Should excitement be factored into ranking systems?

No and I think the idea is fucking ridiculous. Not the thread idea......that's not bad. Boxing would just evolve into a freak show with over the top entertainers who consistently lost fights and would still be rated above their counterparts who beat the living shit out of them. That's what the WWE is for. Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!

Everybody has their own idea of what exciting is. Where one guy may find a crude brawler like Gatti exciting, another guy may enjoy a fistic concerto a la Roy Jones....so no, excitement cannot be factored into rankings.

Realistically though rankings should mean that they have to fight each other. It's a travesty that there can be a number one and number two ranked fighter that never meet nowadays. Or isn't that one of the biggest problems with boxing today? What are you talking about? P4p Rankings? Sometimes there are two top p4p fighters that can't ever fight each other because of the weight division difference. All they can do is out-accomplish each other and beat the best within their and around their respective divisions. Anyway floyd is #1 p4p and he is fighting a top 10 in Hatton. As far as #1 and #2 in the same divison goes. We are getting plenty of those....sometimes a mandatory who is waisting the champion's and the fans time AND sometimes a legitimate contender like Pavlik was to Taylor.....OR....Mikkel Kessler is to Calzaghe. (although kessler does have two sanctioning belts, Calzaghe is the true champ)

that's the thing, rankings does not really mean fighters have to fight easch other so excitement plays a big role in that aspect... you still didn't answer the question on who you are going to give the number 1 rank... when you say give it BY who is best is pretty vague... how will you say who is best then? excitement is a tie-breaker... like i said earlier, it does not constitute the majority of the criteria but it plays a part... let's go to tennis then if you're quite persistent... seems like your one Wimbledon junkie :D Take the case of roger federrer... the guy is the best right now and his skill makes him exciting to watch... see my point when i said it comes hand in hand? Realistically though rankings should mean that they have to fight each other. It's a travesty that there can be a number one and number two ranked fighter that never meet nowadays. Or isn't that one of the biggest problems with boxing today?

No your right Air Keng. I was just using that dumbass arguement against him. Mayweathers demolition of Corrales and Gatti, who are fan favorites beacause of their, Jim Lampley voice "BLOOD AND GUTS WARRIORS!" type of fighting should have put Mayweather on top of the p4p "exciting" list using their dumbass "logic". You see, I go in watching fights between two opponents knowing what I'm going to get. If I watch a Floyd fight, I'm know I'm going to see a true master tactician. And I appreciate and UNDERSTAND what I'm watching. Where as tonight, I expect to see fireworks from Pac-Man against Barrera. And I love that too. Not every fight can be a "OMG GATTI WARD WARBBQ". A true fan and follower of the fight game can appreciate the difference. Unfortunatley, you got fanbois who don't. Nicely stated and I can see why, your name says it all. And as far as knocking out people being part of the p4p criteria. What about all the feather-fisted fighters out there who don't have alot of punching power but are making up for it with ability and conditioning. They're also showing heart by putting their health at stake fighting even though they can't crack an egg. If a feather fisted fighter can outbox and beat a guy who is exciting and has knocked out alot of other fighters......then I think that guy should get his props for that.

No your right Air Keng. I was just using that dumbass arguement against him. Mayweathers demolition of Corrales and Gatti, who are fan favorites beacause of their, Jim Lampley voice "BLOOD AND GUTS WARRIORS!" type of fighting should have put Mayweather on top of the p4p "exciting" list using their dumbass "logic". You see, I go in watching fights between two opponents knowing what I'm going to get. If I watch a Floyd fight, I'm know I'm going to see a true master tactician. And I appreciate and UNDERSTAND what I'm watching. Where as tonight, I expect to see fireworks from Pac-Man against Barrera. And I love that too. Not every fight can be a "OMG GATTI WARD WARBBQ". A true fan and follower of the fight game can appreciate the difference. Unfortunatley, you got fanbois who don't.

was naseem part of the 9/11 attack? Yes, he flew a plane into a building and still managed to get back to Sheffield in time to crash his $300,000 car.

If one fighter wins every fight by knockout and the other wins every fight by wide decision then they should be ranked by who is best. Here's a thought, maybe they should fight each other! Fact is that an exciting fighter is a guy who can take a beating and get up from a losing effort and win by knockout, a guy who is willing to take punishment to give punishment, a guy like Arturo Gatti. But Gatti isn't the best and never has been, nor should he be, Rankings should be based on ability. Pay is of course based on popularity and as we have seen, exciting fighters tend to be more popular. And that's fine too. Anna Kournikova was for a time the highest paid female tennis player, but was she the best? Not even close! She was certainly more exciting than Martina Navratilova ever was... Comparisons with other sports is valid. Rankings should be based on ability, not on whether or not the fighter puts on a show. And although I don't like Mayweather the amount of crap he gets on here is unwarranted. I know Mayweather fans are for a large part spotty oiks, but he's still the best in the world, even if he is going to lose to Hatton.

he just ate too much. Which is a symptom of depression.

thats why Marquez and Vasquez just jumped through to the top of the p4p lists, It's not the fact that they are "exciting" it's more so how they win. By knockouts. That should play a factor in the p4p rankings, how you are winning. But as far as being exciting.....well I think Mayorga was exciting as they come (in both Forrest and Tito fights). That doesn't equal him to being in the top 5 pound for pound though.

Naz was exciting...I miss Naz. Too bad he went into a spiraling depression after he got his ass kicked by Barrera.

So you hate Floyd with "logic", and "insurmountable common sense" huh? Well riddle me this dumbass. Hasn't Floyd put gianormous ass whuppins on two of the most exciting fighters that have ever fought? If I got to give you the names of said fighters, then you shouldn't be talking out of your neck. So on the p4p "excitement scale" wouldn't Floyd STILL be number one?

it really shouldnt, but it is a part of the rankings. thats why Ali is overwhelmingly considered the best heavyweight of all time, thats why Marquez and Vasquez just jumped through to the top of the p4p lists, thats why old time fighters are sometimes considered so far ahead of todays fighters. and you should somewhat be ranked by 'excitement'. usually exciting fights go hand in hand with looking 'impressive', and looked impressive against good fighters make you jump up any rankings.

I think it should be a little bit.......but not if the fighter is losing but it's exciting.....but say you have two fighters with similar records and both have been winning.....maybe the more crowd pleasing fighter should get the slightly higher rank.......I think it already slightly factors in anyway.

Only idiots will not vote yes. You wanna know why people? It's because if you don't add excitement to the sport as a criteria of greatness, then this sport will be dominated by Fake Floyds running like chickens and John Ruiz hugging ala Papa Bear. Making a fight exciting is difficult. And people pay good money to see a good fight. So those people who voted no. I say you're idiots. Are tennis rankings based on who is the most exciting player? Are motor racing rankings based on who races in the most daring way? Do we base the Superbowl winner on the team who may win or may lose but always make it fun to watch? Rankings of any kind should be based on ability and performance, not on an arbitrary and subjective notion on who made for the best spectacle. You are the idiot, my friend.

Fair question... But I believe it will only be a matter of public opinion as indicated by your poll results, and not part of an official ranking system. It'd be nice to have an excitement meter at the lower left corner of you tv screen to gauge the crowd's reaction during a fight. Then again, you'll only be gauging the loudness of the crowd at the event, rather than the excitement level of any one particular fighter's attributes. I may be off on this point.:boxing:

Come on now it's called boxing,not excitement.

Assuming your talking about p4p rankings, then of course not, its abouot skill and level of opposition, excitement has nothing to do with either of those two things.

If it doesn't count, imagine a slightly better version of Zahir Raheem dominating the boxing scene. However, it shouldn't even be more than 20%. Otherwise, this won't be boxing anymore.

i think yes coz if youre dominating the fight and still playing safe..come on 3 - 4 months of training!!! shi........