This is in response to a post from Dan-b. I said in a thread about BoxRec rankings that computerised rankings could only work with an organised matchmaking system. Dan-b asked me to elaborate, so here is what I had in mind, though obviously someone else might have a better way to put it out there. if you have a system where fighters and their managers do not get to choose who they do or don't fight, but rather to make the big purses are obliged to fight opponents based on an organised system that is applied to all boxers, then a computerised ranking can be valid. If I was running boxing i would organize it the following way: 2 major boxing tournaments per year. One in the Americas and one in Europe/Asia. Not simultaneously, one from January to June and one from July to December. 8 boxers per division qualify for each tournament. At the beginnig of the tournament you have to choose your division and stick to it. Purses are dealt out like they are in tennis. The further you get, the more money and points you make. At the same time there are many minor boxing tournaments of different importance around the world. These tournaments give out less points than the majors. They operate on the same principle as the major ones: the further you get in the tournament, the more money (and rankings points) you make. The boxers that qualify for the tournaments are the ones with the most points. Every time a boxer moves up a division, he loses 10% of his points. The points stay with the fighter for 3 years, after that they are dropped off. I got this idea mostly from tennis. In terms of non-combat sports, the most similar sport to boxing in the world is tennis. Tennis has a system that works to perfection. Boxing and tennis have major differences, especially in terms of how often the atheletes can compete and also weight classes, but these differences can be tended to with modifications of the system Questions or comments?
That's a great idea ! Surprized no one is responding to that... A few years back I had put the following system together: Points system to rate boxers This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected -5 when you draw against an opponent with less or equal wins than losses. -4 when you draw against an opponent with at least 10 losses. -1 when you draw against an opponent with 5 or more losses. + 1 when you draw against an opponent with 5 or less losses but more than 40 wins. + 2 when you draw against an opponent with 5 or less losses but more than 50 wins. + 1 when you draw against an unbeaten opponent with at least 30 wins. + 2 when you draw against an unbeaten opponent with at least 40 wins. + 1 when you draw against a champion with 5 or less losses but at least 30 wins. + 2 when you draw against the undisputed champion with 5 or less losses but at least 30 wins. * Only the WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO & RING MAGAZINE are considered for belts. *
PH|LLA Good post and a great idea. Winner gets more money so they fight harder to win. Would make for better public viewing of bouts.
"2 major boxing tournaments per year." Do you mean 2 tournaments per division, per year? "One in the Americas and one in Europe/Asia." How about you have the 6 regions, Europe, Asia, Africa, North America, South America & Oceania, and cities from each region bid to host the next tournament. You can't have the same region hosting 2 consecutive tournaments. "Boxing and tennis have major differences, especially in terms of how often the atheletes can compete" Yeah inactivity would be a real problem. David Haye wouldn't have many points. Mayweather too. May need to make it longer than 3 years. Good idea and thought provoking stuff :good
You'll never get the top fighters fighting as often as that. It's a decent idea, but just not feasible at all.
funny i was just talking to a friend about how the boxing system needs to be changed/revamped, this is a great idea. But how about existing champs and the variations of belts for different types of boxing orgs? (WBC, IBF, etc.)
What people should understand is that pro-boxing is not like tennis. Pro boxing is more like show-business. The nationality of a fighter is all important to his financial success. If you're American, you already have a huge advantage over those who aren't. If you're fighting at HW, you already have a big advantage over fighters fighting at other weights, because the general public are more interested in HWs than they are in LWs. If you come from a country with a strong boxing tradition, where people regularly attend events in big numbers, you have a big advantage over others from countries that don't. If you have a good promoter who gets you the right exposure and TV dates, you have a huge advantage over those who don't. If you're white and good-looking, you're making more money. Just look at John Duddy. If you're latino, you make good money in the U.S., because there are plenty of latino fight fans. If you fight out of the U.S, you make more money than if you fight out of Indonesia. Trying to organise matchmaking in boxing is like trying to organise a fair system to pay pop-stars according to how well they can sing, rather than how popular they are and how much marketing potential they have. Madonna isn't one of the most successful acts in the world because she's the best singer or because she has the best songs. It is because she markets herself very well and because she sings songs and routines that appeals a lot to the market that has the most money to spend. If she had been a folk singer from Mongolia, we wouldn't have heard about her, even if she was a hell of a singer, danger and song-writer. It's the same with professional boxers, more or less. Professional boxing is a business, not a sport. The aim is not to be the best but to maximize your earnings whilst minimizing the risk of suffering permanent injury. A fighter like Gatti will make more money given his talent than a fighter like Dawson, given his, even though Dawson would beat better people than Gatti. This is because Gatti fights in a certain way that pleases the public. Dawson doesn't. On the other hand, Dawson only attracts a few thousand fans, but because he's American and has a good promoter and network backing, he's making a million dollars/fight. Other fighters have four times more fans watching them, but make a third of that money at best, and they're also Champs. Why did Calzaghe drop the IBF title to fight Manfredo? Because he was American and he wanted to become well-known in America. Not because he was better than Stieglitz. This is boxing. Take the Super Six. Why wasn't Bika invited? Because no one gives a **** about an African guy who isn't even popular in his adopted country. If pro-boxing was like tennis, Bika would be invited, because he deserves to be there. Of course, if Bika had a big American promoter who could sell him to the American masses or the TV networks, Bika would be in the tournament. But he doesn't. So he's not. Why were Ward and Dirrell invited? Because they're American. It's as simple as that. Why was Taylor invited? Because he was American, was well-known, and because he has a powerfull promoter. This is how it works, folks. Take it or leave it.
those guys would still make more money because of advertising deals. Maria Sharapova doesn't need to be the best player on the tour to make the most money. Roddick probably makes more money than alot of players as well just because he is american and gets advertising deals. Its just that boxing's lack of marketability and integrity means that advertisers shy away and therefore the only way the big names will make more money is off PPV revenue. So i think if you revamp the sport and make it bigger globally, the big marketable names will make more money anyways because of advertisement deals and the smaller names will make more moeny too if they perform. Everyone would make more money because there would be more money in the pot.