and championships!!
So the number two and three Middleweights can clash, but because it is contracted for 162lbs, it does not count.
Also the moment you become champ, you do not need to fight any contender.
It is boxing, points system for rankings are always up for abuse. Boxing is always going to be in part down to politics, I cannot ever see a realistic system being brought in to resolve that.
Re: A points ranking system to legitimise boxing rankings and championships!!
Wired :-\
But still, I'm interested in the part about the Ring changing it's system?
Either way, I honestly don't care until someone promises me my Super-cruiser-weight division.
Re: A points ranking system to legitimise boxing rankings and championships!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jimanuel Boogustus
Wired :-\
But still, I'm interested in the part about the Ring changing it's system?
Either way, I honestly don't care until someone promises me my Super-cruiser-weight division.
Or a light hea... oh yeah...
Re: A points ranking system to legitimise boxing rankings and championships!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
So you would earn twice as many points fighting number 29 rather than number 30?
That seems fair and well thought out...
It doesn't seem unfair to me, because you'd earn three times as many for fighting number 28, four times as many for fighting number27, etc. It's supposed to be a sliding scale. I'm not great at math, so if someone else can come up with a fairer scale the points can be changed.
Re: A points ranking system to legitimise boxing rankings and championships!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Britkid
So the number two and three Middleweights can clash, but because it is contracted for 162lbs, it does not count.
Also the moment you become champ, you do not need to fight any contender.
It is boxing, points system for rankings are always up for abuse. Boxing is always going to be in part down to politics, I cannot ever see a realistic system being brought in to resolve that.
If the number 2 and 3 middleweights fight in an over the weight fight it would be a super middleweight fight and they would earn super middleweight ranking points. I don't think it would be fair for that fight to be considered towards their middleweight ranking. My rules also covered the situation of one boxer not making the division's weight limit in a fight between two top-30 contenders: the boxer who didn't make make weight couldn't earn points, the boxer who did make weight could.
Are you saying a champion should be required to fight a contender? I think matchmaking is beyond the reach of a ranking system, especially an objective one.
Boxing's never had a points ranking system as a precedent to say it would be abused. Subjective rankings controlled by businesses to me are much more open to abuse. A ranking system can't change boxing on its own. Maybe a promoter would make fights just so his boxer would get ranking points, so maybe boxers under some promoters would have a better chance of being ranked higher. But promoters wouldn't be able to directly decide their boxers ranking at all.
Re: A points ranking system to legitimise boxing rankings and championships!!
I made a new forum!
To discuss the ranking system I've proposed, then of course to post updates. I decided instead of polling dozens of people to get the first top-30, I'm going to try just averaging out the top-30 rankings of Boxrec and the IBO (filling in the four alphabet titlist the IBO doesn't rank based on their TBRB rank).
I'll compile a top-30 with that method at welterweight, then do a test by adding the ranking points from fights from the last three years. Once the system's running we'll need more help maintaining the rankings, but to do that you'll only need to know how to use boxrec and a calculator. If you're willing to help maintain the site, I'll also share the forum admin password with you. Who's interested?
I'm not interested anymore in debating with people who are convinced subjective rankings are necessary. Bashing the very idea of objective rankings will not be welcome in the ranking system sections, but there's also a general boxing section, which is completely open. So stop by for a chat :)
www.worldboxingrankings.proboards.com
Re: A points ranking system to legitimise boxing rankings and championships!!
I'll have the welterweight rankings ready tomorrow.
Re: A points ranking system to legitimise boxing rankings and championships!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
yaltamaltadavid
If the number 2 and 3 middleweights fight in an over the weight fight it would be a super middleweight fight and they would earn super middleweight ranking points. I don't think it would be fair for that fight to be considered towards their middleweight ranking. My rules also covered the situation of one boxer not making the division's weight limit in a fight between two top-30 contenders: the boxer who didn't make make weight couldn't earn points, the boxer who did make weight could.
Well the fact you made things so black and white turns thinks farcical. Geale and Murray fight at a contracted weight of 162, and neither can improve their 160lbs ranking. That is simply not going to work.
Quote:
Are you saying a champion should be required to fight a contender? I think matchmaking is beyond the reach of a ranking system, especially an objective one.
Without the threat of sanctions, fighters will rightly fight the lowest risk fight for maximum gain. Why risk anything else?
Quote:
Boxing's never had a points ranking system as a precedent to say it would be abused. Subjective rankings controlled by businesses to me are much more open to abuse. A ranking system can't change boxing on its own. Maybe a promoter would make fights just so his boxer would get ranking points, so maybe boxers under some promoters would have a better chance of being ranked higher. But promoters wouldn't be able to directly decide their boxers ranking at all.
There have been a number of 'points ranking systems' in the sport. No one really takes Boxrec serious, that IBU or whatever they were never got it to work, and no offence meant, just some honestly; your system is even more simplistic, inflexible and up for abuse.
But that written, good luck if you get somewhere with it. You will have achieved a lot more for the sport than me...
Re: A points ranking system to legitimise boxing rankings and championships!!
The wheel does not need to be reinvented. There are just to many good ole boy judges who on any given night will ignore the ten point must system. Lock them in a sound proof booth away from ringside and give them all the angles we get to see.
Re: A points ranking system to legitimise boxing rankings and championships!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Britkid
Quote:
Originally Posted by
yaltamaltadavid
If the number 2 and 3 middleweights fight in an over the weight fight it would be a super middleweight fight and they would earn super middleweight ranking points. I don't think it would be fair for that fight to be considered towards their middleweight ranking. My rules also covered the situation of one boxer not making the division's weight limit in a fight between two top-30 contenders: the boxer who didn't make make weight couldn't earn points, the boxer who did make weight could.
Well the fact you made things so black and white turns thinks farcical. Geale and Murray fight at a contracted weight of 162, and neither can improve their 160lbs ranking. That is simply not going to work.
Quote:
Are you saying a champion should be required to fight a contender? I think matchmaking is beyond the reach of a ranking system, especially an objective one.
Without the threat of sanctions, fighters will rightly fight the lowest risk fight for maximum gain. Why risk anything else?
Quote:
Boxing's never had a points ranking system as a precedent to say it would be abused. Subjective rankings controlled by businesses to me are much more open to abuse. A ranking system can't change boxing on its own. Maybe a promoter would make fights just so his boxer would get ranking points, so maybe boxers under some promoters would have a better chance of being ranked higher. But promoters wouldn't be able to directly decide their boxers ranking at all.
There have been a number of 'points ranking systems' in the sport. No one really takes Boxrec serious, that IBU or whatever they were never got it to work, and no offence meant, just some honestly; your system is even more simplistic, inflexible and up for abuse.
But that written, good luck if you get somewhere with it. You will have achieved a lot more for the sport than me...
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.
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.
There haven't been a 'number' of points ranking systems. I don't think you can name another besides boxrec and the IBO. 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.
Re: A points ranking system to legitimise boxing rankings and championships!!
Initial top-30 rankings for heavyweight to light welterweight are now posted! This is really falling into place nicely, and I suspect by within a few months it will produce rankings more strictly based on accomplishments than any other rankings. The other divisions will be up in time for this to be ready for the fights in September. Check it out and let me know what you think...
www.worldboxingrankings.proboards.com
Re: A points ranking system to legitimise boxing rankings and championships!!
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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... ;)
Quote:
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.
Re: A points ranking system to legitimise boxing rankings and championships!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Britkid
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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... ;)
Quote:
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.
Re: A points ranking system to legitimise boxing rankings and championships!!
As far as weight... we obviously just don't agree.
Re: A points ranking system to legitimise boxing rankings and championships!!
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
