boxing

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-12-2015, 05:18 PM   #1
LittleRed
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yoknapatawpha
Posts: 3,743
vCash: 475
Default Has the value of a top 10 contender diminished?

This is an incomplete (and perhaps ridiculous) thesis. Has the value of a top 10 contender decreased in relation to previous era's?

Expansion happens often in sports and for a brief time there are more roster spots than major league talent. But that quickly levels off, whether through increased competition or increased participation. But boxing used to have higher participation levels than it does know anx has doubled it's number of weight classes. Even if we go to time periods with fewer bouts than there are now the were many fewer weight classes to be rated in.

Obviously not all contenders are rated equally but by looking at how many ranked fighters someone faced we can gain an appreciation for the depth of their resume if not the quality. Has the presence of many more weight classes diminished this concept?
LittleRed is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2015, 05:21 PM   #2
janitor
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 23,104
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Has the value of a top 10 contender diminished?

Yes.

It has become easier to crack the top ten, without fighting a dangerous challenger.
janitor is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2015, 05:23 PM   #3
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 39,772
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Has the value of a top 10 contender diminished?

The top ten contenders thing always looks more powerful in retrospect. You see now what the facts are at 160lbs, by virtue of magazines, newspapers, youtube, tv etc., but back then you can't. A top ten is literally your umbilical chord into a given era so it has far more power then than now.

But it will interesting to see what happens to this era in retrospect. I don't think we can judge the relationship between rankings and these ideas you have in this thread.
McGrain is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links


Old 02-12-2015, 05:25 PM   #4
Boxed Ears
Shockinglyuselesscomment
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Yet Accurate
Posts: 27,038
vCash: 97
Default Re: Has the value of a top 10 contender diminished?

Is there really less participation now? I do wonder. Because there's a lot more people, as in the literal total population, a gigantic increase, and the former Soviet countries opening up may have overall increased the numbers for professional boxing. I really don't know. I think America's relegating boxing to a lower level of significance may give a very misleading view of the actual participation but again, I don't know. I would have to think you're right in the extra weight classes doing more damage to the value of being top ten. It's an enormous topic to tackle but maybe as McGrain is saying, retrospect will be the only thing that can help us answer in an educated way. Should make for interesting discussion, this. It'll never be Ottke VS Corro but still.
Boxed Ears is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2015, 05:39 PM   #5
klompton2
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,974
vCash: 500
Default Re: Has the value of a top 10 contender diminished?

I would say yes seeing as how there are upwards of 30 or 40 "top ten contenders" and very few of them have ever faced an opponent they didnt know they could beat going in.
klompton2 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2015, 05:53 PM   #6
Boxed Ears
Shockinglyuselesscomment
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Yet Accurate
Posts: 27,038
vCash: 97
Default Re: Has the value of a top 10 contender diminished?

Quote:
Originally Posted by klompton2 View Post
I would say yes seeing as how there are upwards of 30 or 40 "top ten contenders" and very few of them have ever faced an opponent they didnt know they could beat going in.
That brings up a good question of semantics. Are we saying anyone who is top ten in any major rankings? Because then the answer isn't even arguable, I wouldn't think. But if we're going by some more universal rankings like when Ring has been doing it or the increasingly more potent TBR rankings, it's going to change the conversation completely if we make that clear.
Boxed Ears is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2015, 06:01 PM   #7
klompton2
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,974
vCash: 500
Default Re: Has the value of a top 10 contender diminished?

I havent paid attention to the Ring since about the time Oscar purchased it so I cant speak to that.

I think you are right that it is a question of semantics. The other problem is that ratings have always been flawed for one reason or another. People now act like the Ring ratings back in the old days were the be all and end all but those guys were trying to sell magazines and often had undeserving guys in their rankings and articles to that purpose. The sanctioning bodies rankings have at times been corrupted in various ways. In reality rankings have often, whether we want to believe it or not, been a popularity contest. If a fighter is visible, whether its a lot of Garden fights in the old days or HBO dates today, chances are hes going to get rated regardless of whether his opponent is really a worthy test of his skills. Thats the game today. Get a guy a TV date against somebody you know he can showcase against and who hopefully can make him look good and get ranked. Rinse repeat and move up the rankings. How many times have we seen a guy get a title shot today before we even know what he can do? Thats why I think the rankings suck today especially but then I think the sport as a whole has been so watered down and so devoid of talent that its hard to even watch anymore.
klompton2 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2015, 06:01 PM   #8
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 39,772
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Has the value of a top 10 contender diminished?

Yeah, very clearly the OP doesn't mean WBC, WBA etc., that's just madness.
McGrain is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2015, 06:23 PM   #9
Boxed Ears
Shockinglyuselesscomment
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Yet Accurate
Posts: 27,038
vCash: 97
Default Re: Has the value of a top 10 contender diminished?

Quote:
Originally Posted by klompton2 View Post
I havent paid attention to the Ring since about the time Oscar purchased it so I cant speak to that.

I think you are right that it is a question of semantics. The other problem is that ratings have always been flawed for one reason or another. People now act like the Ring ratings back in the old days were the be all and end all but those guys were trying to sell magazines and often had undeserving guys in their rankings and articles to that purpose. The sanctioning bodies rankings have at times been corrupted in various ways. In reality rankings have often, whether we want to believe it or not, been a popularity contest. If a fighter is visible, whether its a lot of Garden fights in the old days or HBO dates today, chances are hes going to get rated regardless of whether his opponent is really a worthy test of his skills. Thats the game today. Get a guy a TV date against somebody you know he can showcase against and who hopefully can make him look good and get ranked. Rinse repeat and move up the rankings. How many times have we seen a guy get a title shot today before we even know what he can do? Thats why I think the rankings suck today especially but then I think the sport as a whole has been so watered down and so devoid of talent that its hard to even watch anymore.
Yeah, that's why when I look to Ring I'm sort of thinking from the outset that I'm getting one set of biases, as opposed to taking two sets, then three, then four. I know they'll be skewed but they're at least just one skewed source. Within reason, you know how less watered down it is than trying to align it with all the other lineups. I mean, there's overlap but at very least, you know it's still a consistent enough way to separate the wheat from the chaff. Oscar did purchase it and there are some silly and clearly blatantly self-serving rankings but for the most part, it still is another source with bias but it's so much less egregious than a four lineup system and four different sets of corruptible influence.

Besides, I compare Oscar to, say, Sulaiman as being a pick from a guy who will steal your car and a guy who will steal your car, duct tape you and put you in the trunk, then take you to somewhere where banjo music echoes through the woods and do things to you that will make you tell a therapist you were probed by aliens.
Boxed Ears is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2015, 07:02 PM   #10
BEATDOWNZ
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 858
vCash: 500
Default Re: Has the value of a top 10 contender diminished?

Yes.

And even when a fighter gets in there they take two steps backward to take one step forward ala Thurman/Bundu.
BEATDOWNZ is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2015, 11:35 PM   #11
the_bigunit
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,448
vCash: 837
Default Re: Has the value of a top 10 contender diminished?

In economical terms, obviously. Scarcity determines value. 17 weight classes compared to 8.
the_bigunit is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2015, 12:19 AM   #12
klompton2
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,974
vCash: 500
Default Re: Has the value of a top 10 contender diminished?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxed Ears View Post
Yeah, that's why when I look to Ring I'm sort of thinking from the outset that I'm getting one set of biases, as opposed to taking two sets, then three, then four. I know they'll be skewed but they're at least just one skewed source. Within reason, you know how less watered down it is than trying to align it with all the other lineups. I mean, there's overlap but at very least, you know it's still a consistent enough way to separate the wheat from the chaff. Oscar did purchase it and there are some silly and clearly blatantly self-serving rankings but for the most part, it still is another source with bias but it's so much less egregious than a four lineup system and four different sets of corruptible influence.

Besides, I compare Oscar to, say, Sulaiman as being a pick from a guy who will steal your car and a guy who will steal your car, duct tape you and put you in the trunk, then take you to somewhere where banjo music echoes through the woods and do things to you that will make you tell a therapist you were probed by aliens.
You know its funny. A few weeks ago I was debating something with someone on another forum. We got to talking about ratings. He was going on about how someone was rated by the Ring and deserved this or that. I went through the Ring ratings, the WBA, and the WBC ratings for about a year or two following when this guy got rated, how, etc. Despite its reputation the Ring ratings were **** compared to the WBA and WBC. They were arbitrary, guys moved up and down the ratings based on nothing at all. Other guys were rated without ever having fought a contender. Still others would announce they were leaving their established division and without even having a fight in the next division up they would be rated highly. Whereas with the WBA and WBC there was a rhyme and reason to it all. You could track how and when a guy broke into the ratings, what fights moved him up or down, etc. the problem they ran into, and what made it easy for the Ring to thumb their nose at them were situations like when Joe Frazier refused to enter the elimination tournament because he was already rated #1 and then got dropped out of the ratings. High profile cases like this allowed the Ring to draw attention to such instances when in reality the Ring was doing stuff like that constantly just usually in the lower divisions or with fighters few paid any attention to. They all have their own motivations and there are always going to be weird situations that arise that dont fit into the ranking criteria that people will fall one side or the other of which will create divisions and cause some to question the rankings. Its an imperfect system I guess is what Im getting at and its only made worse by occasional corruption, bias, and now the watered down divisions and titles.
klompton2 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2015, 02:38 AM   #13
Boxed Ears
Shockinglyuselesscomment
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Yet Accurate
Posts: 27,038
vCash: 97
Default Re: Has the value of a top 10 contender diminished?

Quote:
Originally Posted by klompton2 View Post
You know its funny. A few weeks ago I was debating something with someone on another forum. We got to talking about ratings. He was going on about how someone was rated by the Ring and deserved this or that. I went through the Ring ratings, the WBA, and the WBC ratings for about a year or two following when this guy got rated, how, etc. Despite its reputation the Ring ratings were **** compared to the WBA and WBC. They were arbitrary, guys moved up and down the ratings based on nothing at all. Other guys were rated without ever having fought a contender. Still others would announce they were leaving their established division and without even having a fight in the next division up they would be rated highly. Whereas with the WBA and WBC there was a rhyme and reason to it all. You could track how and when a guy broke into the ratings, what fights moved him up or down, etc. the problem they ran into, and what made it easy for the Ring to thumb their nose at them were situations like when Joe Frazier refused to enter the elimination tournament because he was already rated #1 and then got dropped out of the ratings. High profile cases like this allowed the Ring to draw attention to such instances when in reality the Ring was doing stuff like that constantly just usually in the lower divisions or with fighters few paid any attention to. They all have their own motivations and there are always going to be weird situations that arise that dont fit into the ranking criteria that people will fall one side or the other of which will create divisions and cause some to question the rankings. Its an imperfect system I guess is what Im getting at and its only made worse by occasional corruption, bias, and now the watered down divisions and titles.
Hmm. Well, if you've got some flashlights, I've got some grappling hooks and maybe we can fix this for everyone once and for all. ...That is, if you've got the stones.

(This is actually a joke, rather than an implication of any vigilante justice to be meted out, in case the NSA is onto this)
Boxed Ears is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2015, 09:18 AM   #14
mr. magoo
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago, Illinois USA
Posts: 15,376
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Has the value of a top 10 contender diminished?

well considering that there are about 8 different factions you can be ranked by, then I suppose the answer is yes
mr. magoo is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2015, 09:50 AM   #15
Azzer85
ATG
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 11,159
vCash: 500
Default Re: Has the value of a top 10 contender diminished?

Yes i do believe it has diminished. The only division where i feel the top ten is justifiably strong is the jww and ww division where alot of the top guys have fought each other, except the main 2
Azzer85 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump






All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2015