Consolidated Boxing World Rankings

**DeadLikeMe** · 01-21-2016, 04:51 PM

Nate Silver couldn't come up with a proper metric for boxing rankings if you gave him PBC's entire three year budget.

**Chrismart** · 01-21-2016, 04:54 PM

Good job, sounds interesting. I'll be sure to check this out.

**Citizen Koba** · 01-21-2016, 05:23 PM

Nice. Do the actual BBBoC know that you've appropriated their abbreviation?

Good work though. My only real criticism is the points awarded to champions - the 20pts awarded to a champion may be a little top heavy but ain't unreasonable - the problem comes with lineal champs who are, in effect, awarded the 20pts two or three times, since both the TBRB and (usually) The Ring automatically count the lineal champ as 'the' champ along with whichever sanctioning org. gave them the trinket in the first place.

Of course, some may feel this is appropriate... the Lineal championship is still the only one that matters to many, but personally I feel you may have inadvertently weighted it a bit too heavily.

**about.thousands** · 01-21-2016, 05:38 PM

Nice site. At work right now but I'll check it out more once i get home

**bbboc.co.uk** · 01-21-2016, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by Koba-Grozny

Nice. Do the actual BBBoC know that you've appropriated their abbreviation?

Good work though. My only real criticism is the points awarded to champions - the 20pts awarded to a champion may be a little top heavy but ain't unreasonable - the problem comes with lineal champs who are, in effect, awarded the 20pts two or three times, since both the TBRB and (usually) The Ring automatically count the lineal champ as 'the' champ along with whichever sanctioning org. gave them the trinket in the first place.

Of course, some may feel this is appropriate... the Lineal championship is still the only one that matters to many, but personally I feel you may have inadvertently weighted it a bit too heavily.

Thanks for that, I tend to agree but generally feel that a champion should trump a contender ranked across all bodies and so needed to weight it as such.

I hope to gather thoughts and feedback of fans, rather than "those in the game" to tweak things until they give the fairest overview.

**Dr Rumack** · 01-21-2016, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by bbboc.co.uk

Being a bit sad, I have compiled consolidated rankings, taking from the four main governing bodies, the Ring, Box Rec and the Transnational Boxing Ratings.

The idea being that it gives a fairer view (as boxers getting a ranking with one body and none of the others, end up with less points than those ranked across the board).

It also highlights the boxers (and more importantly the bodies) where there are anomolies (such as one body not ranking someone that everyone else does, or alternatively one body rating someone that nobody else does).

I have finally got around to setting up my website www.bbboc.co.uk and have posted up the rankings (along with the scoring criteria and the actual scoring.

I accept that many will find it very dull, and dislike the idea, but for those that have even a passing interest, I would greatly value any honest thoughts, feedback or advice.

Many thanks to you all.

Colin

Cool. Great work. Must have taken a lot of time to do this. You should definitely seek out retweets for this as a lot of people would find it interesting.

I wouldn't mind seeing the alphabet rankings vs. the journalist/boxrec rankings. Like you say the anomalies are of interest.

**bbboc.co.uk** · 01-22-2016, 04:46 AM

Originally posted by Dr Rumack

Cool. Great work. Must have taken a lot of time to do this. You should definitely seek out retweets for this as a lot of people would find it interesting.

I wouldn't mind seeing the alphabet rankings vs. the journalist/boxrec rankings. Like you say the anomalies are of interest.

I'm not on twitter, but will have to think of way to try and raise the profile as I think it is a useful excerise.

Initially I thought it would be nice to have a "more fair ranking system", but it might be that the greatest strength / benefit of my rankings are it highlighting the governing bodies that are ranking bums and nobodies in their top ten (that even their contemporaries have not been interested in).

Shows who is paying those "sanctioning" fees.....

**removed** · 01-22-2016, 04:55 AM

Very nice, i love the content & both articles are very good, however i can see the BBBOC slapping you with a cease and desist letter, I'd change the name, and if it was me, I'd install wordpress instead of using that website builder. Get a nice wordpress theme and it'll look smart.

**HughJass** · 01-22-2016, 04:56 AM

Originally posted by bbboc.co.uk

Being a bit sad, I have compiled consolidated rankings, taking from the four main governing bodies, the Ring, Box Rec and the Transnational Boxing Ratings.

The idea being that it gives a fairer view (as boxers getting a ranking with one body and none of the others, end up with less points than those ranked across the board).

It also highlights the boxers (and more importantly the bodies) where there are anomolies (such as one body not ranking someone that everyone else does, or alternatively one body rating someone that nobody else does).

I have finally got around to setting up my website www.bbboc.co.uk and have posted up the rankings (along with the scoring criteria and the actual scoring.

I accept that many will find it very dull, and dislike the idea, but for those that have even a passing interest, I would greatly value any honest thoughts, feedback or advice.

Many thanks to you all.

Colin

I've just sent you a private message

Consolidated Boxing World Rankings