A New Objective Points System To Rate Boxers

And a win over Dawson would give him less, even though it should be worth 10 times more.

 

Nice work, will have to really get into looking at it in depth in a little while. You obviously put a LOAD of thought into this and at first look it's very interesting. KUDOS. It sure beats the **** out of the Tyson Rating that ****er over at ESPN come up with.

 

defo

he has gained my respect for sure

 

Sorry, mate, this system is conceptually flawed...it doesn't allow for the fact that some fighters have heavily padded records, for the fact that some wins are more impressive than others, for the fact that some fighters fight a lot of fights against very tough opponents who have lost to other very tough opponents, for the fact that some belts have been gotten more easily than others...etc etc...Any system according to which Inkin has beaten the best opposition second only to Joe and Mikkel is flawed, or don't your instincts tell you that?

Good try though, but it isn't close to being as easy as that! It's more of an art than the flawed science you are claiming it is...

Heroic try though!:good

 

It raises the idea of developing a system to perhaps work in conjunction with another set of parameters.

I think that Perhaps ESB Rankings could adopt somekind of effective and developed system to produce some numerical value. Then allow the rationale of the voting process to correct the spots where the numbers arent quite in line with the theory. It would also give more credibility to ESB Rankings.

Great initiative, good post, and hopefully some inspired thought:good

 

I am sorry, but any enterprise along these lines is necessarily logically flawed. Boxing is not at all like chess, where every player can have a ranking that gives a very good indication of that player's level of ability. It's completely different. It is a complete waste of time to try to build a system along these lines that would give anywhere close to reasonable outcomes. And here's another problem? How would you judge how good a system was if not by comparing it to what YOU consider to be reasonable rankings? That is why any system that goes by points accumulated, like that used by boxrec or any other, will only get you so far...and will only be decent when it comes to comparing journeymen and contenders, but when it comes to comparing top fighters...it fails...horribly.

In the end, rankings is an art; it cannot possibly be a science, not even an imprecise one, because so many of the variables that could be inbuilt into the system, to make it more responsive are very much based on subjective judgement, not just when it comes to their extent, but also when it comes to their very importance (whether they apply or not in the first place).

 

Only way a points system could be in any way useful if boxers fought at least a 100-150 times and they fought each other randomly...take tennis for example, and ATP points...you only start earning ATP points once you have qualifed for an ATP tournament...but in boxing, a journeyman with 0 professional fights could step in the ring against a good contender without anyone as much as blinking an eye - everyone has to start somewhere! You could have a decent points system for the amateur boxing game, but not for the professional game...:verysad

 

hmm says... kinda like fantasy football league right? You rate some fighters first then we'll get a better picture of the system and it's flaws.