Hi all, I think like most boxing fans I enjoy putting together all kinds of lists, usually top 10, rating and compering fighters within an era and division - as well as from different eras and irrespectively of weight classes, so called Pound for Pound. To do it, some kind of criteria and system is required. There was a popular thread here - comparing resumes of Floyd Mayweatehr and Manny Pacquiao to that of Roberto Duran (Courtesy of @NoNeck): https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...n-floyd-mayweather-and-manny-pacquiao.683550/ It put an emphasis on the number of top (1), top 5 as well as top 10 opponents in the division beaten, according to The Ring ratings at the time - but I think most members, like myself, were not quite satisfied with the results. Most importantly it doesn't really takes into account the strength of the division in different time/era, as well as talent/capabilities of individual stand-outs. When We have a system that values win over Baldomir for Floyd just as highly as the win over Ray Leonard for Mayweather, We know there's a problem. I wanted to share the rating system I "developed" for my own purposes. It's not particulary creative or innovative - but I wanted to put it for review to see if maybe You could help me improve it or point out some issues with it that I could be missing. - For any fighter, wins are rated from A to C, with each win on "relevant" level (more about it below), being worth from 10 points to half a point (As default, again - more about it below). A - Win over ATG in his prime (in and around his best weight-class). Value: 10 Points. Examples: Ray Robinson UD15 Kid Gavilan II, Roberto Duran UD12 Ray Leonard I. (A-) - Win over first-ballot HOF-er or top PFP level opponent in his prime. Value: 6 Points. Examples: Guillermo Rigondeaux UD12 Nonito Donaire, Manny Pacquiao TKO11 Marco Antonio Barrera I B - Win over fighter at the bottom of PFP top 10 recognition, best fighter in a (not particulary strong) division - or a fighter who's basically not quite making it for the category above, but is clearly above the category below. Value: 3 Points Examples: Naoya Inoue TKO8 Stephen Fulton , Joe Calzaghe UD12 Mikkel Kessler (B-) - Win over above average title-holder in 4 belt era. In single title era it would usually be a fighter considered among the top-relevant contenders. Value: 1 Point. Examples: Floyd Mayweather RTD9 Jesus Chavez, Manny Pacquiao TKO9 David Diaz etc. C - In 4 belt era, fighter who has a chance of winning a title with right opportunity - or is considered a solid contender in stronger era/division. In 1 title era, it would most likely be a fighter considered fringe contender. Value: 0,5 Point. Examples: Junto Nakatani KO12 Andrew Moloney, Gennady Golovkin KO3 Matthew Mackin. Beyond that, if fighter has a bunch of decent-enough wins on a bit lower level, I might give him some points, or fractions, for depth. Couple additional notes: - I don't punish fighters for losing. Don't think it makes sense to award fighters who don't try - over fighters who try and fail. Losses are not taken into account. - It's all sort of a default and cue rather than rules set in stone. If I'm not sure to which category certain win belongs, I might award fighter 2 points or any other "intermediate" number. - Importantly, if a fight is a draw or I feel fight could've gone either way - I'll usually give a fighter the points worth for a "full" win category below - and I'll also award a fighter who has strong argument for winning the fight, but who ended up on the losing end. Draw(Or very close fight) with A level fighter will be worth as much as win over (A-) level fighter etc.. Example here can be Canelo's win over Erislandy Lara. I feel - like many people - it could've gone either way and don't feel it makes sense to leave it as a loss for Lara and win for Canelo the way it looks on paper just because 2 of the judges prefered Canelo's work... when other trio could've easily gave a win to the other guy. I give each guy 4 point for that fight - sort of awarding both for being involved in high level contest and having their argument for winning. - It all leaves a lot of room for subjectivity - with which fight You consider close and to which category any given win belongs - but in my view, any system based on clear categories (like numbers of champions/HOF-ers beaten, title defences and such) is always leading to non-satisfactory results and does not give us good view of fighter's career achievements - anyway. It rather gives us illusion of objective standards of greatness. Thus, more "free" and subjective system is - in my opinion - better, particulary in decentralised sport with subjective scoring system like boxing. It makes it more fun as well. - Now, to show how it might look and what kind of results We might get - example on (my) top 5 Featherweight of the 2000s (judging only their work in Featherweight division in the decade of 2000s): 1) Juan Manuel Marquez A- Pacquiao I (Q) B - John(Q+) B- Medina,Gainer,Polo,Salido C - Peden,Terdsak 4 + 2 + 4 + 1 + Depth:0,5 ; Total: 11,5 2) Manny Pacquiao A- Marquez(Q),Barrera (4+6) ; Total: 10 3) Erik Morales A-Barrera II(Q+) B- In Jin Chi, P.Ayala C - Espadas Jr.,Kelley 5 + 2 + 1 ; Total: 8 4) Marco Antonio Barrera A- Morales II(Q-) B - Hamed(+) C - Ayala,Tapia,(Sanchez+Kelley) 2 + 4 + 1,5 ; Total: 7,5 5) Chris John A- Marquez(Q-) B- Gainer,Juarez I(Q),Juarez II(Q+) C - Sato,Rojas,Enoki 2 + 2,5 + 1,5 + Depth:1 ; Total: 7 Q - Questionable win. Q+ means I thought the fighter likely deserved a win, but there's an argument for the other guy winning as well. Q-, the other way around. I thought Morales was hard done by in a rematch against Barrera - but there were enough close rounds to perhaps swing it to MAB. I gave Morales 5 points for that win, while only 2 to Barrera. Similar story with Marquez and John. Subjective, someone else might judge it completely different. Turned out a bit long? but if anyone got through it - Thoughts?
