LOL @ The Ring's Ratings

des3995 · Feb 22, 2012

purephase said: ↑

My problem with drawing such a hard and fast distinction is that unless there's a smoking gun, we'll simply then chalk up practically every poor decision to incompetence alone, something that I think is somewhat naive for this sport.
Click to expand...

Nobody is saying there needs to be a smoking, we all know it has happened, and will continue. But we also cannot call every questionable decision corruption.

I think we're pretty much at the end of our discussion here, but I precisely reject the notion that they simply cannot do so and that there are any really compelling reasons not to place one's own informed view of the fight above problematic official results.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Then, in parting, I will say unless they can prove corruption, or have circumstances that mitigate their going against the official decision, what would be the purpose? If they did it all on personal opinion, where would their credibility come from?

des3995 · Feb 22, 2012

bailey said: ↑

While I agree that a historical winner has to be rated higher as that cannot really be discarded and ratings should be based on factual results but The Ring have suited themselves a bit.
Consider how Kessler beat Froch, then Froch beats Abraham coming off a loss and gets put above Kessler. Ward just got put above Bute for either his win over Bika or Green, yet Bika was someone Bute who was #1 had beaten already.
Now Froch has lost to Ward he has been put below Kessler.
Pascal was #5 LHW after his 2 wins over Diaconu, then beats Branco and finds himself at #3 with Dawson at #1. I cant remember what the shuffle was in fairness to get Pascal such a rise after beating old Branco but it looks like The Ring was hoping to get a Ring champion at LHW.
Now Pascal beat Dawson and became Ring champ. Hopkins has just drawn with Pascal and become #1 LHW which is understandable, but Dawson has been moved to #3 and Cloud to #2 for beating former LMW title challenger Zuniga? why should Cloud have jumped Dawson with a win over Zuniga? Surely if Cloud gets so highly rated for a win over Zuniga to jump Dawson why has Ward jumped ahead of Bute when Bute scored a 4th round KO over Zuniga previously.
Click to expand...

These rankings are fluid, guys leap frog all the time. We can't just take a snapshot and look at it in a vacuum.

But, answer this. Is there a better way? Is there anyone or any group that could make the surefire right call, according to everyone, all the time?

There will always be questionable calls, disagreements and flat out mistakes when it comes to rankings.

Nonito Smoak · Feb 22, 2012

They can't raise Chisora on merit of his robbery loss against Helenius and can't raise Campillo on merit of his robbery loss against Cloud.

Afterall, the Ring recently addressed the issue in the maximum spotlight by not raising Marquez, P4P or at welterweight, for his robbery loss to Pacquiao in November. Similarly, they didn't drop Pac any in the rankings either. At least they are consistent in that sense (then again, they contradicted themselves many times BEFORE that, but maybe Pac/JMM III was to set a precedent).

To me, no way Paul Williams is top 10 at 154. Campillo deserves to be ranked ahead of Cloud. Chisora and Helenius both belong in the top 10, likely at 8-10 with Chisora ahead of Helenius.

purephase · Feb 22, 2012

des3995 said: ↑

Fair enough. Then, in parting, I will say unless they can prove corruption, or have circumstances that mitigate their going against the official decision, what would be the purpose? If they did it all on personal opinion, where would their credibility come from?
Click to expand...

Their credibility would come from the fact that the rankings are an aggregation of the views of veteran fightwatchers, which I would contend is pretty much the primary basis of their credibility as it is and not any tacit acceptance of official results.

purephase · Feb 22, 2012

Nonito Smoak said: ↑

They can't raise Chisora on merit of his robbery loss against Helenius and can't raise Campillo on merit of his robbery loss against Cloud.

Afterall, the Ring recently addressed the issue in the maximum spotlight by not raising Marquez, P4P or at welterweight, for his robbery loss to Pacquiao in November. Similarly, they didn't drop Pac any in the rankings either. At least they are consistent in that sense (then again, they contradicted themselves many times BEFORE that, but maybe Pac/JMM III was to set a precedent).

To me, no way Paul Williams is top 10 at 154. Campillo deserves to be ranked ahead of Cloud. Chisora and Helenius both belong in the top 10, likely at 8-10 with Chisora ahead of Helenius.
Click to expand...

We'll have to see if treating the official results as sacred is a precedent going forward. In my opinion, such blind acceptance does more harm than good for the quality of their rankings, but all future divergences will only raise further questions about the times like this when they failed to account for poor decisions. As it stands, it already looks really bad that the most recent occasion they bent the rules on this standard was to the benefit of a Golden Boy fighter whose robbery was apparently so egregious that it launched him past the guy who had defeated him just one fight earlier.

bailey · Feb 22, 2012

des3995 said: ↑

These rankings are fluid,
Click to expand...

I would disagree with that, but thats another subject

guys leap frog all the time. We can't just take a snapshot and look at it in a vacuum.
Click to expand...

Of course they do, but you cant leap frog fighters as you wish to pick and choose. I showed some examples there within the SMW division.
Do you think theres a suitable answer to the post you answered to?

But, answer this. Is there a better way? Is there anyone or any group that could make the surefire right call, according to everyone, all the time?

Click to expand...

You know that I think ratings should be based on results.

There will always be questionable calls, disagreements and flat out mistakes when it comes to rankings
Click to expand...

Agreed. I agree that historical results should stand even if we dont like them. But placing fighters above others to suit shouldnt be correct and that looks like what has happend in some of the results I gave you. Consider Froch was #3 and rated above #2 Bute. Then after Frochs loss to Kessler, beating Abraham coming off a loss and edging Johnson, Froch goes to #2, yet in that time Bute beat Miranda (not a great win), Brinkley (not a great win), Magee when having arguably his best run, undefeated Mendy and Johnson clearly. Now I dont think either are really great runs but I rate Butes 5 wins greater than Frochs 2 especially when you consider one was the same fighter. Froch was put above Bute just for beating Johnson who had done nothing at SMW, then Froch at #2 losses to Ward goes behind Bute again and Kessler who he got put above after losing to in one fight after
Click to expand...

Duck Dodgers · Feb 22, 2012

bailey said: ↑

Of course they do, but you cant leap frog fighters as you wish to pick and choose. I showed some examples there within the SMW division.
Click to expand...

They had Golden Boy fighter Victor Ortiz leapfrog Shane Mosley after struggling to a victory over Andre Berto, who probably shouldn't have ranked above Mosley himself in the first place. They did this seemingly to prevent Pacquiao-Mosley from being a Ring title fight.

purephase · Feb 22, 2012

Duck Dodgers said: ↑

They had Golden Boy fighter Victor Ortiz leapfrog Shane Mosley after struggling to a victory over Andre Berto, who probably shouldn't have ranked above Mosley himself in the first place. They did this seemingly to prevent Pacquiao-Mosley from being a Ring title fight.
Click to expand...

No that was completely justified. Mosley hadn't won a fight in the division in over two years when that decision was made and had looked completely **** poor in his last two outings. If anything he was kept too high after Mayweather beat him and probably should have been dropped further than the one place he slipped after the wretched Mora fight (which yes was at 154, but they've had no problems modifying rankings on such a basis before, as when they boosted Martinez to the top of that division on the strength of his performance in a fight at 160). Berto was justifiably ahead of him going into that fight and Ortiz deserved to take his place.

des3995 · Feb 22, 2012

bailey said: ↑

I would disagree with that, but thats another subject
Of course they do, but you cant leap frog fighters as you wish to pick and choose. I showed some examples there within the SMW division.
Do you think theres a suitable answer to the post you answered to?
Click to expand...

What...the Cloud, Ward, Bute, Zuniga thing?

I can imagine they didn't consult previous rankings at smw when doing their lhw ones? I can't speak for their motivations. But it certainly doesn't seem like something I would get up in arms over. What is it worth a spot or so?
Maybe Zuniga looked better at lhw. Maybe his performances at smw were poor, or his level of opposition was poor. Maybe it was more related to how Cloud looked, or Dawson had previously looked. WHo knows? It is not an exact science. It is imperfect. Why look for perfection in the imperfect?

You know that I think ratings should be based on results.
Click to expand...

As they should be. But there are other factors as well. Level of opposition, quality of victory, timing, perceived talent, general perception, etc........all these things could go into it, rightfully or wrongfully.

I really don't pay all that much attention to the rankings, where someone should or shouldn't be etc. It simply doesn't impact me. If a guy is good enough to get in there, 1 way or another, he eventually will.

Agreed. I agree that historical results should stand even if we dont like them. But placing fighters above others to suit shouldnt be correct and that looks like what has happend in some of the results I gave you. Consider Froch was #3 and rated above #2 Bute. Then after Frochs loss to Kessler, beating Abraham coming off a loss and edging Johnson, Froch goes to #2, yet in that time Bute beat Miranda (not a great win), Brinkley (not a great win), Magee when having arguably his best run, undefeated Mendy and Johnson clearly. Now I dont think either are really great runs but I rate Butes 5 wins greater than Frochs 2 especially when you consider one was the same fighter. Froch was put above Bute just for beating Johnson who had done nothing at SMW, then Froch at #2 losses to Ward goes behind Bute again and Kessler who he got put above after losing to in one fight after
Click to expand...

All those guys were considered no hopers vs Bute, with the exception of Johnson, which fed into the whole theme of Bute fighting nobodies, right or wrong. I guess it didn't move the needle enough in their eyes.

Where was Bute ranked after he beat Johnson?

Again, to me, guys going up a spot, down a spot, doesn't really matter much in the grand scheme.
Click to expand...

bailey · Feb 23, 2012

des3995 said: ↑

What...the Cloud, Ward, Bute, Zuniga thing?

I can imagine they didn't consult previous rankings at smw when doing their lhw ones? I can't speak for their motivations. But it certainly doesn't seem like something I would get up in arms over. What is it worth a spot or so?
Maybe Zuniga looked better at lhw.

Click to expand...

He hadnt been fighting at LHW before that fight and had been blasted out by Bute but taking Cloud the distance moved Cloud up the LHW ratings

Maybe his performances at smw were poor, or his level of opposition was poor.
Click to expand...

Took an undefeated world rated future world champ the distance, KOd 26-0 26 KOs Oganov (arguably Dirrells best win), beat A Echoles.
Yet Bute blasted him out.

Maybe it was more related to how Cloud looked,
Click to expand...

Took Cloud the distance and Cloud moved up

or Dawson had previously looked.
Click to expand...

Dawson had lost to Pascal but Pascal was the champ and Dawson was above Cloud. Do you think Zuniga who wasnt fighting at LHW should put Cloud above?

WHo knows? It is not an exact science. It is imperfect. Why look for perfection in the imperfect?

Click to expand...

Its a lack of continuity. No it cant be perfect, but I think that it can be very bias

As they should be. But there are other factors as well. Level of opposition, quality of victory, timing, perceived talent, general perception, etc........all these things could go into it, rightfully or wrongfully.
Click to expand...

General perception is a bias thing and shouldnt really be a major impact in my opinion

I really don't pay all that much attention to the rankings, where someone should or shouldn't be etc. It simply doesn't impact me. If a guy is good enough to get in there, 1 way or another, he eventually will.

Click to expand...

As said debateable.
I remember how there were some lesser fighters in The Rings P4P ratings and at the same time you had Haye who had won WBO WBC WBA Ring CW titles and the WBA HW title with many of those won away, yet he didnt get mentioned and then there were a few fighters who hadnt done half as much rated as P4Pers

All those guys were considered no hopers vs Bute, with the exception of Johnson, which fed into the whole theme of Bute fighting nobodies, right or wrong. I guess it didn't move the needle enough in their eyes.

Where was Bute ranked after he beat Johnson?

Click to expand...

Well as said
Consider Froch was #3 and rated above #2 Bute. Then after Frochs loss to Kessler, beating Abraham coming off a loss and edging Johnson, Froch goes to #2, yet in that time Bute beat Miranda (not a great win), Brinkley (not a great win), Magee when having arguably his best run, undefeated Mendy and Johnson clearly. Now I dont think either are really great runs but I rate Butes 5 wins greater than Frochs 2 especially when you consider one was the same fighter. Froch was put above Bute just for beating Johnson who had done nothing at SMW, then Froch at #2 losses to Ward goes behind Bute again and Kessler who he got put above after losing to in one fight after.

You have mentioned to me before that you had no problem with Froch going above Kessler beating a fighter coming off a loss, yet now Froch is below Kessler. How do you feel about how all that was worked out?
Click to expand...

mark.cooper · Feb 23, 2012

bailey said: ↑

I would disagree with that, but thats another subject
Click to expand...

It depends on what meaning you assert on the word "fluid". There are at least two meanings which make sense in this context:
1. fighters absolute boxing strengths are not constant in time: there is an overall increasing tendence in the beginning as experience and preparation accumulate and a decreasing tendence after the peak period of "prime" reflecting physical and mental fading; this long-term shape combines with a bunch of fluctuations altering its regular aspect;
2. there is no one-to-one correspondence between absolute boxing strengths and rankings (that is: there is no magical device in which you plugin a fighter and outputs a number precisely depicting his strength), so one has to keep in mind from the very beginning that any ranking system is inherently false (having said that, some rankings are still better than others...).

You know that I think ratings should be based on results.
Click to expand...

That should read: any objective rating system should be based on results and results only. There are several such systems, you input results database into a wisely-chosen algorithm, you get a numerical output with fighter ratings. Better algorithms you choose, more accurately the ratings do reflect a fluid reality (but one should never expect perfection).
While objective systems have undeniable advantages, their particularly weak statistical basis in boxing (too few events in a reasonable amount of time) adds a significant uncertainty on the output that relativizes its meaning. Traditional systems are adding a subjective (alleged) knowledge to bare matches outcomes in order to extrapolate a supposedly better ranking of the fighters even with a non-statistical number of fights. Thus, they aim to give a "better" insight of the reality but they inevitably introduce a subjective bias. Consequently, one has to keep in mind that these ratings cannot be seriously taken as ultimate truth but they represent an useful and limited synthesis of various personal views.

On the overall, The Ring's ratings aren't so bad (and, by the same token, neither are absolutely bad ESB's "official" rankings). The only disturbing habit is to place too much confidence on their value and consider them an ultimately accurate reference of the reality. Of course, the ratings may be improved, but there will always rest a significant margin of uncertainty and inconsistency (not necessarily related to some peculiar fighter's case).
Click to expand...

des3995 · Feb 23, 2012

mark.cooper said: ↑

bailey said: ↑

It depends on what meaning you assert on the word "fluid". There are at least two meanings which make sense in this context:
1. fighters absolute boxing strengths are not constant in time: there is an overall increasing tendence in the beginning as experience and preparation accumulate and a decreasing tendence after the peak period of "prime" reflecting physical and mental fading; this long-term shape combines with a bunch of fluctuations altering its regular aspect;
2. there is no one-to-one correspondence between absolute boxing strengths and rankings (that is: there is no magical device in which you plugin a fighter and outputs a number precisely depicting his strength), so one has to keep in mind from the very beginning that any ranking system is inherently false (having said that, some rankings are still better than others...).

That should read: any objective rating system should be based on results and results only. There are several such systems, you input results database into a wisely-chosen algorithm, you get a numerical output with fighter ratings. Better algorithms you choose, more accurately the ratings do reflect a fluid reality (but one should never expect perfection).
While objective systems have undeniable advantages, their particularly weak statistical basis in boxing (too few events in a reasonable amount of time) adds a significant uncertainty on the output that relativizes its meaning. Traditional systems are adding a subjective (alleged) knowledge to bare matches outcomes in order to extrapolate a supposedly better ranking of the fighters even with a non-statistical number of fights. Thus, they aim to give a "better" insight of the reality but they inevitably introduce a subjective bias. Consequently, one has to keep in mind that these ratings cannot be seriously taken as ultimate truth but they represent an useful and limited synthesis of various personal views.

On the overall, The Ring's ratings aren't so bad (and, by the same token, neither are absolutely bad ESB's "official" rankings). The only disturbing habit is to place too much confidence on their value and consider them an ultimately accurate reference of the reality. Of course, the ratings may be improved, but there will always rest a significant margin of uncertainty and inconsistency (not necessarily related to some peculiar fighter's case).
Click to expand...

That is a much more scientific way of saying it.

I think.
Click to expand...

des3995 · Feb 23, 2012

bailey said: ↑

He hadnt been fighting at LHW before that fight and had been blasted out by Bute but taking Cloud the distance moved Cloud up the LHW ratings
Took an undefeated world rated future world champ the distance, KOd 26-0 26 KOs Oganov (arguably Dirrells best win), beat A Echoles.
Yet Bute blasted him out.
Took Cloud the distance and Cloud moved up
Dawson had lost to Pascal but Pascal was the champ and Dawson was above Cloud. Do you think Zuniga who wasnt fighting at LHW should put Cloud above?
Its a lack of continuity. No it cant be perfect, but I think that it can be very bias
Click to expand...

They have been biased for and against the same fighter. It doesn't trouble me. There are bound to be some things that don't meet exact ideals.
As long as they are in a relatively comparable group, a spot here or there doesn't matter much. Bute was above Ward at one point, were they biased then? It didn't matter any more at that point than it does now.

The way I see it, if we get the relevant fights, the rankings will sort themselves out.

General perception is a bias thing and shouldnt really be a major impact in my opinion
Click to expand...

Yes, but watching a fighter and getting a general perception of his skills, how his style and skillset matches up in comparison with a fighter he is being grouped with and compared to can be a useful tool.

As said debateable.
I remember how there were some lesser fighters in The Rings P4P ratings and at the same time you had Haye who had won WBO WBC WBA Ring CW titles and the WBA HW title with many of those won away, yet he didnt get mentioned and then there were a few fighters who hadnt done half as much rated as P4Pers
Click to expand...

Gathering belts and statistics isn't the only criteria, as has been mentioned.
In general, the bigger guys kind of get the short end of the stick when it comes to p4p rankings. Just saying.

Well as said
Consider Froch was #3 and rated above #2 Bute. Then after Frochs loss to Kessler, beating Abraham coming off a loss and edging Johnson, Froch goes to #2, yet in that time Bute beat Miranda (not a great win), Brinkley (not a great win), Magee when having arguably his best run, undefeated Mendy and Johnson clearly. Now I dont think either are really great runs but I rate Butes 5 wins greater than Frochs 2 especially when you consider one was the same fighter. Froch was put above Bute just for beating Johnson who had done nothing at SMW, then Froch at #2 losses to Ward goes behind Bute again and Kessler who he got put above after losing to in one fight after.

You have mentioned to me before that you had no problem with Froch going above Kessler beating a fighter coming off a loss, yet now Froch is below Kessler. How do you feel about how all that was worked out?
Click to expand...

How do I feel? I'm not emotionally involved as to feel one way or the other. I can imagine that despite his inactivity, Kessler actually beating Froch could sway them that way.

They are in the proper grouping though. I think the order they have them in is fine. Those are the only 4 guys who could/should be in the top spots.

bailey · Feb 24, 2012

des3995 said: ↑

They have been biased for and against the same fighter. It doesn't trouble me. There are bound to be some things that don't meet exact ideals.
As long as they are in a relatively comparable group, a spot here or there doesn't matter much. Bute was above Ward at one point, were they biased then? It didn't matter any more at that point than it does now.

The way I see it, if we get the relevant fights, the rankings will sort themselves out.

Click to expand...

How have they been against the same fighter?
How was it bias to have Bute above Ward? Ward wasnt top 10 rated, but beat Kessler and went in at #2 with Bute bumped to #1. Why do you think Ward would just go above?
Ward beat #1 Kessler but that was just one top 10 opponent and Miranda. Bute had beaten Bika, Berrio, Andrade #3 SMW, Andrade again #5 all top 10 SMWs and Zuniga.
How would it on overall fights be bias to have Bute above there?

How do I feel? I'm not emotionally involved as to feel one way or the other. I can imagine that despite his inactivity, Kessler actually beating Froch could sway them that way.

Click to expand...

I recall you mentioning that Froch should be above Kessler due to inactivity. That activity is the same as before. Froch was put above Kesslerfor beating a fighter coming off a loss in his fight after losing to Kessler. They then both fought again on the same night, where Froch stayed above, then Froch fought again and lost and is now above.
Click to expand...

dwighttsharpe · Feb 24, 2012

wladmad said: ↑

Chisora has lost 3 of his last 4 fights and you want to put him up there ? The last two fights he lost to men with one arm lol
Click to expand...

Gee. How fkn convenient.

One arm. Yeah, right.

Log in or Sign up

LOL @ The Ring's Ratings

des3995 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

des3995 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

Nonito Smoak Ioka>Lomo, sorry my dudes Full Member

purephase Boxing Junkie Full Member

purephase Boxing Junkie Full Member

bailey Loyal Member Full Member

Duck Dodgers Kimbo #1 P4P Full Member

purephase Boxing Junkie Full Member

des3995 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

bailey Loyal Member Full Member

mark.cooper thinker Full Member

des3995 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

des3995 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

bailey Loyal Member Full Member

dwighttsharpe Boxing Addict Full Member

Log in or Sign up

Forums

LOL @ The Ring's Ratings

des3995 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

des3995 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

Nonito Smoak Ioka>Lomo, sorry my dudes Full Member

purephase Boxing Junkie Full Member

purephase Boxing Junkie Full Member

bailey Loyal Member Full Member

Duck Dodgers Kimbo #1 P4P Full Member

purephase Boxing Junkie Full Member

des3995 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

bailey Loyal Member Full Member

mark.cooper thinker Full Member

des3995 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

des3995 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

bailey Loyal Member Full Member

dwighttsharpe Boxing Addict Full Member