Tweet
In lieu of knowing **** about boxing, I like to indulge in boxing related projects of varying levels of autism. One favourite theme is to speculate on a world where boxing was run like a real sport, rather than the network of overlapping criminal scams it actually is.
Recent Hullabaloo about opponent quality at Heavyweight caused me to revisit one of these projects and polish it up a bit. Basically its a soccer style league table consisting of the present top 25 at any one time. If a guy drops out of the top 25, his results drop out too - so only your results against presently ranked opponents count. Beating up old guys and flash in the pan hypejobs wont sustain you for long.
Entirely useless as a ranking for a million reasons; it does, I suppose, reveal something as regards dominance or credibility - and at least will reveal any complete dossers lurking in the ratings.
I probably wouldn't have been bothered posting it until I compared it with some historical snapshots, which I found interesting - so maybe someone else will.
It certainly confirmed what we already knew - top guys fight eachother less than before; but it seems to have plateaued since the 90's instead of continuing to decline.
It also suggests something I am fairly convinced of - if you fight enough good fighters of your own generation, (at Heavyweight at least) you will find your stylistic problems and take your "L's", no matter how good you are. The cap seems to be around 6-8 before you find your inevitable bogeyman.
Also, many beloved or revered fighters from earlier times, were the equivalent of fringe guys casually called "bums" today, so presumably many of these "mid table" guys will find their stock similarly rising down the road.
Anyways, thought I'd share it since it will be out of date tomorrow, and probably be consigned to my project graveyard forever.
Recent Hullabaloo about opponent quality at Heavyweight caused me to revisit one of these projects and polish it up a bit. Basically its a soccer style league table consisting of the present top 25 at any one time. If a guy drops out of the top 25, his results drop out too - so only your results against presently ranked opponents count. Beating up old guys and flash in the pan hypejobs wont sustain you for long.
Entirely useless as a ranking for a million reasons; it does, I suppose, reveal something as regards dominance or credibility - and at least will reveal any complete dossers lurking in the ratings.
I probably wouldn't have been bothered posting it until I compared it with some historical snapshots, which I found interesting - so maybe someone else will.
It certainly confirmed what we already knew - top guys fight eachother less than before; but it seems to have plateaued since the 90's instead of continuing to decline.
It also suggests something I am fairly convinced of - if you fight enough good fighters of your own generation, (at Heavyweight at least) you will find your stylistic problems and take your "L's", no matter how good you are. The cap seems to be around 6-8 before you find your inevitable bogeyman.
Also, many beloved or revered fighters from earlier times, were the equivalent of fringe guys casually called "bums" today, so presumably many of these "mid table" guys will find their stock similarly rising down the road.
Anyways, thought I'd share it since it will be out of date tomorrow, and probably be consigned to my project graveyard forever.