ESB Official Rankings Constitution: First Draft

The only worry i would have though, is making an assesment based upon Amsterdams model (60% resume, 40% ability), and then getting criticised by others because they have made their rankings using a more "conventional" (IMO a more backward) method. I think it is definitely something that needs to be defined, as if the criteria differs to much, the poll results will be extremely misleading and open to interpretation.

 

good work lamps, I will definately vote on the first sunday of evry month.

 

Then once we figure out WHAT it is, how do we quantify it? We all know who looks more skilled in many cases when comparing fighters, but anyone can look skilled against average fighters. So resume has to be considered in equal measure IMO. I saw a 60% ability 40% resume model, but I like 50/50 better based on fighters with great ability not necessarily fighting the best fighters AND with more than a few of us not even agreeing on what "ability" is to begin with.

Subjective things such as ability need to be kept within balance.

 

Good call KG. By using resume as much as perceived ability, individuals can keep hype in check, for most of the time products of hype come from extremely padded records. Boxrec has attempted to quantify their ratings, but have taken the subjective part completely out of the equation. Perhaps, for our ranking purposes, we could come up with a statistical analysis of a fighters resume, but only use it as an index for ratings, not the rating in itself. This would allow for some subjectivity as well as some statistical analysis in our rankings. I'm going to spend some time trying to develop a way to quantify the level of opposition in regards to opponents win percentages, future and past champions defeated, wins over sanctioned ranked fighters and wins over P4P rated fighters. Again, all of this could be enhanced once we start ranking our own fighters, for we would not have to rely on sanctioning body rankings, ring rankings or any other subjective rankings other than our own. Again, this would only be used as an index for rating resumes, not as the final rankings. It would sort of be like strength of opposition in the NCAA football rating syste, for those that are aware of the system.

 

Well even resume is subjective. Names on resumes sometimes are better than the fighters. Wright is a big name, but I give Hopkins little credit for beating him, while others go on about how he beat a top P4P fighter.

 

Good point. Perhaps I will have to add in some sort of negative quantifier if an individual is fighting in a weight class or even catchweight where he hasn't proven anything. Again, the index would only be used as a factor, and everyone would know how the index is produced, so if I cant come up with some sort of statistical variance for this type of event, it could be addressed during your individual rankings.

 

Good work guys. I just want to add that the problem with the P4P list is a big one. Very difficult to set the criteria(s) for the purpose of rating boxers.

I posted a thread regarding the same subject about two/three weeks ago but I did not have luck, no many people answered my questions.

Anyway, here is a question. How are you going to determine who is in his prime and who's not? When you take into cosideration the resume and opponents (which makes sense), you might see big names there but probably some of those boxers were past it or almost shot already.

Let me give you an example. How can you prove that Barrera was not in his prime when he lost against Pac and then a few years after he faces the same guy who beat him, who happens to be in his prime this time around, but this time MAB defeats him? What about the second fight against Eric Morales? Was EM pretty much shot? Can you prove it?

How are you going to do to measure what boxer is more past it? Is Zab pretty much done? What about Mosley? Would you guys consider a win for Cotto over Mosley more important than a draw between Pac and MAB? How do you measure Mosley quality as a boxer at the present? By looking to his victories over Vargas, a boxer who many think is totally shot?

What I am trying to say is that is going to be difficult for you guys to come up with a solution for this and other situations when it comes to P4P rankings.

IMO you guys should forget about the P4P rankings.

 

I second that.

When two respetful, educated posters tend to debate these types of situations, the final verdict is generally somewhere in the middle, hence the need for only the best of the best being approved for the voting process. Many people are too biased in their views and refuse to budge from where they stand initially. The more viewpoints and the more debating that takes place, the more firm the stance ultimately arrived upon.

 

Yes, you can find the same situation in a partcular division, but there is a big difference and that is that belts are won in the ring and contenders fight against each other and that helps to determine the ranking itself regardless of who's past it and who's prime.

 

I look at ability most times as how they perform against their relative opponents. You shouldn't have to fight an elite to be considered one of the best in the sport. If you are dominating your opponents (world class still) then that speaks volumes for a fighters ability. I think we should take into account the level of the performance just as heaviliy as who it is against. For instance, Ring rates JT's questionable decision over BHop as much better then Mikkel Kesslers brutal KO of Beyer that he came through with in unifying the titles. But in reality, is it really the better performance? Surely knocking out another title holder and world class fighter is better then scraping through against a 40 year old man?

 

That depends on how good that 40 yr old man looked. In hindsight, perhaps that's the case. But Taylor is no longer in the rankings because of his performances, so they must have felt that way as well.

Sure we can evaluate ability in that way, but how do we know how good Beyer is? It's based on how he has looked against good competition. Beating good competition and not elite is one thing. But lets take a look at someone like Chris John, who by all accounts lost to JMM but got the decision. Outside of that win, he has nothing on his resume, even what I would consider a good fighter. So, if someone goes and KO's John, but has beaten no one else, how good is that fighter?

How good is Pavlik if he stops Taylor.....better than Kessler? Worse than Kessler? Better than Kessler if Kessler if he loses to Calzaghe, but worse if Kessler beats Calzaghe?

So many variables.