Top 10 by Decade - Divisional Ranking Experiment

I'm curious how the scores would look if you reduce the point value for the later years. If you gave champions in those later years that have more rated divisions a fraction of the value of earlier champions (by basing it on the ratio of average available ranked divisions), it wouldn't unfairly reward the proliferation of divisions that exist today. Think of it as boxing's equivalent of the W.A.R. statistic in baseball and basketball.

For example in 1938 when there were 8 divisions, Armstrong would get 16 points ( 8 each for the welterweight and lightweight crowns). A modern day boxer like Cotto in 2010 who was rated 3rd in jmw and 4th in ww would get a weighted score due to there being 17 divisions, thus he would get 3.76 points for his jmw ranking (8/17 = .47 divisional ranking value) x 8 (3rd spot in 2010 jmw ranking) = 3.76. Cotto's ww point total for 2010 would be 3.29, and his combined haul for 2010 would be 7.05.

 

Really good point. Love nerdy observations like this (no offense), especially when they're so damn true

 

I think that does makes sense because with the vast change in the number of divisions, and the variations over the decades by The Ring in its rating policies, the top 100 list ended up comparing a lot of apples with oranges.

Sticking within a division and decade should prove more "fair" in a sense.

I am especially looking forward to how the traditional eight divisions stack up.

 

"W. A. R. statistic in baseball and basketball.

You must be one of those, what do you them, cybermetricians (if that is the proper term) guys. They are fun to read, agree or disagree with any given theory.

That to the side, what you advise makes a lot of sense, as fighters over a greater weight range were pushed into the same divisions in the old days.