A new truly 'divsional' ranking system

Well, they adjust a fighter's ranking based on the subsequent results of opponents, which is complete nonsense. Fighters decline, fighters improve (like both Maidana and Soto Karass), and some wins are a matter of styles and the 'triangle theory' doesn't apply.

 

We analysed a lot of records, and found that three was the closest round period in which a fighter is basically at the same level. Five is way too much. Three favours older fighters more than most other rankings do, but five would often keep completely faded fighters in. Mayweather and Maidana are pretty good examples of the two opposite cases that show three years is fair: Mayweather is pretty apparently no longer the fighter he was when he beat Mosley four years ago, while Maidana has pretty apparently improved recently so shouldn't be held back from losing to Khan four years ago. Rankings should capture a fighter's current but still proven level: more than what he did last fight, but not what he did 5+ years ago.

 

The rules are indeed clearly posted and accessible. The system is in fact simpler and more transparent than boxrec's. It just requires adding up to 30 and multiplying by 3! It's based on just top 30 however. The idea is they're 'world class' rankings, and beating several opponents well below world level shouldn't garner mention amongst the elite (take Gary Russell as an obvious example, who shouldn't be as high as the 24 he is on boxrec). It's updated twice monthly. Just monthly isn't frequent enough, but weekly isn't essential as the top fighters simply don't fight that often these days, especially against each other. Of course boxrec's an amazing resource for records, but that they rank Chavez highly at 168 and Donaire highly at 126 shows there's a definite need for a truly divisional statistical ranking system.

http://worldboxingrankings.proboards.com/board/23/ranking-system-rules

 

Find me a team in a sports league whose greater goals for/against record has them higher in the standings than another team despite a worse winning record. No, what matters in athletic competition is winning. In boxing it's particularly impossible to determine what constitutes a more dominant victory anyway. Some fighters and some styles fight more to the level of their opposition and only edge out the rounds they win. Boxing isn't about knockouts, they're not necessarily an indication of a more dominant win, so it wouldn't be fair to give knockout wins more credit in rankings. Scorecards aren't a reliable indication of dominance: Mayweather beat Maidana by the same scores as Canelo, but you can't tell me he was equally dominant. As I mentioned, three judges are used to better arrive at a single decision, not to show how dominant a win is. If rankings qualify wins, they might as well use punch stat numbers. Evaluating what wins are more dominant has to be left for fans and media to decide and debate about. Go ahead and let what you think are more dominant wins contribute more on your personal p4p list, but in divisional rankings the winner is rewarded, and that's all there is to it.

It's also not the business of rankings to try to police the sport by ignoring decisions. Better judging needs to be addressed through better governance and regulation, not through unofficial rankings. I actually think it's counterproductive for unofficial rankings to disregard official decisions: it suggests that rankings 'fixing' bad decisions is good enough, and judges can get away with it.

 

Thanks. I've noticed other rankings will put a fighter who scores an upset immediately above the fighter he beat, or worse rank a prospect with apparent ability and potential but an unimpressive record, but if he loses they seem to 'change their mind' and decide he didn't really deserve to be ranked. In this system if positions are manipulated future positions would be skewed. The cream rises to the top soon enough.

 

It surprised me, but Mosley managed to be number 2 before Pac, allowing Pac to claim recognition as champion. Mayweather was above Mosley after he beat him, but didn't have a big enough lead to remain above him when he lost points from the Hatton win. Fact is Floyd was inactive and fought a lightweight at the time in Marquez.

I started at 1997, so with the historical rankings we also have the info to show all-time top points earners. Keep in mind that Trinidad's earlier wins didn't count. Piccirillo was an overlooked fighter, who despite losing to Spinks had a good, long career and several B+ wins. This shows that many very good welterweights didn't manage a good enough run to establish true greatness. So here's the greatest welterweights since 1997

http://worldboxingrankings.proboards.com/thread/261/welterweight