gil's Refined Ranking System

[gilgamesh]

Saul "Canelo" Alvarez

With a current record of 63-3-2 (39 KO's). Alvarez has competed in 28 Championship fights going 24-3-1 in them.

He has 14 Quality wins (Carlos Baldomir, Shane Mosley, Austin Trout, Erislandy Lara, Miguel Cotto, Amir Khan, Gennady Golovkin 2x, Daniel Jacobs, Sergey Kovalev, Callum Smith, Billy Joe Saunders, Caleb Plant and Jermell Charlo)

His current overall score is 586 points

[gilgamesh]

I love the fact that Canelo and Marvin Hagler wind up within 1 point of each other, and have records that are almost identical. The chances of a mathematical anomaly like that happening have gotta be very slim. Especially considering that they both took considerably different paths to wind up with the numbers they arrived at.

It's almost a shame that Canelo will fight on, and break that trend.

[keithmoonhangover]

I love the fact that Canelo and Marvin Hagler wind up within 1 point of each other, and have records that are almost identical. The chances of a mathematical anomaly like that happening have gotta be very slim. Especially considering that they both took considerably different paths to wind up with the numbers they arrived at.

It's almost a shame that Canelo will fight on, and break that trend.

How did you rate them before you developed the system?

[gilgamesh]

I think one last thing I need to determine in my system is just what is a Gold star win anyway. What qualifies it as such?

I'm thinking a good baseline is something like any fighter with a rating of 150 to 350 points would be a Level 4 opponent, and anyone beyond 350 has gotten into All Time Great territory. That makes sense to me considering the names that have been established at over 350 such as Joe Frazier and Mike Tyson.

Sometimes I may misjudge this, and find that someone wasn't quite a Gold Star win or maybe they were better upon further review.

[gilgamesh]

I love the fact that Canelo and Marvin Hagler wind up within 1 point of each other, and have records that are almost identical. The chances of a mathematical anomaly like that happening have gotta be very slim. Especially considering that they both took considerably different paths to wind up with the numbers they arrived at.

It's almost a shame that Canelo will fight on, and break that trend.

How did you rate them before you developed the system?

Thusly

15. Marvin Hagler

38. Saul "Canelo" Alvarez

[gilgamesh]

Upon watching all of their fights though. They definitely are about even in my eyes. I can't imagine a fight between them could've been anything but an extremely close, and hard fought battle with many rounds going either way. They're both hard as a rock. Both have indominatable wills. It would've been something to see definitely.

[gilgamesh]

Something you wouldn't expect between Canelo and Hagler. You'd think Canelo the guy that turned Pro as a Teenager would've fought more losers and tomato cans than Hagler did, but you'd be wrong. Hagler fought a sh*t load of guys with losing records. Although in fairness to him I'm pretty sure the good fighters just kinda avoided him like their lives depended on it for as long as they could

[gilgamesh]

Joseph Parker

With a current record of 36-4 (24 KO's). Parker has competed in 4 Heavyweight Championship fights with a record of 3-1 in them.

He has 5 Quality wins to his credit (Andy Ruiz, Dereck Chisora 2x, Deontay Wilder, Zhilei Zhang)

His score currently stands at 149 points

[Casablanca]

I love the amount of work that has gone into making this.

[Good ol Douglas]

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.)

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

The opposition-level labels need to be standardised so they reflect how good an opponent was at the time they fought them while allowing for fairer cross-era comparisons.

0 = All other opposition
1 = Fringe contenders rated top 15 by at least half the recognised sanctioning bodies in that era
2 = Top 10 Ring/TBRB contenders*
3 = Top 5 Ring/TBRB contenders*
4 = No. 1 contenders
5 = Reigning lineal or undisputed champions

*If no Ring/TBRB ranking exists, a contender rated top 10 or 5 respectively by at least half the recognised sanctioning bodies in that era.

I would avoid factoring in something as subjective as entertainment value. The best way to reward dominance is through a simple hierarchy: KOs > UDs > MDs > SDs with bonus credit for world title fight wins over regular bouts as you have done. After all, this is not a ranking of the boxers people like most or think offer the best value for money.

I also do not like vague descriptors such as 'great fighter', and HOF wins are too biased toward earlier eras, especially now that the label is less exclusive than many people think it should be. I would only give extra points for wins over current P4P fighters, since that at least indicates a high-level opponent who is still relatively in his prime, even if it is not foolproof.

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

No. Obviously winning is superior to losing no matter what and that is already reflected in the points distributed by this system.

The list of fighters who have won Championships from 108 to 122 is an extremely short one. Off the top of my head, I can't think of anyone who's ever done it besides Inoue.

Outside Inoue, only Jorge Arce has achieved the same feat through WBO belt-sniping. Funnily enough, he too also skipped 112.

[gilgamesh]

Some good suggestions there. I'm already too deep into this thing to change the system around now, but I would've considered those ideas in the early going.

One of the troubles with your idea is that it's kinda hard to figure if a guy from a bygone era would've been in the Top 15 or not. It's usually not hard to track down whether or not a guy was a Top 10 ranked contender, but if he was outside of it that can be hard to determine.

I do personally think Entertainment value plays a part though admittedly in my use of the system that has pretty much just become the quality of the performance from the winning fighter.

I like keeping track of how Entertaining the fights were though as a way to earmark that for separate use later like if we were beginning a thread about great fights that nobody talks about or something like that. (I think we got a thread like that around here somwhere)

I appreciate your input, and I do think there was certainly a good deal of merit to your ideas.

And for the record. There is no bonus for beating a Hall of Famers necessarily it just often winds up being worth extra because more often than not if you're fighting a Hall of Fame opponent you're fighting a high ranking opponent at minimum whether a title is at stake or not.

Many of the suggestions you're making though aren't far off from the way the system already operates so I don't think the differences would be especially huge either which way we applied the points. I'm glad you acknowledge that a title bout in and of itself has some value, to me it's just logical to acknowledge that.

If you're fighting a Fringe Contender on the way up the rankings or a Fringe Contender in defense of a World Title. The difference in money, prestige, pressure, attention given to the bout is huge. So all that has to be considered.

[Good ol Douglas]

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.

While I like this idea in theory as a way to overturn obvious robberies, or attempted ones, such as Floyd’s MD over Canelo, it is difficult to know how to define consensus, or at least something close enough to it, without letting your own judgment carry too much weight.

Did you use average fan scorecards with a sufficiently large sample size, perhaps 25? Setting the threshold any higher would exclude less mainstream bouts, but setting it lower obviously increases the risk of outliers and trolls skewing the result. You would also need to decide what level of score disparity is enough to justify overturning a decision. For older fights, where fan scorecards are not really available, you would probably have to rely on newspapers, ringside reports and credible analysis from historians. But that would require far more effort than simply scrolling through BoxRec.

I also do not like vague descriptors such as 'great fighter', and HOF wins are too biased toward earlier eras, especially now that the label is less exclusive than many people think it should be. I would only give extra points for wins over current P4P fighters, since that at least indicates a high-level opponent who is still relatively in his prime, even if it is not foolproof.

I forgot to mention that bonus points for wins that age well, specifically against opponents who later become titleholders (treated, for our purposes, the same as No. 1 contenders), or go on to become lineal or undisputed champions, would help address the problem of fighters not getting enough credit in the moment for beating a dangerous, highly talented opponent early in his career. It would reward fighters who take on extra risk even when the immediate reward is relatively modest.

Japanese fighters are a good example of this, because many of them are matched hard early and that is not always fully appreciated in present-day terms. Inoue’s win over Taguchi illustrates this point: Taguchi was top-10 rated by Ring/TBRB at the time, but had not yet become the lineal and unified 108-pound champion. As a result, the win tends to be underrated.

Some good suggestions there. I'm already too deep into this thing to change the system around now, but I would've considered those ideas in the early going.

I do personally think Entertainment value plays a part though admittedly in my use of the system that has pretty much just become the quality of the performance from the winning fighter.

And for the record. There is no bonus for beating a Hall of Famers necessarily it just often winds up being worth extra because more often than not if you're fighting a Hall of Fame opponent you're fighting a high ranking opponent at minimum whether a title is at stake or not.

I thought so, but it was still worth writing the ideas down for posterity. Someone else might take inspiration from this and construct their own system eventually.

The sport would not have grown the way it did without entertainment value, it is obviously preferable from a viewer's perspective. The problem is that hardcore fans like us should have a greater appreciation for genuine skill, even when the damage or drama is not high. Besides size, skill is the ultimate arbiter of a fight’s outcome, so a fighter’s career should be assessed primarily with this in mind.

I just do not like HOF being used in a cross-era system. Not only has the label been watered down by certain entrants, but it also opens the door to fighters being elevated for reasons that do not really help when assessing actual in-ring ability or overall career success. Old era boxers with 50 losses can end up being called a 'Hall of Famer' because they pulled off one major upset or became a local hero after coming from nothing; this just does not happen nowadays. Furthermore, you have to decide whether an opponent was still in their prime, already past it or somewhere in between. It is much easier, and far more consistent, to use their ranking at the time instead. That gives you an automatic standard and is a generally better reflection of where a fighter is in their career than one's personal opinion.

[gilgamesh]

The only cases in which I would consider a decision egregious enough to completely overturn it as far as the way I distribute the points is if it's just completely indefensible, and an overwhelming majority believe it was the wrong decision.

Pacquiao vs Bradley and Whitaker vs Chavez are prime examples.

Other bouts in which I disagreed with the official verdict, but they were still close (Canelo vs GGG 2 for instance), I will accept the official outcome, though I probably won't see it truly as a "loss" for the fighter I feel was wronged, I won't begrudge the official winner his victory.

As for your gripe about Hall of Famers. I realize that the doors are open fairly wide at the Hall of Fame, and all Hall of Famers are not created equal.

For instance a victory over Ingemar Johansson or Arturo Gatti obviously doesn't carry the same weight as a win over Muhammad Ali or Roberto Duran nor does it carry anywhere near the same points value. I simply try to find common ground between all eras, and things we can all wrap our head around and understand, but in the end if someone really wasn't an especially great fighter, their points will reflect that.

Trying to decide whether a fighter was or wasn't "in his prime" is a nuance that is best left forgotten in my opinion. Reason being is that there is no universal way to attribute a man being past his prime. Some fighters are past it at 32. Some are past it at 35. Some are past it at 40. Hell some are past it at 28.

Fighters primes tend to be a case by case basis, and any fighters fans will simply use "he was past his prime" as an excuse for when their favorite fighter loses.

The way I handle that issue is I lower a fighters point value by 1 point if they've taken multiple losses, and have clearly shown signs of decline. However I never write them off completely because for the most part a fighter being in his prime or past it is something that all of them will eventually face.

One day you're the young guy beating up the old past it Former Champion, and the next you're the old past it Former Champion trying to fight off the young guy. It all comes full circle, and very very few fighters throughout the sports history avoid this vicious cycle.

[Casablanca]

The only cases in which I would consider a decision egregious enough to completely overturn it as far as the way I distribute the points is if it's just completely indefensible, and an overwhelming majority believe it was the wrong decision.

Pacquiao vs Bradley and Whitaker vs Chavez are prime examples.

Other bouts in which I disagreed with the official verdict, but they were still close (Canelo vs GGG 2 for instance), I will accept the official outcome, though I probably won't see it truly as a "loss" for the fighter I feel was wronged, I won't begrudge the official winner his victory.

As for your gripe about Hall of Famers. I realize that the doors are open fairly wide at the Hall of Fame, and all Hall of Famers are not created equal.

For instance a victory over Ingemar Johansson or Arturo Gatti obviously doesn't carry the same weight as a win over Muhammad Ali or Roberto Duran nor does it carry anywhere near the same points value. I simply try to find common ground between all eras, and things we can all wrap our head around and understand, but in the end if someone really wasn't an especially great fighter, their points will reflect that.

Trying to decide whether a fighter was or wasn't "in his prime" is a nuance that is best left forgotten in my opinion. Reason being is that there is no universal way to attribute a man being past his prime. Some fighters are past it at 32. Some are past it at 35. Some are past it at 40. Hell some are past it at 28.

Fighters primes tend to be a case by case basis, and any fighters fans will simply use "he was past his prime" as an excuse for when their favorite fighter loses.

The way I handle that issue is I lower a fighters point value by 1 point if they've taken multiple losses, and have clearly shown signs of decline. However I never write them off completely because for the most part a fighter being in his prime or past it is something that all of them will eventually face.

One day you're the young guy beating up the old past it Former Champion, and the next you're the old past it Former Champion trying to fight off the young guy. It all comes full circle, and very very few fighters throughout the sports history avoid this vicious cycle.

Pacquiao-Bradley I was a close fight, I think. Whitaker-Chavez is not currently available on YouTube. I have heard that it was a dreadful draw decision, but I have never actually seen it, so I can’t judge one way or the other.

[gilgamesh]

The only cases in which I would consider a decision egregious enough to completely overturn it as far as the way I distribute the points is if it's just completely indefensible, and an overwhelming majority believe it was the wrong decision.

Pacquiao vs Bradley and Whitaker vs Chavez are prime examples.

Other bouts in which I disagreed with the official verdict, but they were still close (Canelo vs GGG 2 for instance), I will accept the official outcome, though I probably won't see it truly as a "loss" for the fighter I feel was wronged, I won't begrudge the official winner his victory.

As for your gripe about Hall of Famers. I realize that the doors are open fairly wide at the Hall of Fame, and all Hall of Famers are not created equal.

For instance a victory over Ingemar Johansson or Arturo Gatti obviously doesn't carry the same weight as a win over Muhammad Ali or Roberto Duran nor does it carry anywhere near the same points value. I simply try to find common ground between all eras, and things we can all wrap our head around and understand, but in the end if someone really wasn't an especially great fighter, their points will reflect that.

Trying to decide whether a fighter was or wasn't "in his prime" is a nuance that is best left forgotten in my opinion. Reason being is that there is no universal way to attribute a man being past his prime. Some fighters are past it at 32. Some are past it at 35. Some are past it at 40. Hell some are past it at 28.

Fighters primes tend to be a case by case basis, and any fighters fans will simply use "he was past his prime" as an excuse for when their favorite fighter loses.

The way I handle that issue is I lower a fighters point value by 1 point if they've taken multiple losses, and have clearly shown signs of decline. However I never write them off completely because for the most part a fighter being in his prime or past it is something that all of them will eventually face.

One day you're the young guy beating up the old past it Former Champion, and the next you're the old past it Former Champion trying to fight off the young guy. It all comes full circle, and very very few fighters throughout the sports history avoid this vicious cycle.

Pacquiao-Bradley I was a close fight, I think. Whitaker-Chavez is not currently available on YouTube. I have heard that it was a dreadful draw decision, but I have never actually seen it, so I can’t judge one way or the other.

You're definitely in the minority on that. I remember when that fight happened, and I remember everyone's reactions at the time.

Whitaker vs Chavez isn't on YouTube at the moment, but I've seen it and scored it back in the day. I'd have it 10 rounds to 2 for Whitaker, can't imagine anything closer than 9 to 3.

[Casablanca]

The only cases in which I would consider a decision egregious enough to completely overturn it as far as the way I distribute the points is if it's just completely indefensible, and an overwhelming majority believe it was the wrong decision.

Pacquiao vs Bradley and Whitaker vs Chavez are prime examples.

Other bouts in which I disagreed with the official verdict, but they were still close (Canelo vs GGG 2 for instance), I will accept the official outcome, though I probably won't see it truly as a "loss" for the fighter I feel was wronged, I won't begrudge the official winner his victory.

As for your gripe about Hall of Famers. I realize that the doors are open fairly wide at the Hall of Fame, and all Hall of Famers are not created equal.

For instance a victory over Ingemar Johansson or Arturo Gatti obviously doesn't carry the same weight as a win over Muhammad Ali or Roberto Duran nor does it carry anywhere near the same points value. I simply try to find common ground between all eras, and things we can all wrap our head around and understand, but in the end if someone really wasn't an especially great fighter, their points will reflect that.

Trying to decide whether a fighter was or wasn't "in his prime" is a nuance that is best left forgotten in my opinion. Reason being is that there is no universal way to attribute a man being past his prime. Some fighters are past it at 32. Some are past it at 35. Some are past it at 40. Hell some are past it at 28.

Fighters primes tend to be a case by case basis, and any fighters fans will simply use "he was past his prime" as an excuse for when their favorite fighter loses.

The way I handle that issue is I lower a fighters point value by 1 point if they've taken multiple losses, and have clearly shown signs of decline. However I never write them off completely because for the most part a fighter being in his prime or past it is something that all of them will eventually face.

One day you're the young guy beating up the old past it Former Champion, and the next you're the old past it Former Champion trying to fight off the young guy. It all comes full circle, and very very few fighters throughout the sports history avoid this vicious cycle.

Pacquiao-Bradley I was a close fight, I think. Whitaker-Chavez is not currently available on YouTube. I have heard that it was a dreadful draw decision, but I have never actually seen it, so I can’t judge one way or the other.

You're definitely in the minority on that. I remember when that fight happened, and I remember everyone's reactions at the time.

Whitaker vs Chavez isn't on YouTube at the moment, but I've seen it and scored it back in the day. I'd have it 10 rounds to 2 for Whitaker, can't imagine anything closer than 9 to 3.

I understand that I am in the minority, but I have to call them as I see them. I had Pacquiao up six rounds to three with three to go, but gave Bradley all three of the last three rounds. I remember the uproar when it happened well.

As far as Whitaker-Chavez is concerned, I was an infant at the time.

[gilgamesh]

I was a child myself, but a friend of mine's Dad had taped it, and I watched it at his house back when I was a teenager. Them old tape traders is how you'd find a lot of old fights like that, but I don't think anybody really does that anymore.

[Casablanca]

I was a child myself, but a friend of mine's Dad had taped it, and I watched it at his house back when I was a teenager. Them old tape traders is how you'd find a lot of old fights like that, but I don't think anybody really does that anymore.

It is available on Dailymotion, so when I get a chance, I may watch it on there.

[keithmoonhangover]

I love the amount of work that has gone into making this.

x2

[gilgamesh]

I sincerely appreciate that fellas. It's really just a project I've been doing to satisfy some questions in my own mind, and an excuse to educate myself better on past fighters that I hadn't seen as much of, but if my research winds up meaning anything to anyone else I'm glad to know it.

Watching classic Boxing is a favorite way of wasting my time for me, and taking extensive notes on things I'm passionate about is another compulsive habit of mine. So naturally I combined the 2

[gilgamesh]

It's Hawk Time!

Aaron "The Hawk" Pryor

With a record of 39-1 (35 KO's). Pryor fought in 11 World Championship bouts going 11-0 in them.

He has 6 Quality wins (Julio Valdez, Antonio Cervantes, Dujuan Johnson, Miguel Montilla and Alexis Arguello 2x). He has 2 Gold star victories (Alexis Arguello 2x)

His overall career total comes to 280 points

[Casablanca]

It's Hawk Time!

Aaron "The Hawk" Pryor

With a record of 39-1 (35 KO's). Pryor fought in 11 World Championship bouts going 11-0 in them.

He has 6 Quality wins (Julio Valdez, Antonio Cervantes, Dujuan Johnson, Miguel Montilla and Alexis Arguello 2x). He has 2 Gold star victories (Alexis Arguello 2x)

His overall career total comes to 280 points

Where does that place him?

[gilgamesh]

It's Hawk Time!

Aaron "The Hawk" Pryor

With a record of 39-1 (35 KO's). Pryor fought in 11 World Championship bouts going 11-0 in them.

He has 6 Quality wins (Julio Valdez, Antonio Cervantes, Dujuan Johnson, Miguel Montilla and Alexis Arguello 2x). He has 2 Gold star victories (Alexis Arguello 2x)

His overall career total comes to 280 points

Where does that place him?

21 out of the 22 Non Heavyweight Fighters I've covered.

[Casablanca]

It's Hawk Time!

Aaron "The Hawk" Pryor

With a record of 39-1 (35 KO's). Pryor fought in 11 World Championship bouts going 11-0 in them.

He has 6 Quality wins (Julio Valdez, Antonio Cervantes, Dujuan Johnson, Miguel Montilla and Alexis Arguello 2x). He has 2 Gold star victories (Alexis Arguello 2x)

His overall career total comes to 280 points

Where does that place him?

21 out of the 22 Non Heavyweight Fighters I've covered.

I just looked at your list. Ahead of only Gatti.

[gilgamesh]

Anytime I add someone to the list, I update the list on the Opening Post of the thread. The full updated list is always there, and anytime I add a new name they will then be included in the list.