It was really to handle an edge case that had never happened before. No debut boxer ever beat the #1 boxer, but if that ever happened, it's easy to know what to do—the winner would be ranked ahead of the loser. But in the case where a guy with no fights comes within a point of beating the champ--but loses? That's an even weirder case, and it exposes flaws in the system.margaret thatcher wrote: ↑07 Dec 2023, 18:49 that the result was a split decision, and not a ud, or a stoppage, etc is objective. even the forum game jcs used to run would differentiate between methods of victory when it came to awarding points, with anything split being classed as 'close'. id have to think any good ranking system would go beyond black and white wins and losses
i think fran's current ranking is better than him being in the 500s. that said if you read the ranking thread the situation was one where the rankings were changed to produce a specific outcome (ngganou getting a boost),, and tbf i do see where that its on shaky grounds to make system wide changes in order to change one boxer's ranking
There's no way a #500 boxer would ever be able to come within a point of beating the #1 (or #3, whatever) boxer, so obviously a system that ranks him there has an issue.
Computerrank was able to solve that issue in a way that didn't change the current ratings very much otherwise, and even added to his stated goal of always looking to increase the predictive winning % of the system.
Ngannou at #27 is far, far better than Ngannou at #500+, he made the rankings better. So next time an MMA guy come in and almost beats a champion, they'll be fairly ranked from the start