Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A points ranking system to legitimise boxing rankings!!!!!!!

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A points ranking system to legitimise boxing rankings!!!!!!!

    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 ********ic process, and not my personal project.

    worldboxingrankings at fastmail.fm

  • #2
    This isn't something that should be ignored! What do you guys think? Could a points ranking system come up with fair rankings? If it could work how would it become viable?

    Comment


    • #3
      valiant effort but would never work. this is boxing

      Comment


      • #4
        You mean like boxrec does?

        Comment


        • #5
          never understood why Ring changed their belt policy
          it was easy to accept their belt's rules as grounds for lineage before
          no more unifying WBA/WBC/IBF for the belt, but #1 can fight #5?
          no need for all this point system stuff
          just make the titlists unify or clear #1 beats the clear #2

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Jack Napier View Post
            never understood why Ring changed their belt policy
            it was easy to accept their belt's rules as grounds for lineage before
            no more unifying WBA/WBC/IBF for the belt, but #1 can fight #5?
            no need for all this point system stuff
            just make the titlists unify or clear #1 beats the clear #2
            because the top three wouldn't tight each other.... And yet we still have vacant belts

            Comment


            • #7
              Just doesn't work.

              If a fighter is injured or his opponents pull out and he doesn't fight for 10 months that means he is penalized in the rankings because someone else fought a couple of 10-12 round fights. Tennis works because disregarding injury you will play a certain number of matches a year sometimes facing the same person multiple times throughout a year.

              Say Mayweather takes 15 months off and he fights Marquez and Marquez wins Marquez would get no points would be no further up in the rankings. Additionally what becomes acceptable for a champion to fight can he only fight the top 2-3. What if the previous champion who vacated comes back to the division, he would have no points but can he jump straight to a championship fight? The former champion wouldn't have any points so other top ranked contenders might not fight him to ruin their rankings.

              And what happens when you move up in weight, do you points stay the same? So you automatically skip ahead of other guys in the new division? Are your points discounted so you have slightly less because of the weight? Furthermore moving up in weight would someone fighting you get points from your previous ranking in the lower weight division if they won? Or would they get none at all because you don't have points in that division.

              And I think boxers once they are at the top wouldn't really care about the rankings, the main motivation is money and once they realise they can pick and choose whoever to earn money regardless of rankings then rankings become obsolete.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Ryn0 View Post
                Just doesn't work.

                If a fighter is injured or his opponents pull out and he doesn't fight for 10 months that means he is penalized in the rankings because someone else fought a couple of 10-12 round fights. Tennis works because disregarding injury you will play a certain number of matches a year sometimes facing the same person multiple times throughout a year.

                Say Mayweather takes 15 months off and he fights Marquez and Marquez wins Marquez would get no points would be no further up in the rankings. Additionally what becomes acceptable for a champion to fight can he only fight the top 2-3. What if the previous champion who vacated comes back to the division, he would have no points but can he jump straight to a championship fight? The former champion wouldn't have any points so other top ranked contenders might not fight him to ruin their rankings.

                And what happens when you move up in weight, do you points stay the same? So you automatically skip ahead of other guys in the new division? Are your points discounted so you have slightly less because of the weight? Furthermore moving up in weight would someone fighting you get points from your previous ranking in the lower weight division if they won? Or would they get none at all because you don't have points in that division.

                And I think boxers once they are at the top wouldn't really care about the rankings, the main motivation is money and once they realise they can pick and choose whoever to earn money regardless of rankings then rankings become obsolete.

                Thanks for the reply. Good questions

                Yes, if a boxer didn't fight for 10 months he could very well move down the rankings if another boxer ranked within a few spots below him fights a couple top-30 opponents. I don't think that's unfair. But he wouldn't necessarily move down. It would depend on the exact level of opposition the lower ranked boxer fought.

                I guess you're essentially saying that boxers wouldn't have the same opportunity to earn back points as tennis players becaue boxers don't compete as often. That's why the one-year period tennis uses wouldn't be long enough for boxing, so three years would be a more accurate reflection of their success. It should still work because it's relative: top boxers generally all fight 3 or 4 times a year. There would be a fair bit of ranking movement with my system. After 10 months off a boxer would have a chance to earn his ranking back with one quality win.

                Yes, if this system was in use when Mayweather fought Marquez, Marquez wouldn't have earned points if he won. In fact if Marquez had even one fight against a top-30 opponent welterweight Mayweather would earn points and be ranked above Marquez. It seems harsh, but a boxer shouldn't hold a high ranking if he's inactive. And if a boxer beats an unranked opponent that opponent's name or past success shouldn't affect ranking. That's a problem I have with so many subjective rankings. It's pretty rare that a boxer will be inactive anyway, so it shouldn't be something to worry about. Even De la Hoya when he was only fighting once a year only went over 15 months without fighting once, after Hopkins.

                A champion can fight whoever he wants. Ranking doesn't have a right to make fights.

                Of course a previous champion could fight for a championship even if he had no points. You're right that other top contenders might not want to fight him knowing it wouldn't earn them points. But it's the comebacking boxer or boxer new to a division who should have to prove himself, no one's obligated to fight him.

                Regarding moving up in weight, my system makes it pretty easy: a boxer would have separate ranking points in any division in which he fought a top-30 opponent in the previous three years. He would only lose all his points when he didn't compete in a division for 15 months. No, someone

                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.

                Yes, money and prestige have always made the fights in boxing. Boxers wouldn't be prevented from electing to fight a bigger money fight while a ranking system was still in place and at least somewhat accepted. The rankings would be to give clarity to fans and media. Some boxers you would hope have enough pride to fight for a championship with objective legitimacy as much as money. The fantasy is that promoters actually accept that, then there would be real change.
                Last edited by yaltamaltadavid; 08-23-2013, 08:24 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  The BCS proved its a failure

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Russian Crushin View Post
                    The BCS proved its a failure
                    What's the BCS? If it's some other boxing points ranking system, it doesn't prove mine can't be effective, but only that the criteria it used to assign points wasn't fair.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X
                    TOP