Tweet
Ratings: What Matters vs. What Doesn't?
I have a question which I hope provokes some thorough discussion. There's no right or wrong answer to it so hopefully there won't be argument, but it's a seemingly straight-forward question which, surprisingly, probably doesn't have a straight-forward answer:
When rating professional boxers, what factors should weigh more compared to others?
Obviously if Boxer A defeats Boxer B, in theory at least Boxer A should be rated above Boxer B. Few could argue with that. But how long should Boxer A's win over B influence the ratings?
Over the weekend, Moses Itauma raised his marketability enormously by knocking out Dillian Whyte in a single round. But is that a better indication of his skill than would be the case had he spend 4-6 rounds methodically demonstrating ring superiority over Whyte, then knocking him out in Round 7 or 8?
Should ratings take into account the opposition they face, and if so to what degree? If Boxer A is 26-0-0 with 23 knockouts, but his 26 wins have come against tomato cans with a combined record of 9-111-3, should that weigh more than Boxer B, whose 23-2-0 record with 17 knockouts have come against opponents with a combined record of 43-72-4?
If a boxer moves up or down in weight division, should that move influence their rating, and if so, in what way? It could be argued that a top ranked Super Middleweight who moves up to Light Heavyweight should be ranked just as highly in that weight division. But on the other hand one could argue the guy moving up in weight has zero Light Heavyweight division experience, and that lack of experience should at least impact his rating.
If a boxer goes inactive for a year, then returns to active competition, they tend to be restored to the ratings in their weight division as if the inactivity didn't occur. Should that be the case? If so, why should it? If not, why shouldn't it?
While this topic has the capability of really going into the weeds, fast, I'm curious to know the criteria by which you would rate boxers in any weight division, aside from the more obvious metrics of "A defeated B." Should age play a role? Should inactivity, and at what point should inactivity begin a decline in ratings? Moving from weight division to weight division - should it matter? Should the number of rounds one contests matter? Without getting into the mathematics of it all, on what would you, given the chance, base a rating system on?
When rating professional boxers, what factors should weigh more compared to others?
Obviously if Boxer A defeats Boxer B, in theory at least Boxer A should be rated above Boxer B. Few could argue with that. But how long should Boxer A's win over B influence the ratings?
Over the weekend, Moses Itauma raised his marketability enormously by knocking out Dillian Whyte in a single round. But is that a better indication of his skill than would be the case had he spend 4-6 rounds methodically demonstrating ring superiority over Whyte, then knocking him out in Round 7 or 8?
Should ratings take into account the opposition they face, and if so to what degree? If Boxer A is 26-0-0 with 23 knockouts, but his 26 wins have come against tomato cans with a combined record of 9-111-3, should that weigh more than Boxer B, whose 23-2-0 record with 17 knockouts have come against opponents with a combined record of 43-72-4?
If a boxer moves up or down in weight division, should that move influence their rating, and if so, in what way? It could be argued that a top ranked Super Middleweight who moves up to Light Heavyweight should be ranked just as highly in that weight division. But on the other hand one could argue the guy moving up in weight has zero Light Heavyweight division experience, and that lack of experience should at least impact his rating.
If a boxer goes inactive for a year, then returns to active competition, they tend to be restored to the ratings in their weight division as if the inactivity didn't occur. Should that be the case? If so, why should it? If not, why shouldn't it?
While this topic has the capability of really going into the weeds, fast, I'm curious to know the criteria by which you would rate boxers in any weight division, aside from the more obvious metrics of "A defeated B." Should age play a role? Should inactivity, and at what point should inactivity begin a decline in ratings? Moving from weight division to weight division - should it matter? Should the number of rounds one contests matter? Without getting into the mathematics of it all, on what would you, given the chance, base a rating system on?