Independent World Boxing Rankings

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by FrancescoD, Mar 15, 2015.


  1. Barrera

    Barrera Defeated Boxing_master Full Member

    17,775
    1,631
    Jul 13, 2012
    wtf is lomachenko doing at 19? ..
     
  2. FrancescoD

    FrancescoD Active Member Full Member

    711
    53
    Mar 24, 2014
    Yes we went independent last year. From 1991 to 1999 we were the IWBR then the IBO bought our ratings on licence until 2014. So you probably previously saw them as IBO ratings.
     
  3. FrancescoD

    FrancescoD Active Member Full Member

    711
    53
    Mar 24, 2014
    Yes when fighters move division we calculate a new rating in the new division. Its a % of their points, some fighters are better than others, ie take their punch power and resisance at higher weight classes better than others.
    Any system will have a fighter out of place in someones opinion.
     
  4. STB

    STB #noexcuses Full Member

    15,486
    41
    Mar 26, 2014
    Its an interesting way of ranking.

    Like all ranking, it has its problems, buts its as good as most.

    Certainly better than whatever voodoo magic the sanctioning bodies use to rank fighters!
     
  5. FrancescoD

    FrancescoD Active Member Full Member

    711
    53
    Mar 24, 2014
    I think only Glazkov is out of position of those fighters, he beat Adamek and Cunningham both of which were probably over-valued. Ward is the clear #1. Everyone has Cotto above Golovkin objectively. Subjectively it is different. Bradley at 3 makes perfect sense, he beat Marquez who is 4. Broner I can see the point that his best is at Lightweight.
     
  6. FrancescoD

    FrancescoD Active Member Full Member

    711
    53
    Mar 24, 2014
    Subjectivetly he should be higher. Objectively he is facing weakish opponents.

    The IWBR rewards results.
     
  7. Zacker

    Zacker Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,833
    16
    Jun 24, 2009
    I don't get Cotto's ranking. He has one fight at the weight and a pair of losses in the recent past, at a lower weight.
     
  8. Nonito Smoak

    Nonito Smoak Ioka>Lomo, sorry my dudes Full Member

    53,088
    6,685
    Sep 8, 2010
    Yeah but he destroyed the head-and-shoulders top man in the division and a computer point system will always rate that very high (see boxrec and this) as opposed to high activity with decent opponents. The losses at JMW are irrelevant if the system separates accomplishments by division, which the thread starter said is the case.
     
  9. Nonito Smoak

    Nonito Smoak Ioka>Lomo, sorry my dudes Full Member

    53,088
    6,685
    Sep 8, 2010
    Yeah, he's 3-1. He's lost 25% of his fights and the best opponent he's beaten is Gary Russell Jr, who was utterly unproven and no way in the world he could have been ranked as high as say 8th at the time.
     
  10. Tancred

    Tancred Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,338
    4
    May 2, 2014
  11. FrancescoD

    FrancescoD Active Member Full Member

    711
    53
    Mar 24, 2014
    I think the best system is a subjective top 10 like the TNBR then 11-100 of these, that sorts the Lomachenko's and Glazkov's out.
     
  12. OvidsExile

    OvidsExile At a minimum, a huckleberry over your persimmon. Full Member

    35,225
    37,966
    Aug 28, 2012
    Ward shouldn't be #1 any more. He's been too inactive. No fights in a year and four months. Two fights in the last three years. No scheduled upcoming fights. For all intents and purposes he's retired. Meanwhile, Carl Froch has been taking care of business.

    Aside from the Pacquiao win Marquez doesn't have much of a record at all at welterweight. The only other welterweight he has a victory over is Alvarado. Pacquiao is a good win, but he's small and it doesn't prove that Marquez could handle the naturals at that weight like Floyd Mayweather, Kell Brook, Keith Thurman. And the rankings aren't taking any of the intangibles like how old Marquez is or how close the Bradley fight was into consideration. You can't make a guy top 5 in a division based on a near draw and two losses even if it is against two top fighters in that division.

    As for putting Cotto above Golovkin, not everyone has it that way. That may be the consensus among four or five rankers but the clear consensus among the fans and writers is that Golovkin is the better fighter and Martinez wasn't 100%. That Cotto rating at middleweight reflects what Martinez was in 2012, not the actual Martinez he faced in 2014.

    That's a problem. Guys slip, and as long as they don't lose, they can slip quite a ways and not lose ranking. Then when someone picks the cherry they shoot up the rankings themselves and the error perpetuates itself. Cotto could lose in his next fight to Bundrage and then Bundrage would be ranked above Golovkin.
     
  13. FrancescoD

    FrancescoD Active Member Full Member

    711
    53
    Mar 24, 2014
    I can see your point of view re Ward, but he is still the WBA ??champion and until he is stripped he is kept in.
    I can see that Golovkin is the best middle but his resume is not as good as Cotto. Some fighters beat other high ranked fighters that are well past their best, anything objective is going to have a hard time finding a formula for that. We have an age factor in ours but its only when a fighter loses that kicks in.
    Great matchmakers do exactly what you say in cherry picking a high ranked opponent that they feel their man can beat to ascend the rankings.
    The IWBR or indeed any other computerised system or objective system will never get every fighter in the correct position. This system is more of a ladder, beat fighters above you and you will be rewarded, that is the way it should be surely? It exposes the undeserving fighters who face nobodies. The WBA have an interim featherweight title coming up with two vacant fighters Carlos Zambrano is 24-0 ranked 85 in our rankings and Daniel Ramirez is 24-0 ranked 118, neither has faced a top 100 opponent, if Ramirez wins he will be the lowest ranked world champion ever by the big 4.
    IWBR is far from perfect, but its better than anything else IMO and I have studied rankings for 24 years.
     
  14. FeldMunster

    FeldMunster Member Full Member

    473
    0
    Jan 6, 2007
    Love computerized rankings, but I am a nerd, I made my own computerized rankings for fun. Ha ha!

    Out of curiosity, what does the IBO do now instead?
     
  15. FrancescoD

    FrancescoD Active Member Full Member

    711
    53
    Mar 24, 2014
    They just use Boxrec and take out the champions.