***A New, Fair System for Judging P4P***

Let us consider how a fair system for judging p4p would work. To do this, I propose we:

1. analyse the current system and see its faults
2. try to remedy those faults within a new system
3. analyse the new system and see its faults
4. compare the results of the new system with our instinctive appreciation of what should be the p4p ranking
5. remedy the new system again to fit our instinctive appreciation better.

So...to start off with...

This content is protected

Obviously, if you get beaten by the very best, you shouldn't fall down the p4p rankings as much as if you had been beaten by someone less good. Also, if you beat someone who is Elite, you should go up more in the rankings than if you had beaten someone less good...

BUT - the other side of the coin is the:

The Circle Jerk - if you get beaten by a big name in the circle of big names, you don't fall down much, even if/ because that big name has been beaten by another big name, that you yourself have beaten, etc. etc. - a closed system where if you're in, you're in for good, and if you're out, not only are you not going to get a chance to get in, but if you do, and win...you will become part of the circle jerk for good, win or lose.

How could this vicious circle be broken?

This content is protected

If you beat someone who has in the past beaten someone who was someone, you are someone, even if the someone you have beaten hasn't been much of anything for a while It's all to do with reputations - as if fighters don't decline/ move out of their prime...Even more perversely, if you beat a live threat who doesn't have much of a CV but is in fact moving into their prime, your win doesn't count for so much

How could this be remedied without allowing subjectivity to take over and mess things up?

This content is protected

If you dodge a live threat, you keep your high ranking because you haven't been beaten...How can this be remedied?

 

Sure, wise words...but Lincoln would also have said, if we could ask him, something like:

This content is protected

 

Yes...good point...bigger guys cannot throw the same artful flurries...on the other hand, small guys can still KO/TKO (But do so less often, right? So isn't there a trade-off? I really don't know the facts here...please help!)...how could this be remedied?

 

Are you saying that the very concept is ridiculous, given the many complications that comparison across different weights provides? So...is this as ridiculous as saying: this 100 metres runner is a better athlete than that 1500 metres runner, or is it less ridiculous?:think

 

Are different standards used for what constitutes a good boxer at different weights? If not, should there be? Which ones?:think

 

Out of interest, when was the system of p4p ranking introduced? Why? (People have known for millenia that an average big boxer can beat a good small boxer...)

 

Well...it's not as if P4P rankings were somehow only something that boxing anoracks would get involved with! Every professional body/organisation/magazine/writer has a list! It is considered the ultimate list in some ways - even more important than rankings for each weight!

 

Of course we are not going to change anything...but we could come up with a better system for our own use...and entertainment!