gil's Refined Ranking System

[gilgamesh]

I'm posting this because I genuinely think this system works out pretty well, and everything it's produced so far has made sense. I'll be referring to this a lot when comparing fighters so I figured I'd have the explanation here so everyone will know what the hell I'm talking about. Also I think this could serve to help settle debates or at minimum provide valuable information about guys' careers.

If anyone has any suggestions for how I could improve the Ranking system, I would be happy to take them into consideration if what you say makes sense. I'd also be happy to explain to anyone who cares to ask how my rankings wind up at the score they wind up at.

The Primary goal of this list is for me to take in everything there is to see of a fighters career on Video (generally all these fights are found on Youtube). This list will continue to grow as I continue to see all available footage of various fighters careers.

Heavyweight
1. Muhammad Ali - 1107 points
2. Joe Louis - 899 points
3. George Foreman - 694 points
4. Larry Holmes - 576 points
5. Lennox Lewis - 500 points
6. Rocky Marciano - 474 points
7. Evander Holyfield - 461 Points
8. Riddick Bowe - 448 points
9. Wladimir Klitschko - 426 points
10. Mike Tyson - 397 points
11. Joe Frazier - 353 points
12. Tyson Fury - 346 points
13. Sonny Liston - 284 points
14. Oleksandr Usyk - 266 points
15. Vitali Klitschko - 265 points
16. Jack Dempsey - 264 points
17. Jim Jeffries - 249 points
18. Jack Johnson - 246 points
19. Tommy Morrison - 241 points
20 (tied). Deontay Wilder - 227 points
20 (tied). David Tua - 227 points
22. Anthony Joshua - 223 Points
23. Ezzard Charles - 221 points
24. Gene Tunney - 206 points
25. Floyd Patterson - 198 points
26. Corrie Sanders - 192 points
27. Andy Ruiz - 188 points
28. Ken Norton - 169 points
29. Hasim Rahman - 168 points
30. Joseph Parker - 149 points
31. Tommy Burns - 147 points
32. Ray Mercer - 145 points
33. Daniel Dubois - 139 points
34. Frank Bruno - 130 points
35. Max Schmeling - 129 points
36. Primo Carnera - 120 points
37 (tied). Jersey Joe Walcott - 113 points
37 (tied) . Ingemar Johansson - 113 points
39. James "Buster" Douglas - 97 points
40. Michael Moorer - 96 points
41. Tim Witherspoon - 94 points
42. Michael Spinks - 92 points
43. Max Baer - 91 points
44. Fabio Wardley - 90 points
45. Michael Dokes - 88 points
46. Jess Willard - 75 points
47. Trevor Berbick - 35 points
48. Jack Sharkey - 31 points
49. Roy Jones Jr. - 11 points
50. Samuel Peter - 6 points
51. Pinklon Thomas - 5 points

P4P
1. Manny Pacquiao - 903 points
2. Evander Holyfield - 774 points
3. Julio Cesar Chavez - 733 points
4. Naoya Inoue - 685 points
5. Roberto Duran - 636 points
6. Ezzard Charles - 628 points
7. Floyd Mayweather Jr. - 616 points
8. Ray Leonard - 607 Points
9. Marvin Hagler - 587 Points
10. Saul "Canelo" Alvarez - 586 Points
11. Terence Crawford - 557 Points
12. Tommy Hearns - 551 Points
13. Roy Jones Jr. - 524 Points
14. Oleksandr Usyk - 502 points
15. Oscar De La Hoya - 500 points
16. Gene Tunney - 476 points
17. Michael Spinks - 418 points
18 (tied). Naseem Hamed - 385 points
18 (tied). Felix Trinidad - 385 points
20. Vasyl Lomachenko - 346 points
21. Erik Morales - 320 points
22. Wilfred Benitez - 294 points
23. Floyd Patterson - 287 points
24. Aaron Pryor - 280 points
25. David Benavidez - 244 points
26. Michael Moorer - 240 points
27. Junto Nakatani - 191 points
28. Tommy Burns - 171 points
29. Arturo Gatti - 137 points

Unrated
Marvin Hart
Michael Bentt

[gilgamesh]

Refined Ranking System Explanation

As we know we have the points system here in the ratings on Boxrec, but we don't really know the rhyme or reason for who has what points or why for certain wins right? Well I will explain in great detail the system I've concocted here, and how I've arrived at the points I have.

I will rate the level of opposition the fighters faced on a level from 0-5 with the ratings being as follows.

0 = Bum (A guy with a losing record, or a mediocre record while on an extensive losing streak)
1 = A guy with more wins than losses, but usually can't get it done at a particularly high level
2 = A fringe contender. Think Top 25-Top 15ish kinda guy
3 = A Ranked Contender or Former Champion who wasn't considered a major titleholder
4 = A Highly Ranked Contender or still credible Former Champion
5 = A Hall of Famer, or Reigning Champion...generally in their prime.

I will rate the level of performance on a scale of 0-5 with the ratings being as follows.

0 = F*CKING SUCKED (This rating is saved for truly abysmal fights. Think Byrd vs Davarryl Williamson, or Fury vs Wlad)
1 = Dud (This rating is for a fight that provided maybe 1 or 2 interesting moments in an otherwise forgetable bout)
2 = Kinda Boring (This rating is for fights that just kinda become one sided, and clinical with neither fighter pressing)
3 = Good Fight (A kinda standard fight. Not the most memorable thing in the world, but nothing embarassing either)
4 = Very Good Fight (A competitive bout with some major highlight reel moments, but falls short of the standard set by 5)
5 = Great Fight or Great Performance (Either a Fight of the Year candidate or otherwise very memorable action bout, or a great, and exciting victory with an emphatic finish.)

And finally we come to Bonuses Award for Championship wins or Deductions taken from Losses, which goes like this.

Losses
Split or Majority Decision Losses = -5 points
Unanimous Decision Losses = -10
KO/DQ losses = -20, or -30 depending on the circumstance (An extra 10 is deducted for a particularly one sided or otherwise embarrassing defeat)
Valiant Defeat = +10 (This is a rare occurrence in a loss, and can only be given in a case 1 Fighter lost a Great fight to another Great fighter. The Fight itself has to be a Perfect 10)

Note: A loss would only be classified as a Valiant Defeat under rare circumstances. Think Holyfield losing to Bowe, Bowe losing to Holyfield or Frazier losing to Ali in the Thrilla in Manilla. It's a rare fight where a fighter comes out with his legacy raised after a loss, but it can happen.

Draws
In the case of Draws the Points for the bout will be given to each fighter respectively.

Controversial Decisions
In the case of Controversial Decisions, a fighter suffering a Loss or Draw where the consensus is that he deserved the win will be credited with the points of the bout, he is unfortunately robbed of his Championship bonus though since whether we like it or not the official result does sort of effect people's memory.

As we know all controversial bouts are not created equal either. There's outright robberies, and there's some that are simply close bouts that could've gone either way. I try my best to properly make the distinction when ranking a fighter according to my own educated opinion as well as the consensus of Boxing fans and Writers.

Championship wins
Winning 1 Miscellaneous Alphabet Belt or Defending It = +5 points
Winning a Unified Championship Bout or Defending a Unified Title = +10 points
Winning an Undisputed/Lineal Championship Bout or Defending = +20 points
A Gold Star Win (A Great win over a Great Fighter in a Championship Bout) = +50 Points
An All Time Great Win (Beating a Hall of Fame Fighter either in his prime or while overcoming some severe disadvantage) = +100 points

A Non Title Gold Star Win = +30
A Non Title All Time Great win = +60

Gold Star wins require the Fight to have a score of 9 or 10 (Very High quality of opposition and Performance). All Time Platinum wins can only be Perfect 10's (The Highest Possible level of opposition and Performance)

Final System Change Update (added later on Page 2)
Any changes I'd make to the final math I'd like to go ahead, and do now before I get too many names entered into this, and have to go back and correct it.

I do think your suggestion that All Time wins should be worth more is a valid one.

Maybe +50 for a Gold Star win, and +100 for an All Time win? As opposed to +30 and +50.

Also I have +5 for an Alphabet Title and +10 for a Unified Title, but I should probably add a +20 for what is considered to be the Lineal/Legitimate Championship since obviously that title always carries more historical weight.

I will make these adjustments, and I think that'll be my final version of this system. I'll update all the scores for everyone once I've adjusted the math.

We can't ignore Championship bonuses altogether though.

Fights with No Video

In these cases since I'm unable to confirm the quality of the opponent or the fight with my own eyes for Simplification purposes any fight that isn't on Video the fighter is regarded as a low level opponent, and the points are rewarded thusly for those bouts

1 point = A win over a fighter with a losing or .500 record
2 points = A decision win over a fighter with a winning record
3 points = A KO win over a fighter with a winning record

In cases where there's No Video, but the 2 combatants were both Big name fighters of the era the High level opponents ranking, and status will be taken into consideration, the appropriate upgrades to the score will be given out as needed. This will mostly be needed in covering the Pre World War 2 era, but possibly for a handful of fights from the 1950's onward as well.

Examples being
Additional 3 points for a known Hall of Famer or Championship level opponent
Additional 20 points for what would appear to have been a Gold Star win by all reliable accounts
Additional 40 points for what would appear to have been an All Time Great win by all reliable accounts

-10 from either of the above if the great win in question was Non Title.

[JC]

Seems like your performance ranking part would penalise fighters for winning easily but unexcitingly. And potentially reward fighters for making hard work of opponents.

For example, should Ibeabuchi get a higher performance rating for brawling with Tua than Lewis does for outboxing him in boring fight? Should Tim Bradley get more points for getting hurt early and dragged into a war vs Provodnikov, which was fight of the year, than if he’d completely outclassed him in a less exciting fight?

Let me know if I’ve misunderstood.

Fury getting 0 performance score for dethroning Wlad is silly IMO

[Ezzard]

Good system. I think it works but the issue will be in the rating... I think Fury deservees better than a zero for performance against Wlad. Might be interesting to compare different people's scores for top fighters.

[gilgamesh]

Seems like your performance ranking part would penalise fighters for winning easily but unexcitingly. And potentially reward fighters for making hard work of opponents.

For example, should Ibeabuchi get a higher performance rating for brawling with Tua than Lewis does for outboxing him in boring fight? Should Tim Bradley get more points for getting hurt early and dragged into a war vs Provodnikov, which was fight of the year, than if he’d completely outclassed him in a less exciting fight?

Let me know if I’ve misunderstood.

Fury getting 0 performance score for dethroning Wlad is silly IMO

Ibeabuchi's win over Tua wouldn't get more points than Lewis because it wasn't a Championship bout. The fight itself was worth more, but throw in the fact that Lewis was defending a World Title, and the advantage swings back to Lewis. Typically when guys fight a particularly cautious bout, it's because there's more at stake.

Tim Bradley absolutely gets more points for beating Provodnikov the way he did than if he'd outclassed him in a boring fight because people want to see excitement. That being said, if you outbox a man convincingly that doesn't necessarily mean that it was boring. Usyk outboxing Fury or Joshua for instance was a very impressive sight to behold, and he gets credited with Gold star victories in a few of those bouts.

Fury definitely gets 0 Performance points for beating Wladimir. It was one of the worst performances I've ever seen from Challenger or Champion. He does however get a Championship bonus of +10. So that makes up for the complete lack of excitement that the fight brought, and gives it a higher score than if he had just knocked out some bum in an exciting fight.

A performance score of 0 is downright shameful to me so I almost thought of deducting points from fighters that achieve this dubious distinction, but I decided that the 0 was punishment enough. A score of 0 for performance is rare as hell. We're talking Fury vs Wlad, Byrd vs Davarryl Williamson, John Ruiz vs Kirk Johnson....as boring as it gets. Most fights, even dull ones, aren't THAT bad.

To me this all makes perfect sense. Fans are more excited by good fights than boring ones. Outboxing a man can be exciting, but if your goal throughout the bout is to nullify the action as much as possible, you're not doing anything that's particularly worthy of praise in my opinion.

[gilgamesh]

Good system. I think it works but the issue will be in the rating... I think Fury deservees better than a zero for performance against Wlad. Might be interesting to compare different people's scores for top fighters.

I'm nearly done with AnthonyJoshua and Tyson Fury's bouts, and I'm curious of where this system will have them at. Especially since the U.K. fans have stated that they don't feel half of his bouts after the Klitschko win were title wins.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Seems like your performance ranking part would penalise fighters for winning easily but unexcitingly. And potentially reward fighters for making hard work of opponents.

For example, should Ibeabuchi get a higher performance rating for brawling with Tua than Lewis does for outboxing him in boring fight? Should Tim Bradley get more points for getting hurt early and dragged into a war vs Provodnikov, which was fight of the year, than if he’d completely outclassed him in a less exciting fight?

Let me know if I’ve misunderstood.

Fury getting 0 performance score for dethroning Wlad is silly IMO

- Not really. Blubber should've been on suspension after a failed Drug test that the BBBc kept secret until Wlad started training for the rematch.

Instead, Blubber retired for a whopper of a liquored, coked out pig sty bender before making his idiotic comeback.

[JC]

Seems like your performance ranking part would penalise fighters for winning easily but unexcitingly. And potentially reward fighters for making hard work of opponents.

For example, should Ibeabuchi get a higher performance rating for brawling with Tua than Lewis does for outboxing him in boring fight? Should Tim Bradley get more points for getting hurt early and dragged into a war vs Provodnikov, which was fight of the year, than if he’d completely outclassed him in a less exciting fight?

Let me know if I’ve misunderstood.

Fury getting 0 performance score for dethroning Wlad is silly IMO

Tim Bradley absolutely gets more points for beating Provodnikov the way he did than if he'd outclassed him in a boring fight because people want to see excitement. That being said, if you outbox a man convincingly that doesn't necessarily mean that it was boring. Usyk outboxing Fury or Joshua for instance was a very impressive sight to behold, and he gets credited with Gold star victories in a few of those bouts.

A performance score of 0 is downright shameful to me so I almost thought of deducting points from fighters that achieve this dubious distinction, but I decided that the 0 was punishment enough. A score of 0 for performance is rare as hell. We're talking Fury vs Wlad, Byrd vs Davarryl Williamson, John Ruiz vs Kirk Johnson....as boring as it gets. Most fights, even dull ones, aren't THAT bad.

To me this all makes perfect sense. Fans are more excited by good fights than boring ones. Outboxing a man can be exciting, but if your goal throughout the bout is to nullify the action as much as possible, you're not doing anything that's particularly worthy of praise in my opinion.

I understand. And I get that the performance ranking is only part of your system. I just think in certain cases it will reward fighters for mistakes that lead to exciting fights and possibly penalise for dominant but not especially eventful wins. I also think how exciting or impressive a fight is can be quite subjective.

All that being said, interesting system thanks for setting it out.

[cfang]

Good system. I think it works but the issue will be in the rating... I think Fury deservees better than a zero for performance against Wlad. Might be interesting to compare different people's scores for top fighters.

Agreed it wasn’t pretty but him and his team had clearly worked out how to get the result. To win on pts in what was pretty much wlad’s backyard was an excellent performance. He did what he had to do to win.

[gilgamesh]

Seems like your performance ranking part would penalise fighters for winning easily but unexcitingly. And potentially reward fighters for making hard work of opponents.

For example, should Ibeabuchi get a higher performance rating for brawling with Tua than Lewis does for outboxing him in boring fight? Should Tim Bradley get more points for getting hurt early and dragged into a war vs Provodnikov, which was fight of the year, than if he’d completely outclassed him in a less exciting fight?

Let me know if I’ve misunderstood.

Fury getting 0 performance score for dethroning Wlad is silly IMO

Tim Bradley absolutely gets more points for beating Provodnikov the way he did than if he'd outclassed him in a boring fight because people want to see excitement. That being said, if you outbox a man convincingly that doesn't necessarily mean that it was boring. Usyk outboxing Fury or Joshua for instance was a very impressive sight to behold, and he gets credited with Gold star victories in a few of those bouts.

A performance score of 0 is downright shameful to me so I almost thought of deducting points from fighters that achieve this dubious distinction, but I decided that the 0 was punishment enough. A score of 0 for performance is rare as hell. We're talking Fury vs Wlad, Byrd vs Davarryl Williamson, John Ruiz vs Kirk Johnson....as boring as it gets. Most fights, even dull ones, aren't THAT bad.

To me this all makes perfect sense. Fans are more excited by good fights than boring ones. Outboxing a man can be exciting, but if your goal throughout the bout is to nullify the action as much as possible, you're not doing anything that's particularly worthy of praise in my opinion.

I understand. And I get that the performance ranking is only part of your system. I just think in certain cases it will reward fighters for mistakes that lead to exciting fights and possibly penalise for dominant but not especially eventful wins. I also think how exciting or impressive a fight is can be quite subjective.

All that being said, interesting system thanks for setting it out.

You're probably right in the point that in individual fights a more cautious style may not be rewarded as much as a style that takes more risks, and therefore creates more excitement, but also leads to more mistakes.

But it all will ultimately usually work out overall in their scores because those types of fighters will often have more success period.

For instance. A guy like Floyd Mayweather Jr. may not have been involved in very many if any of what we would consider great or action fights, but his style is also primarily responsible for his being a Champion for so many years, and racking up title win after title win.

So ultimately, success. Whichever avenue one takes to get there. Will be rewarded.

You're right also that how exciting a performance is can be subjective. I was trying to cover all bases, but to some extent Personal opinion always has to play at least some slight part in it all I guess.

[gilgamesh]

Hey by the way. Do you guys think a bonus should be given to fighters for retiring Undefeated? If so how much?

Retiring unbeaten certainly enhances ones legacy to some extent I think we'd all agree. How much though? How much is it worth?

[Ezzard]

I would say no. For me coming back after defeat is more a sign of greatness.

[gilgamesh]

Deontay Wilder with a record of 44-4-1 with 43 KO's. 13 Championship fights with an 11-2 (10 KO's) record in World Title bouts.

He has 5 quality wins

His total score comes to 221 points

Strangely 7 of Deontay Wilder's wins I can't find any video of. Odd for a fighter in the modern era.

[keithmoonhangover]

Can I please ask a question.

Theoretically, if a boxer beats five level 1 fighters (A guy with more wins than losses, but usually can't get it done at a particularly high level), is that the same as beating one level 5 guy (A Hall of Famer, or Reigning Champion...generally in their prime.)?

[gilgamesh]

Can I please ask a question.

Theoretically, if a boxer beats five level 1 fighters (A guy with more wins than losses, but usually can't get it done at a particularly high level), is that the same as beating one level 5 guy (A Hall of Famer, or Reigning Champion...generally in their prime.)?

Generally no, because usually if you're fighting a Level 5 fighter a Championship bonus or possibly Gold star bonus could potentially come with it which will make it significantly more valuable.

The most that a fighter could ever get against a Level 1 opponent is 6 points. The most they could get against a Level 5 opponent is 60. Although 40 is the Gold standard. 60 is reserved for truly monumental "All time" wins.

Frazier beating Ali, Ali beating Foreman, Duran beating Leonard, Leonard beating Hearns. Fights like that. It's the highest possible value 1 fight could get anyone's score, and it's reserved for only the most outstanding of victories.

Gold star wins are more prevalent because the circumstances for those are more common.

[gilgamesh]

Lennox Lewis with a record of 41-2-1 with 32 KO's. 18 Championship fights where has a record of 15-2-1.

He has 16 Quality wins. 2 Gold Star wins.

He has a total score of 500 points

Note: I felt, and the majority of Boxing fans feel that Lewis was blatantly robbed in his "Draw" with Evander Holyfield in their 1st meeting. For that reason I recognize this bout as a victory for Lennox Lewis in my overall breakdown of his career.

[keithmoonhangover]

Lennox Lewis with a record of 41-2-1 with 32 KO's. 18 Championship fights where has a record of 15-2-1.

He has 16 Quality wins. 1 Gold Star win.

He has a total score of 360 points

How do you differentiate between 'Championship; fights for a WBS titles and ones for the heavyweight championship.

[gilgamesh]

Anthony Joshua with a record of 29-4 (26 KO's). He has 12 Championship fights, and is 9-3 in them.

He has 5 quality wins, and 1 Gold Star win.

He has a total score of 203 points



Tyson Fury with a record of 34-2-1 (24 KO's). He has 8 Championship fight with a record of 5-2-1 in them.

He has 8 quality wins, and 2 Gold Star wins.

He has a total score of 262 Points

Note: If you are of the opinion that the Seferi, Pianeta, Tom Schwarz, Otto Wallin and the draw with Wilder were successful title defenses for Fury of his Lineal Title then you'd add 25 points to Fury's overall score.


Anthony Joshua could surpass Tyson Fury with a KO victory over him. Due to the additional points it would score Joshua along the points it would deduct from Fury.

If they retire without ever having fought. Tyson Fury was better.

[gilgamesh]

Lennox Lewis with a record of 41-2-1 with 32 KO's. 18 Championship fights where has a record of 15-2-1.

He has 16 Quality wins. 1 Gold Star win.

He has a total score of 360 points

How do you differentiate between 'Championship; fights for a WBS titles and ones for the heavyweight championship.

Random Alphabet titles are worth a Championship bonus of +5
Unified Championships are worth a Championship bonus of +10

Any Champion from the era when there was only 1 Champion is automatically granted the same benefit in Championship bonus that a Unified Champion would receive.

In order for a guy to get a Gold Star bonus it has to be both a great opponent and a great fight, not simply a win.

[gilgamesh]

For the Purposes of Simplification for myself I've just narrowed this list down to Heavyweights and P4P since as we know most fighters below the Heavyweight division change weight divisions like celebrity actresses change spouses

[gilgamesh]

Some new additions to the P4P list, and the results shocked even me after watching every fight available of these 2 fighters. Naoya Inoue currently sits with a higher all time score than Sugar Ray Leonard!

I had never really dug into Inoue and his body of work before this, so his talent, and his achievements to this point in his career had flown in large part under the radar. I had heard the kid was good, but I didn't realize he was making a historical mark at this level in the smaller weight classes.

I will break down the full results for both fighters in my next posts.

[gilgamesh]

Sugar Ray Leonard with a record of 36-3-1, with 25 KO's. He fought 13 Championship fights with a record of 10-2-1 in them.

He has 16 Quality wins (Benitez, Duran 2, Ayub Kalule, Hearns, Hagler, Lalonde, Duran 3, Adolfo Viruet and Johnny Gant) and more

He has 3 All time Great wins (Duran 2, Hearns, Hagler) and 1 Gold star win (Benitez)

His career total comes to 416 Points

[gilgamesh]

Naoya Inoue with a record of 32-0 with 27 KO's. As of 2025 he has fought in 27 Championship fights with a record of 27-0 and 23 KO's in them.

84% of Naoya Inoue's total bouts have been Championship fights.

He has 11 Quality wins (Adrian Hernandez, Omar Narvaez, Nonito Donaire 2x, Stephen Fulton, Jamie McDonnell, Luis Nery, TJ Doheny, Paul Butler, Murodjon Akmadaliev and Ryoichi Taguchi)

He has 4 Gold star wins (Omar Narvaez, Nonito Donaire 2x, and Stephen Fulton)

His career total as of 2025 after 32 bouts is 516 points

[Ambling Alp II]

Obviously, this didn't work well. Just some thoughts to improve your system;

- The overemphasis on WBS title fights is part of it. Get rid of the 5 points for random WBS title fight wins. It unfairly favors fighters who fought in eras in which there is 4 titleholders over earlier ones when there was 1, 2, or 3.

-Certain weight classes always have less depth. The talent pool at jr feather down to Strawweight is much less deep than at welterweight. (i.e the #7 welterweight is usually going to be better pfp than the #7 Jr Bantamweight) Too many weight classes at the lower levels which divides up the talent pool. Below Featherweight, only count guys in the top 5.


-As for Leonard's wins:
Floyd Mayweather Sr, Randy Shields, Armando Muniz, Tony Chiaverini, Pete Ranzany, Andy Price, Davey Boy Green, and Bruce Finch were all ranked fighters when Leonard beat them. They were roughly even with Gant and Viruet.
Probably should be "quality wins".

Marcus Geraldo was just outside of being a middleweight contender. Leonard has never fought a middleweight before and had only two years of pro experience when he beat him. That has to be a quality win.

Another problem is that it doesn't take into account how good the weight class was at the time. Obviously, Leonard's weight class was loaded. Not sure how mathematically, you can adjust for that.

Sorry if this over critical. Just thought some things needed to be pointed out.

[gilgamesh]

Obviously, this didn't work well. Just some thoughts to improve your system;

- The overemphasis on WBS title fights is part of it. Get rid of the 5 points for random WBS title fight wins. It unfairly favors fighters who fought in eras in which there is 4 titleholders over earlier ones when there was 1, 2, or 3.

-Certain weight classes always have less depth. The talent pool at jr feather down to Strawweight is much less deep than at welterweight. (i.e the #7 welterweight is usually going to be better pfp than the #7 Jr Bantamweight) Too many weight classes at the lower levels which divides up the talent pool. Below Featherweight, only count guys in the top 5.


-As for Leonard's wins:
Floyd Mayweather Sr, Randy Shields, Armando Muniz, Tony Chiaverini, Pete Ranzany, Andy Price, Davey Boy Green, and Bruce Finch were all ranked fighters when Leonard beat them. They were roughly even with Gant and Viruet.
Probably should be "quality wins".

Marcus Geraldo was just outside of being a middleweight contender. Leonard has never fought a middleweight before and had only two years of pro experience when he beat him. That has to be a quality win.

Another problem is that it doesn't take into account how good the weight class was at the time. Obviously, Leonard's weight class was loaded. Not sure how mathematically, you can adjust for that.

Sorry if this over critical. Just thought some things needed to be pointed out.

In Leonard's case. Only 3 of his Championship wins were of a Unified Championship. Usually he only had 1 Alphabet belt as well. So you'd be removing about 7 of Leonard's Championship wins if you went with the idea that only having 1 belt isn't worth a bonus.

Usually Leonard only had 1 belt. He unified with Hearns, defended against Finch, then won the Lineal title and 2 belts against Hagler. Otherwise his Championship bouts were for 1 belt.

I will say I thought of giving a +20 bonus for Undisputed Titles, since they strip guys of a belt as soon as they win em all i figure that's kinda pointless. The Gold star bonuses make up for that.

For the record also, if you remove the +5. You'd be saying for example that someone like Joe Frazier only had 3 or 4 Heavyweight title wins as opposed to more like 10 that he has.

So it wouldn't only affect modern fighters.

For the sake of argument, I'll remove the plus 5's and upgrade those Leonard opponent's you mentioned, but i gotta warn you. I'm pretty sure Inoue still finishes higher.

I'm keeping the system as is because I think it works, but any suggested modifications could easily be made to reflect how the score would come out under a different way of thinking.