1) How would you rank fighters A, B, C, D and E if: A could beat B, D and E but not C B could beat C and D, but not A or E C could beat A and E, but not B or D D could beat C and E, but not A or B E could beat B, but not A or C or D? 2) should fighters be ranked according to the names they have beaten on their resume in the past or just according to their likely present form, based on showings in recent fights and effects of recent fights on their likely present state?
tobkhan, mate, you'd better get used to thinking for yourself ALONE from now on and not even RELYING on a hint from any other ranking list out there - you're on the :happy :happy :happy ESB Rankings Committee:happy :happy :happy !:good
This is an example of how American's rate fighters... There are 3 fighters...A B and C. A beat B and lost to C twice. B lost to A and drew with C. C beat A twice and drew with B So... A - 1-0-2 B - 2-1-0 C - 0-1-1 Americans rate A (Hopkins) the highest by far.
A C B D E Going purely on the wins and losses. And always rate fighters on recent form - making concessions for injuries etc. How much ability they have at the present time.
It will never be like a math exercise to rate fighters. Maybe C's win was very convincing and A fought B 6 years ago and still living off that win? I think this discussion is worthless without naming the fighters...
Given the info you are given, you should have some clue as to the right order...of course, the more info you were given, the more valid your answer.