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

[Hougigo]

What's the BCS? If it's some other boxing points ranking system, it doesn't prove mine can't be effective, but only that the criteria it used to assign points wasn't fair.

College football

[yaltamaltadavid]

College football

I'll look it up. There might be at least some aspects that could work for boxing...

[yaltamaltadavid]

never understood why Ring changed their belt policy
it was easy to accept their belt's rules as grounds for lineage before
no more unifying WBA/WBC/IBF for the belt, but #1 can fight #5?
no need for all this point system stuff
just make the titlists unify or clear #1 beats the clear #2

The problem my idea is a response to is that it often isn't clear who the number 1 and 2 fighters are. If the difference between 2 and 3 is fairly small, there would be a difference of opinion about who deserves to be number 2 and fight for the championship. That's why we need objective rankings!

[Light_Speed]

The problem with your system is : what about clear robberies? If your system is all about official victories then Bradley would have earned points by "beating" Pacquiao, even though most people don't think he actually won. That's one case where human judgement would be superior to a points system.

[yaltamaltadavid]

The problem with your system is : what about clear robberies? If your system is all about official victories then Bradley would have earned points by "beating" Pacquiao, even though most people don't think he actually won. That's one case where human judgement would be superior to a points system.

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.

[techliam]

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.

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.

[-PBP-]

never understood why Ring changed their belt policy
it was easy to accept their belt's rules as grounds for lineage before
no more unifying WBA/WBC/IBF for the belt, but #1 can fight #5?
no need for all this point system stuff
just make the titlists unify or clear #1 beats the clear #2

Then how do you become lineal champ when guys like Chris John babysit the #1 ranking and won't fight the #2 guy?

[JDezi4]

Boxing just needs leagues... That'll solve 90% of the problems...

We'll know who the REAL champion is by seeing which league produces the best fighters...

The first few years are gonna be a scramble, with guys focusing more on bringing in the biggest stars more so than the best fighters, but in the end... Someone will win out, have the money to pay the best fighters the biggest checks, and boxing politics will be mostly gone

All that will be left are steroid scandals and bad judging

[violaandme]

the problem is not the systems its the money these fighters get for fighting bums if people would keep their money in their pockets and only pay for a good fight then these fighters would be forced to fight eachother not some 2 bit bum for instance if people would pay to see fighters no matter the case unifying belts and not go for the media hype of this is gonna be the fight of the year because of the press confrences were a circus
or if the organizations would get together and force unifications (yeah right they all have their own agendas) It all comes back to money if the public is willing to pay to see Broner vs Malinaggi then thats what we will get instead of Broner VS Garcia Broner Vs Kahn at least that would have been a bit better or broner vs Judah or even Broner trying to Unify the lightweight crown
I am not Picking on Broner just using him as an example they all go the route of the biggest money smallest risk and you can't blame them you can only blame yourselves and Jose Suiliman if you want LOL
It is a business now live with it or quit watching unless they are fighting worthwhile fights if enough people quit watching or at least are not willing to pay exploded $$$'s for crap fights then the fighters will see where the money is and then we get Duran vs leonard Hagler vs hearns Whitaker vs chavez untill you're willing to pass on a few PPV's don't expect a change period

[mudpunch]

Boxing just needs leagues... That'll solve 90% of the problems...

We'll know who the REAL champion is by seeing which league produces the best fighters...

The first few years are gonna be a scramble, with guys focusing more on bringing in the biggest stars more so than the best fighters, but in the end... Someone will win out, have the money to pay the best fighters the biggest checks, and boxing politics will be mostly gone

All that will be left are steroid scandals and bad judging

I prefer ONE league. No more bull****ing. The best fight the best.