Should excitement be factored into ranking systems?

[Azteca]

It should be based on alot of things.

#1 your competition and HOW you beat them
#2 were you a house fighter? or did you travel to different countries and cities to make great fights?
#3 undefeated fighters. How many did you beat? Or did your resume consist of journeyman and washed up fighters.

[Joartcc3]

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.

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.

[floydfan]

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

[MindBat]

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.

[AIR_KENG]

whether we like it or not, it does affect the general consensus of rankings... why do people love to watch fights of pacquiao, rafael marquez, vasquez, tyson, and morales? because they are exciting... but still winning is the bigget factor... mayweather, though not as exciting as we want him to be in the ring, has great skills and is winning every damn fight he takes so he tops all rankings...

about the gatti thing though, is he ranked in the upper-tier of the rankings now? No. Though he is/was exciting to watch, when he started losing, he dropped out of the top ten immediately...

[squealpiggy]

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.

[AIR_KENG]

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.

I honestly don't think those are good comparison with regards to boxing rankings... ability, performance and excitement come hand in hand in boxing...

let's say an undefeated floyd with all wins coming by way of KO compared to an undeafeated floyd with all victories by wide-margin UD... who would you rank higher?

EDIT:
both floyd's having the same level of competition by the way...

[RAESAAD]

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.

[Joartcc3]

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.

Comparing boxing from tennis is ******.

Make your arguments based on boxing.

Ponder on this.

Are you so low that you're getting paid millions of dollars and watched by the average guy to box and what you'll do is run like a Fake Floyd from a vastly outclassed Baldomir?

Very few has the balls to sink that low that they're willing to do that.

[AIR_KENG]

Comparing boxing from tennis is ******.

Make your arguments based on boxing.

Ponder on this.

Are you so low that you're getting paid millions of dollars and watched by the average guy to box and what you'll do is run like a Fake Floyd from a vastly outclassed Baldomir?

Very few has the balls to sink that low that they're willing to do that.

someone really hates floyd... oh well...