Consolidated Boxing World Rankings

[bbboc.co.uk]

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've just sent you a private message

Thanks Salvador, I've replied.

[Dr Rumack]

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.....

I wouldn't present it as yet another ranking system. People might eventually use it for that but I wouldn't push it too hard. The last thing people want to be told about is yet another set of rankings.

But if you sell it as a 'tracker' or an 'index' then it will do much better. Given the complexity of boxing people are receptive to simplifying frameworks that give them a lot of information in a simple format.

So I would just market it as 'The Rankings Index' or something like that, or The Consolidated Rankings Index as a longer version. Sounds official and informative.

A few other thoughts:

- If I was running this I would use it as an opportunity to kick the Alphabet Orgs at every opportunity. Given that you have a transparent and easy to understand system in place you can attack them in a whole new way. And people will always want to read about that. I can see you've done it in a list form, but if you could turn that into an article that adds a bit of a narrative flourish then it would become compulsory reading for hardcore fans. Especially if you also talk about the managers and promoters of the 'anomalies' you identify. Have you thought about collaborating with some of the more established boxing blogs while you get off the ground?

- Including the Alphabet Orgs weakens your final rankings to some extent, given that they often exclude fighters who hold a rival belt. for example, Pacquiao is 1/2/1 with TBRB/RING/Boxrec, but only 5th on your list because the IBF/WBA/WBC haven't ranked him. Again I think this is why it's better to present what you have as an index or tracker because the ranking itself can't overcome the idiocy of the alphabet bodies.

- It would be great if you could highlight anomalies in the charts themselves. Some sort of visual indicator of where the discrepancies are would make it even more useful to readers.

- Finally are you compiling all of this data manually? If so have you thought about enlisting help? If you're looking for people with free time and enough interest in boxing you're in the right place. Try reddit.com/r/boxing too which is somewhat more civil than the forums. If you could find a programmer who could help you change from a pdf to an embedded interactive format it would probably help a lot.

[Dr Rumack]

Also, really like this chart at the end of your 'One and Onlys' page




It says a lot. I would have this on your landing page, not buried in a pdf. I know you're just getting started with the site but for me that's the sort of punchy stat you want to have right up front.

[bbboc.co.uk]

I wouldn't present it as yet another ranking system. People might eventually use it for that but I wouldn't push it too hard. The last thing people want to be told about is yet another set of rankings.

But if you sell it as a 'tracker' or an 'index' then it will do much better. Given the complexity of boxing people are receptive to simplifying frameworks that give them a lot of information in a simple format.

So I would just market it as 'The Rankings Index' or something like that, or The Consolidated Rankings Index as a longer version. Sounds official and informative.

A few other thoughts:

- If I was running this I would use it as an opportunity to kick the Alphabet Orgs at every opportunity. Given that you have a transparent and easy to understand system in place you can attack them in a whole new way. And people will always want to read about that. I can see you've done it in a list form, but if you could turn that into an article that adds a bit of a narrative flourish then it would become compulsory reading for hardcore fans. Especially if you also talk about the managers and promoters of the 'anomalies' you identify. Have you thought about collaborating with some of the more established boxing blogs while you get off the ground?

- Including the Alphabet Orgs weakens your final rankings to some extent, given that they often exclude fighters who hold a rival belt. for example, Pacquiao is 1/2/1 with TBRB/RING/Boxrec, but only 5th on your list because the IBF/WBA/WBC haven't ranked him. Again I think this is why it's better to present what you have as an index or tracker because the ranking itself can't overcome the idiocy of the alphabet bodies.

- It would be great if you could highlight anomalies in the charts themselves. Some sort of visual indicator of where the discrepancies are would make it even more useful to readers.

- Finally are you compiling all of this data manually? If so have you thought about enlisting help? If you're looking for people with free time and enough interest in boxing you're in the right place. Try reddit.com/r/boxing too which is somewhat more civil than the forums. If you could find a programmer who could help you change from a pdf to an embedded interactive format it would probably help a lot.

I can't thank you enough for the feedback, and couldn't agree more with your thoughts and advice.

I've spent the morning reworking it as an index (a far more accurate description of what it actually is) and adding in a bit of wording as a stand alone page for the "Hall of Shame" as this is something I agree will ring much more with boxing fans.

I have also, on the back of a re-think and some groans, re-worked the scores with the WBA Regular belt downgraded to 15 points rather than the 20 for the main belt. A small change, the belt does still carry some significance even if it is ignored by most "proper" boxing fans, but hopefully again improving the appearance of the listing and the fairness of the scoring.

Thank you for taking the time and effort to read and then also offer back your insights.

[-PBP-]

Great work. I think you need to adjust the way you recognize alphabet titles though. A fighter shouldn't be penalized for not being ranked because he is a title holder or mandatory with one organization. Something to think about.

[bbboc.co.uk]

Great work. I think you need to adjust the way you recognize alphabet titles though. A fighter shouldn't be penalized for not being ranked because he is a title holder or mandatory with one organization. Something to think about.

I agree, it is a difficult thing because we all know that "not all titles are equal" but each of the alphabet boys have a handful of worthy champions, so it is not like you can say that the WBC belt is worth more than the WBO belt (even the WBO currently has Fury, Lomachenko, Kovalev, Abraham, Crawford and Bradley among it's champions).

I have given "champions" 3 points (equivalent to a #7 ranking) for each of the bodies that they cannot be ranked by (so a one belt champ has 29 points, plus whatever they score with Ring, Box Rec & TNBR, a Two-Belt champion scores 46 plus those three, etc...).

It is difficult, because, in the even of someone not holding a belt but being ranked #1 by all 4 governing bodies plus the three other rankings, they would have 70 points and so probably outscore the belt holders in their division, but then that would probably be right.

The closest to this (from memory) was Amir Khan. ranked 1 with the WBC, 2 with the WBA, 3 with the WBO and the Ring, 4 by the IBF and TBR and 5 with Box Rec, his score of 55 in the index is the highest of any non-belt holder and gives him an inflated #2 spot at WW, but once the vacant belts at that weight (WBC, WBA Super, Ring & TNBR) are distributed by their bodies, I am sure it will straighten itself out.

[BostonGuy]

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

Can you copy and paste the rankings in this thread? Thanks

[bigjavi973]

https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/0c9566a6/files/uploaded/CB%20Index%20-%20December%202015_c1M996iHRLOaXNDHfoH1.pdf

these rankings are really great!

[bbboc.co.uk]

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.

You might be right on the weighting for champions (anyone with multi-belts is almost immediately at the top of their division) but the real important part imo is those that are ignored by one body despite being in the top 10 for everyone else and those that are in the top 10 for one of the bodies, but do not come close to the top 10 for anyone else.

Per December's rankings with the WBA 10 of their 17 #1 contender's do not have a ranking in the top 10 with any other governing body, nor the Ring, nor the TNBR, nor Box Rec.

How can nearly 60% of the WBA's mandatory challengers not be regarded as top 10 contenders by any other sanctioning body or recognised ranking system? It is a shambles.

With regards the British Board of Control, they seem to use BBBofC officially (despite most in the press using the BBBoC) and despite being british opted to have the .com domain rather than the .co.uk one. Seems odd to me too.

As much as I would love to be proved wrong, I very much doubt that my site will blow up big enough for the board to even notice its existence.

[Eff Pandas]

Llove the idea I've done this myself, but I've taken out the 4 abc groups & just made the focus of my rankings the Ring, TBRB & ESPN rankings with minor play to the abc rankings as often there are guys ranked in the top 5 of an abc group that wouldn't be ranked in the top 30 of a legit indie ranking.

These type of rankings give a much more level & reasonable outlook of the divisions + your CB rankings show how nutty the abc groups rankings can be. Someone could make a boxing humor blog off of the abc rankings.