I made a new forum! To discuss the ranking system I've proposed, then of course to post updates. I decided instead of polling dozens of people to get the first top-30, I'm going to try just averaging out the top-30 rankings of Boxrec and the IBO (filling in the four alphabet titlist the IBO doesn't rank based on their TBRB rank). I'll compile a top-30 with that method at welterweight, then do a test by adding the ranking points from fights from the last three years. Once the system's running we'll need more help maintaining the rankings, but to do that you'll only need to know how to use boxrec and a calculator. If you're willing to help maintain the site, I'll also share the forum admin password with you. Who's interested? I'm not interested anymore in debating with people who are convinced subjective rankings are necessary. Bashing the very idea of objective rankings will not be welcome in the ranking system sections, but there's also a general boxing section, which is completely open. So stop by for a chat www.worldboxingrankings.proboards.com
Your post should be condensed into: "I am thinking about reformulating how Boxrec calculates rankings. If you would like to give your input, please contact me at...." Boxrec is the only ranking system - to my knowledge - that has an objective rankings system. What is wrong with it? Why does it need to be reformulated?
I already did that on another thread (and on other forums). Now on to the next step. The boxrec system is so complex and bizarre that it doesn't produce remotely accurate rankings.
I don't get whats wrong with Boxrec, it seems fine...You don't have to start another governing body (UNLESS UR AUTHORITY HUNGRY) just join them or help perfect their formula if you see something to improve :huh
Well, you can't really provide evidence for it not being 'subjectively' accurate But objectively, their method results in inaccurate rankings because they're using factors that shouldn't be used. The Boxrec system is overambitious and uses too much information. It assigns and scales ranking points based on method of victory, the scorecards of a decision, and the ranking of his opponent's opponents, amongst other confusing factors. Their system somehow gives Wilder a number 13 ranking, but as his only opponent with a remote chance of being in the top-30 would be Liakhovich, Wilder would at best be barely top-30 with my system. It's not fair to lighter punchers to award more ranking points for knockouts. A ranking should be determined only by wins and losses and opponent rank.
Well if they're subjectively inaccurate then you disagree with the rankings - I mean, there's something wrong with them that we're all supposed to see. That's it. And that's a far easier push than trying to explain why, mathematically, the boxrec rankings are incorrect. Like, the fact that you rely on a subjective argument - that Wilder is ranked 13 - as an argument for why BoxRec is mathematically wrong, is preposterous. Also, lighter punchers and/or guys who don't win very often by KO get the stick by bookmakers, for a variety of a reasons which I'm too lazy to type. So it's not that ridiculous unless you are TRULY, HONESTLY, trying to create a new ranking system complete with endorsement and whatnot.
