Boxingscene Users Boxer Rankings

I think we're all in agreement on what is right and wrong in the sport for the most part. One of the biggest glaring weakness, is the Champion/ranking system. You have many "alphabet" organizations in place with the bottom line of making money. Their rankings are NEVER unanimous between them and that's a problem. Then you have RING Magazine, which for a while, seemed like the most reliable source for rankings. But, there is a huge conflict of interest. It is owned by a boxing promoter. BoxRec is not THAT bad for what it is, a computerized approach to determine who is the best at a certain division. A lot of times guys with padded records will find their way to the top of the list long before they've taken on anyone worthy. TBRB is one of the better ones out there. Consisting of many well respected writers and boxing "experts," I like that they keep the "1 vs 2" intact to determine a champion. Then the countless websites on the internet with their own ranking system. So taking that into account, I thought why couldn't a group of Boxingscene members spearhead a ranking system unique to the users of the forum? Generally speaking, if there's a fight going on, someone here is watching. The vast array of people from all corners of the Earth is of benefit to this idea. This level of boxing consumer, the core fan, is the very pulse of boxing. We are what keeps boxing alive 24/7 as you can log on whenever you desire to discuss any aspect of boxing with a very, very diverse group of people who share the same passion for the sport. So why not create our own rankings system and our own rules that are suited to the things that are of concern to us. For example...Andre Ward is the generally agreed upon #1 fighter at 168. I personally don't have a problem with that. But an argument can be made for Froch surpassing him, even though he didn't beat Andre Ward, but he had 5 fights to Ward's 2 in the time since. And since boxing is about what have you done for me lately, it is a reasonable argument that can be voted on and will determine who WE the fans feel is the number one guy. Another example. Miguel Cotto is the middleweight champ because he beat the guy who beat the guy...etc. But when I think of middleweight champion I think of the guy bulldozing the competition currently and that is Gennady Golovkin. Now is everyone going to agree on situations like the above? No, but we don't agree completely on the rankings now as it is, but at least we would have rankings to call our own. This can become a whole convoluted mess, but I think if people are interested enough and a good enough system is developed and maintained, it could be a fun addition to the forum. We could start by having a thread for each division and get a #1 ranked guy based on poll results. Then determine a group of posters who would like to take part in filling out the rest of the top 10...(in a chat, or another poll?) What do you think?

Comments (20)

Until he loses the lineal title. That has to mean something. I understand your point, but by that token would Matthysse get dropped for fighting an unranked guy in his comeback fight after losing to Danny? Its definitely going to take some time to work everything out. Yeah perhaps too much time, especially dealing with the amount of people's opinions here and trying to hear the case made for all the different fighters at all the different weight classes. It'd be cool to have a universal ranking system that most of us agreed on, and any legitimate appeals could be considered and voted on for placement of certain fighters. I personally would trust a user created ranking system over a profit driven sanctioning body, or a magazine. My point with the whole thing is that the fans should be the most credible people in determining who falls where. (I'd love Rockin's opinion right about now :boxing:) Example, there's Tunney who knows his Heavyweights, and while he has his love for the K bros, I'd be interested in his rankings for HW's before Dan Rafael or Kevin Iole.

11y ago

The_Big_Dunn

I didn't say he would be penalized, just that he wouldn't necessarily automatically remain #1. The point here is proving who is the best at a given division. Fighting an unranked guy and losing doesn't hurt him, but also does nothing to help Danny. Say if numbers 2 and 3 fought a week later, it might be the general belief amongst posters that the winner of 2 vs 3 should earn the right to be voted the #1 fighter, since the most recent win by the #1 fighter does nothing to merit his status. What if Danny doesn't fight LP next? or Mattysshe even? How long should he keep his #1/Champion status? Until he loses the lineal title. That has to mean something. I understand your point, but by that token would Matthysse get dropped for fighting an unranked guy in his comeback fight after losing to Danny? Its definitely going to take some time to work everything out.

11y ago

M_Bison

No terrible idea and it could be easily manipulated... bad, bad idea it will never work and it will never happen and thank god for that.

11y ago

Luiz

Good idea but there's a lot tards here.

11y ago

RlCKY

It's a pretty good idea. I dont know if it would work though as there's a lot of agendas here. Boxingscene has it's own divisional rankings compiled by Cliff Rold though. They are pretty good. There would be a lot of hurdles, but I'm confident that the amount of people who would want to make it work would outweigh the trolls/people with personal bias towards fighters Boxingscene has great rankings. It'd be nice to have a ranking system for the fans to be able to petition and vote something they don't like. The results of a fight deemed to be a robbery by the majority of posters, competition level, frequency of fights...all criteria to be taken into consideration. We're the ones who watch the sport, who pay for it. We don't need to be told who is the best, we can decide for ourselves.

11y ago

RlCKY

Respectfully, the notion that you would support penalizing a fighter that wins a fight because it isn't what you want is the exact kind of logic you told PBP you want to eliminate. You nor I will never completely know why fights we want don't get made. To vote with that in mind makes little sense. Fanboyism has many forms-the boxing hipster/truther/purist is as bad as the *******/***** when they use unsubstantiated personal belief instead of a set of criteria/standards. Again, i'm all for your idea. IMO it works best if the foundation is wins and losses. then factor in "quality" as a measure of ranking 2-10 with the lineal champ remaining #1, even if its a Cotto or Stevenson situation where popular opinion differs from reality. I didn't say he would be penalized, just that he wouldn't necessarily automatically remain #1. The point here is proving who is the best at a given division. Fighting an unranked guy and losing doesn't hurt him, but also does nothing to help Danny. Say if numbers 2 and 3 fought a week later, it might be the general belief amongst posters that the winner of 2 vs 3 should earn the right to be voted the #1 fighter, since the most recent win by the #1 fighter does nothing to merit his status. What if Danny doesn't fight LP next? or Mattysshe even? How long should he keep his #1/Champion status?

11y ago

BattlingNelson

It's a pretty good idea. I dont know if it would work though as there's a lot of agendas here. Boxingscene has it's own divisional rankings compiled by Cliff Rold though. They are pretty good.

11y ago

The_Big_Dunn

Perhaps the lineals can be inaugurated. And based on the ranking criteria, see how long they stay at that #1 ranking. For example if this was implemented as of 8/1/14...and Danny Garcia fought Salka, that would be taken into consideration and he wouldn't automatically keep his spot just because he won. This is about us, and holding the fighters accountable for their claims as the best without backing it up consistently enough. Respectfully, the notion that you would support penalizing a fighter that wins a fight because it isn't what you want is the exact kind of logic you told PBP you want to eliminate. You nor I will never completely know why fights we want don't get made. To vote with that in mind makes little sense. Fanboyism has many forms-the boxing hipster/truther/purist is as bad as the *******/***** when they use unsubstantiated personal belief instead of a set of criteria/standards. Again, i'm all for your idea. IMO it works best if the foundation is wins and losses. then factor in "quality" as a measure of ranking 2-10 with the lineal champ remaining #1, even if its a Cotto or Stevenson situation where popular opinion differs from reality.

11y ago

RlCKY

But the point of the poll is to set aside what you think and rank solely on an agreed upon set of criteria. You don't have to think Cotto is the #1 MW, but you should respect his standing as lineal champion and vote that #1. GGG, Kov, Manny, Froch-not lineal champs, not #1 in their divisions even though they are NSB favorites. On the flip side-I, for example, can't vote wlad anything but #1 in the HWT even though I think he is a ****in bum amongst a pile of **** which is IMO the HWt division. People who hate Danny can't vote him anything but #1. We don't want to have a list that looks like check hooks or jas' sig do we? That makes us look like buffoons and ruins whatever good intentions this system has. Perhaps the lineals can be inaugurated. And based on the ranking criteria, see how long they stay at that #1 ranking. For example if this was implemented as of 8/1/14...and Danny Garcia fought Salka, that would be taken into consideration and he wouldn't automatically keep his spot just because he won. This is about us, and holding the fighters accountable for their claims as the best without backing it up consistently enough.

11y ago

King_

I'm definitely down for the idea, but as opposed to have everyone vote, I think a committee should be elected. There's simply too many fanboys, retards anti this and pro that for it to be anywhere near what it should be. I also think instead of the ****ty abc belts, there should be a world champion fan belt. For the true champ, not the ****ty paper shiz. Agreed. The fanboys would have to be weeded out to make it work

11y ago

Dinamita_03

I'm definitely down for the idea, but as opposed to have everyone vote, I think a committee should be elected. There's simply too many fanboys, retards anti this and pro that for it to be anywhere near what it should be. I also think instead of the ****ty abc belts, there should be a world champion fan belt. For the true champ, not the ****ty paper shiz. This would be ideal. Getting rid of the fanboys and alts would make it credible,most reasonable posters can give an objetive view on who the top fighters are.

11y ago

RlCKY

I'm definitely down for the idea, but as opposed to have everyone vote, I think a committee should be elected. There's simply too many fanboys, retards anti this and pro that for it to be anywhere near what it should be. I also think instead of the ****ty abc belts, there should be a world champion fan belt. For the true champ, not the ****ty paper shiz. Everyone gets to vote on the inaugural #1 in each division and committees appointed to fill out the top 10. No "Champions" just a 1-10 ranking of the top fighters at a given weight.

11y ago

RlCKY

I like the idea. To maintain credibility you have to recognize the fighters who are actually champions though. For example I can see a lot of people ranking Kovalev over Stevenson, Froch over Ward, Golovkin over Cotto or Herrera over Garcia. Sure Stevenson would probably be the inaugural #1...but then I think Hopkins/Kovalev winner would be the choice for new number 1...regardless of what Stevenson does...because the emphasis is NOT placed on Champions. A Champion, in my mind completes something...like in team sports a championship is the result of a season. Boxing is always happening, it's never complete. That's why I think it should be thought of as truly a ranking system, 1-10 Probably need to have a long list of rules (layoffs, injuries, not fighting top 10 contenders, "robbery loss rule", etc.) to make it work. It would take a lot of work, but we complain about rankings, robberies, matchups, etc. If it's not in our power to do something about it, we can make our own system kinda like fubu? http://fhww.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/5599182994_71619be3b5.jpg?w=500&h=330 Not kind of...exactly

11y ago

The_Big_Dunn

The whole champion concept would kind of be tossed by the wayside. We would just think of fighters based on Rank...#1, #2, etc. That's why I made the example for Cotto. Is he the middleweight champion? Yes he is, I accept that. But is he the best 160 lb fighter in the world right now? My answer would be no. I would want to develop a system that favored the BEST fighter by consensus of a voting committee of respectable, knowledgeable posters. But the point of the poll is to set aside what you think and rank solely on an agreed upon set of criteria. You don't have to think Cotto is the #1 MW, but you should respect his standing as lineal champion and vote that #1. GGG, Kov, Manny, Froch-not lineal champs, not #1 in their divisions even though they are NSB favorites. On the flip side-I, for example, can't vote wlad anything but #1 in the HWT even though I think he is a ****in bum amongst a pile of **** which is IMO the HWt division. People who hate Danny can't vote him anything but #1. We don't want to have a list that looks like check hooks or jas' sig do we? That makes us look like buffoons and ruins whatever good intentions this system has.

11y ago

titan_m

It wouldn't be a very good system because there are way too many crazy fans of certain fighters that hate other fighters and would do way too much to manipulate the rankings and it would only turn into a joke, just my opinion, its a shame it has to be that way around here too.

11y ago

LacedUp

11y ago

New_England

Boxingscene Users Boxer Rankings...a ranking system by the fans for the fans This is an expected roadblock, which is why there would be voted/selected members of the rankings committee so keep that sh1t to a minimum. BTW I'd vote Ward #1 :kiss: kinda like fubu? http://fhww.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/5599182994_71619be3b5.jpg?w=500&h=330

11y ago

PBP

I like the idea. To maintain credibility you have to recognize the fighters who are actually champions though. For example I can see a lot of people ranking Kovalev over Stevenson, Froch over Ward, Golovkin over Cotto or Herrera over Garcia. Probably need to have a long list of rules (layoffs, injuries, not fighting top 10 contenders, "robbery loss rule", etc.) to make it work.

11y ago

RlCKY

I like your idea. But have you scene the way posters vote in polls on this site? The lack of integrity would totally kill the very good intent you have. Like your point about ward. That was a retarded argument made by slimshandy69. Yes, his opinion is equal to any one poster on NSB. But we know if froch looked differently or was from Canada instead of England, that retarded thread wouldn't have been made. Or cotto. You can think whoever you want is the best MW. Respectfully, you can't think who is the MW champion. It Cotto, like it or not. If you can find a way to have integrity in the voting and base rankings on a set of criteria then this could be very good. The whole champion concept would kind of be tossed by the wayside. We would just think of fighters based on Rank...#1, #2, etc. That's why I made the example for Cotto. Is he the middleweight champion? Yes he is, I accept that. But is he the best 160 lb fighter in the world right now? My answer would be no. I would want to develop a system that favored the BEST fighter by consensus of a voting committee of respectable, knowledgeable posters.

11y ago

gmc_rfc_06

Why not? This place has a major bias problem at times, but the list will probably still turn out better than the alphabet rankings.

11y ago