IMHO – A Cure for Boxing’s Big-Week Ills

[ophqui]

are we supposed to say 'oh wow what a brilliant idea'?

a)every ****ing person in boxing has been saying this for god knows how long, they just didnt bother to write an article about it because its a pretty common opinion

b) what you've described is a MONOPOLY. it would be terrible for boxing. in the same way that MMA fighters who fall out with the ufc management have nowhere else to turn apart from backstreet organisations on virtually zero money, what happens when floyd says 'no, i dont need a margarito defense, **** that, i have no intention of getting in a ring with him, and certainly no intention of bouncing straight from beating him to fighting paul williams. Its my health we're talking about here.'

hey presto, 'your organisation' has just alientated the best fighter in the sport and lost credibility as the best fighter is NOT the champion (as presumably him refusing would mean him losing his title)

I know this was supposed to be light hearted, but im sick of people bringing out this half arsed little piece of nonsense as a way of 'fixing' boxing. it wouldnt work, and its ******. bye

[rskumm21]

You guys are pointing out all of the flaws, but this system has less than what we currently have and more positives.

[fitzbitz]

Actually, Ophqui...

...you're not "supposed to" say anything. If you think it was ******, that's OK with me. You read it anyway. And I'll wait patiently to hear your brilliance. In the mean time, if organizations are going to run around in fear of "alienating" great fighters, then what's the point? The inmates will always run the asylums in that case, so why bother with guards or walls?

It's my view that fans of the sport would be more interested in making sure champions fight quality contenders than they would be worried about a champion getting his feelings hurt. In the end, at least to me, that's more positive than negative.

[Dave Rado]

All the others - Froch and Mayweather in particular - come from the unbiased computer. Do I agree with all of them? No. But that's part of the beauty of it.

Computers (or more accurately, mathematical algorithms) may be unbiased, but have you ever heard of GIGO (garbage in garbage out)? Computer programmes are only as good as the programmer who wrote them, and any computer programme which has Froch as the no. 1 Super Middleweight is flawed as hell.

Objective but ridiculous doesn't equal good. It just equals ridiculous. Boxrec's ratings are purely algorithm-based, and although they are better than the corrupt alphabet ratings, and are a useful general guide, they contain many ridiculous discrepancies, such as having Hozumi Hasegawa at #8 in their P4P list, or ranking Roy Jones Jnr #2 at Light Heavyweight.

Cliff Rold used to publish purely algorithm-based all time top 25 listings at various weights, but they received a huge amount of criticism because people didn't think his algorithm was any good. I notice he's now only using the algorithm to determine who gets into the top 50, and he now determines the actual order subjectively, and most people agree that his lists are now far better as a result.

[fitzbitz]

Yes, Dave... I'm familiar with your algorithm argument. I've read it here before.

However, given the choice between status quo and cleaning the slate, I'll do the latter and take my chances on finding the right ratings formula. Seems there aren't a lot of serious gripes about 15 of the 17 divisions, and if the lone two are 147 and 168... hell, that's not bad.

Froch's unbeaten and has downed Taylor and Dirrell in his last two. And Mayweather has a pretty solid resume. Arguments can be constructed for both. It's not as if anyone's trying to call Isaac Hlatshwayo a world champion or reason that Billy Gunn deserves a title fight.

Oh wait... that's already happened in the last several months of reality, even without the benefit of shoddy computer programming. All the more reason to chart a new course.