A points ranking system to legitimise boxing rankings!!!!!!!

[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.

Someone wouldn't decide how many points a fight is worth. As I described, points are earned on a sliding scale of opponent rank. Even if you think my system might result in inaccuracies, it's a fixed standard, so it's by definition objective: a boxer in any division beats the number 12 contender, he earns 38 points from that fight, period.

There is no standardised ranking system that uses quality of opposition as the main criteria that could possibly have Wilder as a top-30 heavyweight, much less best.

Here's my response to the TBRB when they attempted to use Boxrec and the IBO as proof that a points system wouldn't work. Everything you asked is answered here...


–There has yet to be a points-based system, computerized or otherwise, to produce a set of boxing rankings that stands the test of reason or common sense. What you identify as “anomalous” rankings are usually far too common to be considered anomalous. The IBO has Adrien Broner as the #1 welterweight with its computerized system. BoxRec has Lucian Bute #3 at light heavyweight. No one in their right minds believes that those rankings reflect anything like reality. The examples are fairly legion.

The IBO and Boxrec systems are so flawed that they can’t be used as evidence against a points ranking system. But your two examples are poor cases even against them!

You’re actually mistaken about Broner. The IBO lists four other alphabet titlists on top of their rankings, but they in fact exclude titlists from those organisations from their rankings. But I agree with them that Broner shouldn’t be highly ranked. With my system there would actually be no chance that Broner would be in the top-10, where you undeservedly have him, and he wouldn’t even be ranked above Malignaggi. One win in a new division shouldn’t mean a boxer should be ranked over the boxer he beat. I’m sure you’ll say that isn’t necessarily the case with the TBRB rankings, but I think in a fair system it should almost never happen.

It’s difficult to find details about the IBO’s ranking criteria, but their most heavily weighted factor seems to be a boxer’s last six fights. I think a time period rather than specific number of fights has to be used: activity should be rewarded, and a boxer who otherwise would have the same ranking as another should likely be ranked higher if he fights more often. There are also many inaccuracies in their rankings, for example ranking Gamboa number 1 at lightweight. They probably allow fights in other divisions to count towards a ranking, which shouldn’t be allowed. But there rankings are innacurate because they use an unfair standard, not because they use measurable standards. I think if the IBO champions weren’t a complete joke and they allowed other titlists to be ranked their rankings wouldn’t be significantly worse than yours.

As far as Bute’s Boxrec ranking, though I can’t be sure my system could very well have Bute with at a top-20 ranking at light heavy. His last fight was a win in a fight in which both boxer’s were over the super middleweight limit so it would be considered a light heabyweight fight, and Grachev would definitely be top-30 at light heavy, so Bute would earn ranking points. If Juergen Braehmer’s best opponent Eduard Gutknecht wasn’t in the top-30 Bute’s win could even earn him a top-10 ranking. My system would definitely not allow Bute to be as high as number 3 however.

Boxrec’s rankings seem to be not too different from the IBO’s. So again while I like that they’re using an objective method, their method results in inaccurate rankings because they’re using factors that shouldn’t be used. The Boxrec system is overambitious and uses too much information. It assigns and scales ranking points based on method of victory, the scorecards of a decision, and the ranking of his opponent’s opponents, amongst other confusing factors. Their system somehow gives Wilder a number 13 ranking, but as his only opponent with a remote chance of being in the top-30 would be Liakhovich, Wilder would at best be barely top-30 with my system. It’s not fair to lighter punchers to award more ranking points for knockouts. A ranking should be determined only by wins and losses and opponent rank.

There has been one points system that produced fair rankings. The Boxing Tribune had a sliding points system like mine, but it was discontinued because it didn’t get enough support and only didn’t prove itself because it didn’t last long enough to do so. Only when a more logical points system than Boxrec’s or the IBO’s is given a chance can anyone say it won’t work. My system of course would reqire over three years to prove definitively that it would work. Like any other political change, it can’t happen overnight! There only hasn’t been significant interest in a points-based system because it hasn’t been tried!

[Hop]

Can't get myself to read a thread with that many exclamation points in the title. Sorry!!!!!!!!!!

[techliam]

Someone wouldn't decide how many points a fight is worth. As I described, points are earned on a sliding scale of opponent rank. Even if you think my system might result in inaccuracies, it's a fixed standard, so it's by definition objective: a boxer in any division beats the number 12 contender, he earns 38 points from that fight, period.

This is what i'm talking about though. Someone has to initially decide (subjectively) who the number 12 contender is. It's a whole objective system based on a subjective set of rankings, it's no better than what we have now. If you don't agree on the numbers (ranks) to begin with, the whole issue of points becomes moot as they aren't universally legitimate.

This is on top of what people have posted before. You get robberies in boxing, you can't shy away from it. To ignore them for the sake of objectivity, questions legitimacy - which is what plagues the IBO/Boxrec methods (despite differences in approach between them and you).

This is a separate point, however, just looking at your system - what if a contender beats lower ranked contenders that often, that his points outtotal that of the champion? Just a question

[yaltamaltadavid]

Can't get myself to read a thread with that many exclamation points in the title. Sorry!!!!!!!!!!

You're annoyed by exclamation points on a site that has such enormous, distracting avatars and signatures that you can barely find the posts?

[yaltamaltadavid]

This is what i'm talking about though. Someone has to initially decide (subjectively) who the number 12 contender is. It's a whole objective system based on a subjective set of rankings, it's no better than what we have now. If you don't agree on the numbers (ranks) to begin with, the whole issue of points becomes moot as they aren't universally legitimate.

This is on top of what people have posted before. You get robberies in boxing, you can't shy away from it. To ignore them for the sake of objectivity, questions legitimacy - which is what plagues the IBO/Boxrec methods (despite differences in approach between them and you).

This is a separate point, however, just looking at your system - what if a contender beats lower ranked contenders that often, that his points outtotal that of the champion? Just a question

I'm not sure how inital top-30 rankings would be created. I suggested they could be created by a one-time opinion poll. Maybe another way, I don't know. I also mentioned that before points were assigned in future fights, the sliding scale of points would be applied from all fights involving top-30 contenders in the previous three years. That's done to apply some amount of the objective standard even before any future fights are graded. I admit there would be an element of subjectivity involved in the initial rankings. We would have to start somewhere. But with my system after the points had kicked in for three years that element of subjectivity would be completely erased. So you'd have to give it a chance for three years before you can completely reject it!

Your other question, it depends on exactly what rank the lower contenders were. If they were below 30, he would get no points. If a contender fought more contenders of the same rank than the champion, of course he'd earn more points. A champion might have slightly less points than the number 1 or 2 contender. But when you're champion the points wouldn't matter.

I thought I covered everything about fights that might be considered robberies. IMO, always going by the official result would make my system more legitimate.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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