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 democratic process, and not my personal project. worldboxingrankings at fastmail.fm

Comments (20)

My main problem with existing rankings and the reason I thought of this idea is that the most recent win is overrated. I have difficulty accepting that one fight is a significant reflection of a boxer's impact on a division. Arreola has never really beaten anyone of quality. Getting his ass handed to him by Stiverne is a reality. Stiverne won. He moves ahead. If the formula doesn't reflect that, the formula doesn't work. Trust me. I have tried formulas to VERY mixed results. See the jr. Division Top 20s I did a few years back. Some were good. Some were NOT. Anything that comes up with Arreola 3 isn't right. Not saying don't keep at it. Maybe there is a perfect recipe. I think you'll be frustrated. Boxing is what it is. It's a what did you do for me lately enterprise. That dictates what people want to see. Again, ATP doesn't work here. No one fights enough. You need 3 year old results to get to a 'body of work.'

12y ago

yaltamaltadavid

12y ago

yaltamaltadavid

While there is some interesting stuff here, I see right away at Heavyweight something that makes me say, "yup, formulas just as problematic as people." Chris Arreola -3 Bermane Stiverne - 9 Stiverne just kicked Arreola's ass a few months ago. 9-3 and 10-2 type scores. Dropped him. Arreola doesn't have a win of any note since. Mitchell sucks. People can SEE that. They also SAW Stiverne. Formulas don't see. In a low output (meaning guys don't fight that often) sport, recent events have currency. This isn't tennis where people play 10-12 tourneys a year. What Arreola did 3 years ago doesn't matter near as much as STIVERNE KICKED HIS ASS and no rating that doesn't reflect that is 'right.' I've flirted with formulas for AT ratings, for divisionals too (as I noted when you emailed me before). Ultimately, I concluded they come with their own problems. This is a perfect example. I wish you good luck. A math offset to people can have its advantages but it's not an answer either. Like the college football BCS, things like this ultimately piss people off because a formula is betraying their eyes. Since people ultimately choose the tools they utilize, it dooms the system. Hi Cliff, As I mentioned, starting out is tricky and it will take a while for the system to flesh out, so Arreola's position shouldn't yet be considered reflective of the system. But with the system this 'could' be one of those occasions when a fighter soon after moves ahead of the fighter he recently lost, because Arreola's body of success is likely greater. Head to head, Stiverne definitely proved he's better. But I think consistency is what should be most rewarded. And Stiverne hasn't beaten another top-20 heavy, right? But Arreola at least fought a couple fringe 20-ish guys, and lost to top opposition. Stiverne I think should have to prove himself against another decent opponent before we know his win over Arreola wasn't merely because of stylistic advantage. Again I can't say for sure where the system would place them had it been firmly in place, I'm guessing from looking at their records that Arreola could be slightly ahead, but Stiverne could very well be ahead because the better opposition Arreola fought was more than three years previous. If consistent success is accepted as the prime criteria, I don't think it invalidates the system if there are occasions when a fighter even moves below the fighter he just beat. With the three year cycle, there could be occasions similar to what's very occasionally happened in tennis... after Nadal beat Ferrer in the French Open final, he actually moved BELOW Ferrer in the rankings. No one's saying that invalidates the tennis rankings, and I don't think similar rankings would invalidate strictly quantifiable rankings for boxing. If that happens even 3% of the time, I agree this system won't work. Yes, the low output for boxing is the main difficulty with objective rankings. I also found there are difficulties because only 30 are ranked and rankings could be less accurate the further down you go, but I think objective rankings would be accurate if basically every active boxer was ranked. I admit the fractured structure of boxing makes this impossible, so objective rankings I don't think can currently be as accurate as they could be. But I actually have a bit of a wild solution as to how a single international body for boxing like FIFA or the ATP could work to correct this, and how in that case objective rankings would work from top to bottom, which I'll detail on forums soon (it wouldn't include regularly scheduled fights however, as that would never work for boxing). Though much more wouldn't be fair, I think anything less than a three year ranking period is not sufficient. I don't know if you gave your experiment that long. What I definitely did find is earlier fights can't be backgraded, because of course each fight would need to be graded based on both fighters' ranking at the time. So I think it would be impossible to numerically grade ATG rankings. Unless you somehow started in 1900 and proceeded to do progressive monthly rankings updates since then! Also, it's exactly that a formula obfuscates the rankings that's a major reason I'm against the boxrec rankings (and of course because their specific criteria is flawed). I'm no stats-obsessed engineering-type, and the system I'm proposing is clean and simple and more like the standings in a sports league or the ATP rankings than those American football rankings, which I took a quick look at when others mentioned them. You can look at a sports league's standings and know how each team needs to do to reach a certain position or to make the playoffs, and our ranking system is about as simple. While I don't know much more about either baseball or American football, I do know that the MLB plays the most games of any sports league and the NFL plays the fewest, about ten times less. Yet the NFL seems to go by the same simple wins and losses criteria to determine standings. At least FIFA makes an effort to adjust records when comparing national teams who don't play each other. Shouldn't that mean the NFL standings aren't sufficiently reflective of success? And if the NFL is able to get by with a system so similar to the MLB's, shouldn't boxing with its similarly proportional sample size compared to tennis should be able to use a similar system to the ATP's without compromising itself significantly? If this project proves in three or so years to not work, then it doesn't work. But till fair objective rankings are proven impossible, I'm going to give it a go. If it works close to how I think it will, I think these or similar rankings will be what can truly clear up the confusion with rankings and championships.

12y ago

crold1

In the last month the initial rankings were settled, and there's been further debate and clarification about the system's methods. The first updates are now posted for heavyweight and welterweight, and the rest will be posted by the 1st. I do need to note that the rankings should not be taken as authoritative in the early stages, but could take a full three years to flesh out, though sooner if ranked fighters fight each other more often. The TBRB recently added their rules in Spanish, so I'm thinking of soon adding our rules in Spanish, French, German, Russian, Tagalog, Japanese, and Thai (haha). Take a look, and if you think objective rankings are worthwhile leave any constructive criticism you have. If you support the project as it stands, we're still looking for more help maintaining the rankings. I'm hoping this can be shared between 17 people, with one person managing each division. Again, if you're dead set against the idea, please keep your comments here on the Scene forum. http://worldboxingrankings.proboards.com/ While there is some interesting stuff here, I see right away at Heavyweight something that makes me say, "yup, formulas just as problematic as people." Chris Arreola -3 Bermane Stiverne - 9 Stiverne just kicked Arreola's ass a few months ago. 9-3 and 10-2 type scores. Dropped him. Arreola doesn't have a win of any note since. Mitchell sucks. People can SEE that. They also SAW Stiverne. Formulas don't see. In a low output (meaning guys don't fight that often) sport, recent events have currency. This isn't tennis where people play 10-12 tourneys a year. What Arreola did 3 years ago doesn't matter near as much as STIVERNE KICKED HIS ASS and no rating that doesn't reflect that is 'right.' I've flirted with formulas for AT ratings, for divisionals too (as I noted when you emailed me before). Ultimately, I concluded they come with their own problems. This is a perfect example. I wish you good luck. A math offset to people can have its advantages but it's not an answer either. Like the college football BCS, things like this ultimately piss people off because a formula is betraying their eyes. Since people ultimately choose the tools they utilize, it dooms the system.

12y ago

yaltamaltadavid

12y ago

yaltamaltadavid

No, this just your view. I could turn around and argue that since bogus decisions have little meaning (if they were simply ignored) then there'd be no need for robberies. And no, i don't agree with your "all or nothing" approach to reform. You have to start somewhere. Lets face it, you aren't ever going to be rid of awful decisions. If you pushed your view that decisions don't have ultimate meaning, you could also say it doesn't matter who wins at all, and boxing should just be appreciated as performance art. But if you do that championships of course would also be meaningless. As much as I appreciate the spirit and art of boxing, I still think it's a sport so has to have a definitive winner. No other sport would overrule a result in the standings or rankings because of a disputed call, and it would be outrageous if that happened. Also.. I don't know how you can put your trust in a group of journalists who decide Beltran beating Burns fulfills a 'robbery clause', yet Adamek beating Cunningham does not. If the result of boxing matches are so subjective, then so is an overrule of their results, and it become an endless, pointless debate. Well, there's a lot that isn't being done at all about decisions, like the Nevada commission just covering up for CJ Ross. Even writing to the commission would have more of an impact than rankings ignoring a decision. I think merely trying to fix the result of a problem isn't sufficent. Band-aid reforms haven't done anything for boxing over the decades. I don't ignore the benefit more minor reforms can have, but as is my view for most political problems, reform isn't good enough... we need revolution!!

12y ago

yaltamaltadavid

I think unofficial rankings made by fans should reflect that. It's moronic and pointless for every fan to make their own rankings. Anyone should make their own pound for pound lists and debate then, but divisional rankings are supposed to show who deserves a shot at the championship and should reflect consistent success in the division and shouldn't be up for debate. Fans don't get to decide the standings in a team sports league. This isn't the masturbatory exercise other random fan rankings are. Because fair objective rankings don't exist, me and a few other people are trying to show how it can be done.

12y ago

techliam

You mentioned you think it's good that the TBRB 'corrects' bad decisions with their rankings. I think if their rankings are widely accepted, this practice will be counterproductive: it's saying that rankings 'fixing' bad decisions is good enough, and judges can get away with it, but allows the structural problems in commissions and promotional companies that cause bad decisions to persist. If rankings accept bad decisions, there is less chance of more fundamental change to the sport. No, this just your view. I could turn around and argue that since bogus decisions have little meaning (if they were simply ignored) then there'd be no need for robberies. And no, i don't agree with your "all or nothing" approach to reform. You have to start somewhere. Lets face it, you aren't ever going to be rid of awful decisions.

12y ago

yaltamaltadavid

I prefer ONE league. No more bull****ing. The best fight the best. I totally agree. Boxing doesn't need separate leagues, but it needs a central international governing organisation, like FIFA or the ATP. Many Americans argue for a 'national commission', but boxing's a global sport so needs a global solution. I think in the current fractured promotional environment objective rankings won't truly be viable... but if there's a single governing organisation it would be able to rank basically every active boxer in the world.

12y ago

yaltamaltadavid

This is why your system is never going to work. I'm sorry my friend. You cannot objectify a subjective sport. Boxrec and the little known IBO already try this and show this system has major, major flaws. Even then, an objective system has to be subjective in some way in regards to giving out points. Someone has to decide how many points a fight is worth. Doing it purely objectively, Deontay Wilder would be the best HW right now (lol...). It just isn't going to work. What TBRB are doing now is what I think the best system going. Some people disagree with little minor points in their rankings, but they give a solid, solid foundation as to what most people will accept as the legitimate rankings. You mentioned you think it's good that the TBRB 'corrects' bad decisions with their rankings. I think if their rankings are widely accepted, this practice will be counterproductive: it's saying that rankings 'fixing' bad decisions is good enough, and judges can get away with it, but allows the structural problems in commissions and promotional companies that cause bad decisions to persist. If rankings accept bad decisions, there is less chance of more fundamental change to the sport.

12y ago

yaltamaltadavid

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

12y ago

Light_Speed

I agree that the Rios-Abril decision was an absolute travesty. Still don't think rankings should ignore the official result. I think unofficial rankings made by fans should reflect that.

12y ago

yaltamaltadavid

Yeah, not only does the Ring have an elitist panel who think their opinions should be taken as definitive, the have a grand ruler who oversees it all. Opinion-based rankings are all bull****. I'll have the welterweight rankings ready for tomorrow...

12y ago

AWolf

The Ring bases it's ratings on the word of Chuck Giampa, right? Thought I heard that somewhere. The guy is a lowlife. Yep. He's the "ratings chairman." AKA yes man front guy.

12y ago

AWolf

The Ring bases it's ratings on the word of Chuck Giampa, right? Thought I heard that somewhere. The guy is a lowlife.

12y ago

yaltamaltadavid

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

12y ago

yaltamaltadavid

I decided I'm going to try to test this out. First I'll compile a top-30 by crowdsourcing top-30 lists from at least 20 people on various forums. Then I'll average those out as my method of getting a first ranking. That probably wouldn't be how the first rankings would be made when the system rolls out, this is just a test. Then of course I'll review fights from the past three years on those boxers' records on boxrec, and add ranking points to the top-30. So I'll be able to compare a ranking list with my points system at least somewhat factored in, to other rankings, like the TBRB and the Ring. Sounds like fun? I'm using welterweight for the test. Please make your own welterweight top-30 ranking, then post it on my thread titled 'Your top 30 welterweights'. Use whatever criteria you want! Because hey, these lists are just your opinion. You can try to make your list reflect accomplishments, or you can rank the boxers with the coolest trunks. Post them on that thread, keep this one to discussion about my system.

12y ago

yaltamaltadavid

Ok then let's take Rios vs Abril. Rios didn't win more than a round or two, one of the worst decisions I've ever seen. I understand why official boxing organizations have to respect the judges scoring but experts, journalists and fans should expose the robbery and not take the official result into account. The goal of unofficial rankings is to show who the real champions are, ignoring robberies should be a part of it. I agree that the Rios-Abril decision was an absolute travesty. Still don't think rankings should ignore the official result.

12y ago

yaltamaltadavid

Ok then let's take Rios vs Abril. Rios didn't win more than a round or two, one of the worst decisions I've ever seen. I understand why official boxing organizations have to respect the judges scoring but experts, journalists and fans should expose the robbery and not take the official result into account. The goal of unofficial rankings is to show who the real champions are, ignoring robberies should be a part of it. If offical results of fights are ignored, there is simply no possibility of an objective ranking system. You might as well make your own rankings. The concept of champion would lose all meaning if everyone made their own rankings though.

12y ago

Light_Speed

If judging is subjective then it can be subjective if a decision is considered controversial. I in fact didn't think Pacquiao-Bradley was clearly a bad decision. I thought Pacquiao won, but I thought Bradley clearly won 4 rounds, and a 116-112 decision shouldn't be called a robbery. Rankings that overturn decisons are going down a slippery slope. If you do that you might as well rank a boxer higher if you thought he deserved a 119-109 decision rather than a 116-112 decision. If you respect a close decision that you think should be wider, than you should respect a decision that was given to the boxer you thought lost. For ranking purposes a decisive line has to be drawn, and that line should be to respect the official decision. Rankings have no business attempting to police the sport. So even though it might sometimes seem unfortunate, an objective ranking system has to accept the subjectivity of judging as definitive. Ok then let's take Rios vs Abril. Rios didn't win more than a round or two, one of the worst decisions I've ever seen. I understand why official boxing organizations have to respect the judges scoring but experts, journalists and fans should expose the robbery and not take the official result into account. The goal of unofficial rankings is to show who the real champions are, ignoring robberies should be a part of it.

12y ago