This content is protected Thats a big can of worms. What Boxing needs is to RUN more like the NFL/NBA than it currently is. Some type of firm and fair practices would ensure the best fight the best. Problem is too many chiefs and not enough indians all fighting amongst themselves, rather than working together. Chasing what amounts to smaller values TODAY, instead of LONG TERM REVENUE in the future.
On the contrary, I think the other sports should follow a system more like boxing's. In particular, I hate college football because of the BCS system. It's a total joke, you can go 10-2 against elite competition and lose your spot to a team that went 12-0 playing the farmboys (*cough* Hawaii). It's outrageous that there's only ONE playoff game. The bull**** they pulled in 2007 was an even bigger joke. #3 Florida raped #1 Ohio State...I bet the #2 seed would've liked to have that shot that they earned, right? So what if they lost to them in the conference, if you're the #2 seed in the BCS series you should be playing the ****ing #1 seed for the national title. The whole "bowl system" is bogus, it's a scam perpetrated to draw attention to non-title games so the colleges can reap the profits - there's a reason why the same teams are playing bowl games every year. NCAA basketball does it right - a tournament that makes you actually have to beat good competition to get anywhere. Determining who gets a national title shot by "coach's rankings" and "the newspapers" is what's wrong with college football. Who's to say one 12-0 team is better than another, or even a 10-2 team? If the NFL decided that in 2009 that, say, the Patriots and the Steelers were the best teams, and that there was no need for a playoff series, people would see it as the utter bull**** it is. You have playoffs for a reason.
Yes it would.... and maybe after every tournament new rankings would come out or something like that....
I agree with radiant. Boxing has a good model, it just isn't employed very well. What boxing really needs is one commission with real oversight...like every other successful sport. If we had this, the ranking system would actually mean something because a boxers rank wouldn't be #5 thanks to a bribe in one group and #78 in another group. It would be based on failure or success. I think in that regard, if anyone is still with me, Boxing should actually adjust it's ranking system to be more like games of skill like Chess. Hear me out. A boxer going pro would receive a number rating. Say an 800 to start. They wouldn't be able to fight anyone more than +300 or -300 from their ranking. In this way, top fighters like Wlad Klitschko or Floyd Mayweather wouldn't be able to pick on journeymen - forcing big fights for successful fighters and protecting the health of all boxers by preventing mismatches. For example (and these ratings are for the sake of argument) in a case where a Sam Peter (1800) fought a McCline (1500), Peter stands to gain very little - maybe +25 or +50, but he risks giving up a full +300 to McCline for losing. Likewise, McCline would stand to lose only around 25 if he lost, but winning gives him the full +300. The hardest part of implementing this much better system (imho) would be to get fair ratings for the boxers already established as pros...
I Kind Of Agree With Both Sides Of The Debate Here On Some Issues. I Wanted To Bring Up The Subject Because Some Times While I Watch Some Of The Playoff Games In Other Sports I Cant Help But To Think Of The Possibility's Something Like That Can Bring To Boxing Fans The Best Of The Best With Out The Bs. I Agree That It Is Opening A Big Can Of Worms Also That There Are To Many Chiefs & Not Enough Indians .
The current "model' is a ****ing disgrace. Its every shark for himself and no sense of oneness as a sport. They should model the PRO sports. Collegiate football's system sucks ass and I certainly havent heard any clamor in that direction.
