Very strange and hypothetical question...

jomothepure · Post by **jomothepure** » 10 May 2005, 12:32

which I'm sorry to darken your doors with, but...

Say you have three boxers - A, B and C (their mothers wern't very imaginative.) You want to rank them in a sort of linear fashion, but they only have 2 fights each amongst themselves:

A beats B
B beats C
C beats A

So there's no clear 'who's the best' amongst them.

Would you rank them:

A) by whoever won last (so if C's victory over A was the most recent, then he is #1.
B) By manner of victory (so A is #1 because he KO'd B in 1, whilst losing on points to C, and B beat C on points
C) Some other way
D) Is not an option.

I promise tomorrow I'll find something better to do with my time, or take my shit to the current scene

kevo · Post by **kevo** » 10 May 2005, 12:39

I'd say option B.

Matchfixer · Post by **Matchfixer** » 10 May 2005, 12:46

Option B for me too.

This is a real situation I guess as there are always debates about how rankings are formed.

Generally ranking can be quite controversial for a number of reasons including your situation above, unbeaten fighters, padded records, boxer's who are more marketable, links to certain promoters and world bodies, tv deals etc, etc, etc.

No definitive answer really.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 10 May 2005, 12:54

I think manner of victories would need to be explained in more detail - i.e. were the points win controvesial.

If all victories were legit then I would actually go for option A. If there was a world title involved, then C would be the champ.

Neri · Post by **Neri** » 10 May 2005, 13:13

Option B

jomothepure · Post by **jomothepure** » 10 May 2005, 13:27

I suppose it is reasonably clear. Take Sprott and Williams. If you discount the title, you'd still put Williams over Sprott with 2 KO victories even though Sprott holds the most recent win.

Tantum · Post by **Tantum** » 10 May 2005, 13:45

All the options are too general...

And for all the people saying Option B...

That's saying out of MAB, Morales and Pacquiao, that Pacquiao is the best.

Even though in actuality, Barrera is the champ, and ranked higher P4P by any legitimate source.

HeavyHitters · Post by **HeavyHitters** » 10 May 2005, 15:00

The answer is not as simple as A B C.... sorry... ha ha

What if had been 5 or 10 years since C beat A? What if C only beat A because A broke his leg in the fight by freak accident, but was easily winning the fight up to the point of the break? What if B beat C and won by controversial disqualification? What if A had KO'ed B easily in the first round of their fight?

There are too many unknowns in your little scenario. But I'd go with who ever had won in the most dominating fashion, 2nd only to who won the most recent fight amongst themselves....

But if you're looking for a more clear and precise answer.... Vitali Klitschko is the man!!

dondada · Post by **dondada** » 11 May 2005, 03:00

Very interesting question that.

I think recent performance is the key indicator, to be honest. You're only as good as your last game and all that.

Then again, the manner of victory does come into it, as does the time frame. Nice question. But I don't know!

LightCruiser · Post by **LightCruiser** » 12 May 2005, 21:24

If A= Muhammed Ali
B= Joe Frazier
C= George Foreman

The FIRST man to defeat Ali was Frazier,
The FIRST man to defeat Frazier was Foreman,
The FIRST man to defeat Foreman was Ali !

In boxing your only as good as your last fight.
So its not just WHO you beat, but mainly WHEN you beat them.

Priff · Post by **Priff** » 13 May 2005, 11:11

Tantum wrote:All the options are too general...

And for all the people saying Option B...

That's saying out of MAB, Morales and Pacquiao, that Pacquiao is the best.

Even though in actuality, Barrera is the champ, and ranked higher P4P by any legitimate source.

And MAB lost twice to Junior Jones, and no one would say JJ was the better man because....you got to look at the records as a whole, not just the-head to-heads. Regardless of manner of win or anything, you got to look at the record as a whole.

Head to heads can be the deciders in evaluating 2 fighters records, but not in a lot of cases. Douglas/Tyson being one where it doesn't count, Benn/Eubank being one where it always will.

jomothepure · Post by **jomothepure** » 16 May 2005, 08:16

Thanks for all that.

Basically the reason behind me asking the question was that in one of my many spare moments whilst waiting for the bookies opened my mind, as it does, got bored watching UK Gold and decided to create a new sanctioning body based on Linear performance.

Seriously tho, I did have a stab at it using the boxrec records, but my mind started to pop when instances like the one I mentioned came up all too often. Stuff like Wlad Klit losing to Brewster, who loses to Charles Shufford, who loses to bloody Gilbert Martinez and stuff like that. I'm sure it would work out in the end, but I'd need a turbo-intelligent computer programme and Steven Hawking's mobile no.

Anyway, why I actually brought it up again, was, I've just thought up of an absolutely brilliant tag-line for my new sanctioning body (currently Linear Boxing Chamionship. Suggestions welcome) :

"If you've beaten the best, you've beaten the rest."

I am taking this straight down the patenting office. As soon as I wash my pants.

:P