Boxingscene Users Boxer Rankings

[RlCKY]

I think we're all in agreement on what is right and wrong in the sport for the most part. One of the biggest glaring weakness, is the Champion/ranking system.

You have many "alphabet" organizations in place with the bottom line of making money. Their rankings are NEVER unanimous between them and that's a problem.

Then you have RING Magazine, which for a while, seemed like the most reliable source for rankings. But, there is a huge conflict of interest. It is owned by a boxing promoter.

BoxRec is not THAT bad for what it is, a computerized approach to determine who is the best at a certain division. A lot of times guys with padded records will find their way to the top of the list long before they've taken on anyone worthy.

TBRB is one of the better ones out there. Consisting of many well respected writers and boxing "experts," I like that they keep the "1 vs 2" intact to determine a champion.

Then the countless websites on the internet with their own ranking system.


So taking that into account, I thought why couldn't a group of Boxingscene members spearhead a ranking system unique to the users of the forum?

Generally speaking, if there's a fight going on, someone here is watching. The vast array of people from all corners of the Earth is of benefit to this idea.


This level of boxing consumer, the core fan, is the very pulse of boxing. We are what keeps boxing alive 24/7 as you can log on whenever you desire to discuss any aspect of boxing with a very, very diverse group of people who share the same passion for the sport.

So why not create our own rankings system and our own rules that are suited to the things that are of concern to us.

For example...Andre Ward is the generally agreed upon #1 fighter at 168. I personally don't have a problem with that. But an argument can be made for Froch surpassing him, even though he didn't beat Andre Ward, but he had 5 fights to Ward's 2 in the time since. And since boxing is about what have you done for me lately, it is a reasonable argument that can be voted on and will determine who WE the fans feel is the number one guy.

Another example.

Miguel Cotto is the middleweight champ because he beat the guy who beat the guy...etc. But when I think of middleweight champion I think of the guy bulldozing the competition currently and that is Gennady Golovkin.

Now is everyone going to agree on situations like the above?

No, but we don't agree completely on the rankings now as it is, but at least we would have rankings to call our own.


This can become a whole convoluted mess, but I think if people are interested enough and a good enough system is developed and maintained, it could be a fun addition to the forum.

We could start by having a thread for each division and get a #1 ranked guy based on poll results. Then determine a group of posters who would like to take part in filling out the rest of the top 10...(in a chat, or another poll?)

What do you think?

[New England]

way too long.

didn't read it, bro.

[Divine Hammer]

this is a good idea.

[New England]

where's the poll option for, "convoluted fanboyism / total sh#tf#ck."

[bojangles1987]

I've seen something like this done on other forums for other sports to rank who the best players at a position are. Polls have 10 options, right? List 10 fighters in each division, and based on how many votes those fighters get rank the top 10.

NSB is ******ed sometimes and we might end up with ridiculous rankings, but would it be anymore ridiculous than what the WBC or WBA have?

[RlCKY]

way too long.

didn't read it, bro.

Boxingscene Users Boxer Rankings...a ranking system by the fans for the fans

where's the poll option for, "convoluted fanboyism / total sh#tf#ck."

This is an expected roadblock, which is why there would be voted/selected members of the rankings committee so keep that **** to a minimum. BTW I'd vote Ward #1

[The Big Dunn]

I like your idea. But have you scene the way posters vote in polls on this site? The lack of integrity would totally kill the very good intent you have.

Like your point about ward. That was a ******ed argument made by slimshandy69. Yes, his opinion is equal to any one poster on NSB. But we know if froch looked differently or was from Canada instead of England, that ******ed thread wouldn't have been made.

Or cotto. You can think whoever you want is the best MW. Respectfully, you can't think who is the MW champion. It Cotto, like it or not.

If you can find a way to have integrity in the voting and base rankings on a set of criteria then this could be very good.

[gmc_rfc_06]

Why not?

This place has a major bias problem at times, but the list will probably still turn out better than the alphabet rankings.

[RlCKY]

I like your idea. But have you scene the way posters vote in polls on this site? The lack of integrity would totally kill the very good intent you have.

Like your point about ward. That was a ******ed argument made by slimshandy69. Yes, his opinion is equal to any one poster on NSB. But we know if froch looked differently or was from Canada instead of England, that ******ed thread wouldn't have been made.

Or cotto. You can think whoever you want is the best MW. Respectfully, you can't think who is the MW champion. It Cotto, like it or not.

If you can find a way to have integrity in the voting and base rankings on a set of criteria then this could be very good.

The whole champion concept would kind of be tossed by the wayside. We would just think of fighters based on Rank...#1, #2, etc.

That's why I made the example for Cotto. Is he the middleweight champion? Yes he is, I accept that. But is he the best 160 lb fighter in the world right now? My answer would be no. I would want to develop a system that favored the BEST fighter by consensus of a voting committee of respectable, knowledgeable posters.

[-PBP-]

I like the idea. To maintain credibility you have to recognize the fighters who are actually champions though.

For example I can see a lot of people ranking Kovalev over Stevenson, Froch over Ward, Golovkin over Cotto or Herrera over Garcia.

Probably need to have a long list of rules (layoffs, injuries, not fighting top 10 contenders, "robbery loss rule", etc.) to make it work.