gil's Refined Ranking System

[gilgamesh]

So if upgrade Floyd Mayweather Sr, Randy Shields, Armando Muniz, Tony Chiaverini, Pete Ranzany, Andy Price, Davey Boy Green, and Bruce Finch by 1 point on Leonard's list. That gives him 8 more points total.

If we remove the +5 bonuses from Inoue only. It would lower his score by 55 points.

So even if you allowed Leonard to keep his +5 bonuses and removed them from Inoue. Inoue still finishes ahead of Leonard.

I know this all hits you like I'm trying to discredit Ray Leonard, but on the contrary. I'm simply in awe of the fact that Inoue is better than I would've realized.

If you had asked me 3 weeks ago who was better between Leonard and Inoue Pound for Pound. I would've laughed in your face, and said Leonard without a 2nd thought, and I would've been wrong. After watching every fight available from both of these men. Inoue is a better fighter in his weight range than Leonard is in his, and I stand by that. The evidence is all there.

As for this comment from Alp "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."

You can't adjust for that. What you're talking about is a matter of opinion. "Leonard's era was better than So and So's era". That's opinion. It may well be proven fact, but only once all of the data has been processed, and the fighters are ranked accordingly.

Oh and for the record. I also previously would've told you that Leonard was better Pound for Pound than Holyfield, but after breaking it all down. Holyfield has the edge.

[Ambling Alp II]

Which should tell you that there are other problems as well. In boxing, statistics often are often unreliable.
When I get a chance sometime, I will take a closer look to your system. Not saying that I have a super method either.

[gilgamesh]

It's not simply stats though. I also watched all of their fights, but any notes or indeed any conversation sparked from this whole exercise was the point of this.

Along with building a better way to measure greatness. You can never fully categorize things like that, but many try.

[Ambling Alp II]

I guess I don't completely understand your system.

Where is it that Inouye is scoring a lot more point than Leonard/

Leonard not only beat vastly better competition, but won make fights. Even if you take out Hagler, Duran, Hearns and Benitez, it looks about even without looking at your scoring system.

Holyfield would be closer to Leonard, but obviously not higher than Leonard. Where is he getting this edge?

[gilgamesh]

I guess I don't completely understand your system.

Where is it that Inouye is scoring a lot more point than Leonard/

Leonard not only beat vastly better competition, but won make fights. Even if you take out Hagler, Duran, Hearns and Benitez, it looks about even without looking at your scoring system.

Holyfield would be closer to Leonard, but obviously not higher than Leonard. Where is he getting this edge?

Holyfield's standard of competition was more consistently tough than Leonard's and he generally won equally as decisively as Leonard and often more decisive, and had many more enjoyable fights.

Inoue's level of competition has been as good as possible for a fighter in his weight range. He has become Undisputed Champion at Bantamweight and Jr. Featherweight and cleaned both divisions of all their top contenders.

None of Inoue's bouts have ever been particularly close. He usually wins in dominant fashion, by KO even against World class competition. He's been as dominant as a fighter can be in his weight classes.

Inoue has nearly 3 times as many Championship wins as Ray Leonard. At least a Dozen of those bouts have been for a Unified or Undisputed Championship.

[Ambling Alp II]

Not sure of Holyfield's standard of competition consistently being better. Holyfield certainly did fight good competition though.

You said Inoues competition was good as possible. The problem is that a fighter does not have to as good to be ranked as say straw weight as a welterweight has to be. The talent pool is so shallow.

- If you add the divisions at 105, 108, 112, and 115 together, they still have less fighters currently at 147. Inexperienced fighters in those weight classes often get title shots with less than 10 fights against pitiful competition. Sometimes they win because the champion is so weak. Not that this never happens at higher weight classes but it is rare.
This is the result of not having enough quality fighters in a division and having as many as 4 titleholders.

Even so, you have him with 11 wins over top 10 opponents.
I have Leonard with 17.

A couple of things you need to do:
There has to be more credit for the really big wins. Way more credit. Beating Hearns is a bigger deal than all of Inoues wins over contenders combined. And a bigger win than most of Leonard's put together. i.e Leonard's win over say Hearns should be at least 10x beating someone like Bruce Finch.

-Get rid of extra points for title fights. Most of them are a joke.

Also was wondering, what happens if you get a draw against quality competition?

[gilgamesh]

If I ignore Championship bonuses altogether then suddenly Joe Louis seems less impressive historically. So does Larry Holmes. So do many long reigning Champions widely regarded as Legends.

I do give a +50 for what I consider to be truly great all time wins. Leonard's wins over Hearns, Hagler and Duran in the rematch all netted him the All Time bonus.

I understand that there are less fighters in general at the smallest weight classes, guys have to operate in their own era and own weight range. They shouldn't be penalized for their size or for a favoritism toward a certain era.

I do believe with my system Leonard's win over Hearns was worth a good bit more than the win over Finch. Something like 42 points difference i think, I'd have to be looking at my notes to be sure.

[gilgamesh]

What Inoue is doing in the lower weight classes is not a feat that could be easily repeated, and has never been done before. He's arguably the greatest Bantamweight of all time right now. He skipped over 112, but i can't imagine he wouldn't have been formidable there too.

It's a shame he and Chocolatito missed each other by a few years there.

[gilgamesh]

Oh and to answer your question about draws. I will give both fighters credit for the quality of opposition and zero out their performance points. The points are generally split between the 2 fighters equally unless one of them retained his title via a draw.

However in the case of a robbery. I will score it as if it's a win for the fighter who was robbed of his victory.

[gilgamesh]

If I remove all Championship bonuses from both Inoue and Leonard.

Inoue finishes with a score of 271. Leonard finishes with a score of 199.

If I allow them to keep only their Gold Star and All Time bonuses (their biggest wins)

Inoue finishes with a score of 391

Leonard finishes with a score of 379

So any which way I crunch the numbers, Inoue comes out ahead

[gilgamesh]

And another thing to point out. Where mention that the talent pool is smaller in the lower weight classes, and all that. This is true, but it's also true that these fighters tend to age out faster than larger fighters do. Speed is absolutely crucial in the smallest weight classes, and when it goes even a little it's usually the downfall for most of these guys.

As easy as you seem to think it is to win Championships in the smallest weight classes Alp.

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.

[gilgamesh]

Final System Change Update
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 because if we did, Frank Bruno would rate ahead of Anthony Joshua, and that's just whack.

[gilgamesh]

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 because if we did, Frank Bruno would rate ahead of Anthony Joshua, and that's just whack.

Ok I've implemented the changes I mentioned in this post.

There were no changes to the scores of The Klitschko's, Wilder or Frank Bruno. Everyone else was bumped up a little. Some fighters like Holyfield, and Leonard were bumped up significantly.

With these changes Leonard (602 points) still finishes under Inoue (666 points), but the gap has narrowed significantly.

So once again, any which way you slice it. Inoue is the better Pound for Pound fighter than Leonard, and unless Inoue suddenly hits the wall, and starts losing a lot of fights. The gap between the 2 of them likely becomes wider.

Finally, Oscar De La Hoya has been added to the P4P list. He finishes with 540 points.

[Ezzard]

My biggest issue with this system are the subtractions for defeats.

I don't know another sport where this happens. Teams don't lose points for a defeat. They just score zero. Nobody criticises a tennis player for losing a game.

In other sports the teams/competitors are all but guaranteed to play all the others, or at least a large number of them. In boxing you can easily steer your career away from the real challenges, or even force the other guy up a division, force him to weight drain, wait until he is old... In fact it's actually rare that the two best guys fight one another at their peaks, or even close to them. Just think of the gap between Spinks-Braxton and Bivol-Bet... That's a lot of decades before we saw that kind of fight again.

We saw with Leonard's second career, Roy Jones and Mayweather how the guy who makes the money calls the shots. Mayweather carefully curated a record for himself.

So... Subtractions basically penalise a guy for taking a risk. I do not believe that is a good system.

But, just to say, this is your theory and model and I'm enjoying following it.

[Riddick Bowie]

So the guy who thinks there's only 'about 20' guys in heavyweight history who can beat Deontay Wilder has now devised a system that ranks Inouye, who is not proven against ATGs, over Leonard, who is proven against multiple ATGs...

I'll leave you to it.

[gilgamesh]

My biggest issue with this system are the subtractions for defeats.

I don't know another sport where this happens. Teams don't lose points for a defeat. They just score zero. Nobody criticises a tennis player for losing a game.

In other sports the teams/competitors are all but guaranteed to play all the others, or at least a large number of them. In boxing you can easily steer your career away from the real challenges, or even force the other guy up a division, force him to weight drain, wait until he is old... In fact it's actually rare that the two best guys fight one another at their peaks, or even close to them. Just think of the gap between Spinks-Braxton and Bivol-Bet... That's a lot of decades before we saw that kind of fight again.

We saw with Leonard's second career, Roy Jones and Mayweather how the guy who makes the money calls the shots. Mayweather carefully curated a record for himself.

So... Subtractions basically penalise a guy for taking a risk. I do not believe that is a good system.

But, just to say, this is your theory and model and I'm enjoying following it.

Boxing isn't any other Sport though. If you're defeated in Boxing it does hurt your reputation. It does hurt your drawing power. If a Sports team loses 2 or 3 games in a row, they're still going to have all of their fans at the next game.

If a fighter loses 2 or 3 in a row. People are saying they're washed up, and need to retire.

Losing a game doesn't matter. Losing a fight does.

[gilgamesh]

So the guy who thinks there's only 'about 20' guys in heavyweight history who can beat Deontay Wilder has now devised a system that ranks Inouye, who is not proven against ATGs, over Leonard, who is proven against multiple ATGs...

I'll leave you to it.

Where are you getting the only about 20 guys that can beat Deontay Wilder thing from?

Yes I currently rank Inoue ahead of Leonard. I would not have claimed this a few weeks ago, I've watched all of Inoue's fights, and reversed my opinion. Have you watched all of the fights of these 2 guys, or are you just insisting Leonard is better because that's the thought you've always had in your mind, and it can't be taken out even with evidence?

Let me repeat. It's a very recent revelation that I began ranking Inoue over Leonard. A few weeks back I would've thought having him ranked ahead of Leonard was absurd.

But that opinion would've been coming from a guy who had never watched Inoue fight more than twice, and hadn't watched at least half of Leonard's fights. I've since seen what I hadn't seen before, and my thoughts on the matter have changed.

[Ambling Alp II]

If I remove all Championship bonuses from both Inoue and Leonard.

Inoue finishes with a score of 271. Leonard finishes with a score of 199.

If I allow them to keep only their Gold Star and All Time bonuses (their biggest wins)

Inoue finishes with a score of 391

Leonard finishes with a score of 379

So any which way I crunch the numbers, Inoue comes out ahead

Not a clue of what you are doing with your point system.

Anyway, even if you have a great system, it doesn't work well for boxing. In the NBA, MLB, or the NFL, the leagues have not been way better or way worse from one decade to the next for a long time. We can use statistics to compare a guy form say the 1990s to a guy from the 1970s and at least get a rough idea who was better.

You can't do that with boxing. In the NBA, the teams all play roughly comparable schedules in degree of difficulty.
You don't have that in boxing. One fighter might a much more difficult set of his opponents on his career. Which makes win/loss records, Ko% etc. often very deceiving.

Even if a fighter wants to fight tough competition, he might not be able to do so. Right now, there are 17 different weight classes. Are all 17 about even in how ability the fighters have? Of course not. Soe divisions are strong, some very weak, most in somewhere in between. This inevitably makes it easier for a guy in a weak division to do better in a points system. Surely you realize this?

And divisions go up and down throughout history. the middle weight division might be good for several years. Then it goes down. Then it gets better again. But when you compare fighters in the same weight division, a point system like yours won't reflect that. Surely you can see that as well?

[gilgamesh]

How good or bad a division was at any one time will be obvious in which generations wind up having the most standout talent.

Every time a Champion is especially dominant it's presumed that he dominated a weak era as opposed to "He was a great Champion". That's not fair.

People are always biased either for the here and now or for the Past. I'm trying to simply see it all for what it is.

Vitali Klitschko is one of my lowest rated Heavyweights. So his level of competition or lack thereof is reflected in my ranking of him. Doesn't that shoot your theory that my system favors wins and KO percentages only down? He has more wins and title fights than Tyson Fury yet Fury ranks ahead of him.

He has more wins and more KO's than Lennox Lewis or Riddick Bowe, yet they rate ahead of him.

It's almost like I've taken the level of their competition and performance into account isn't it?

[Ambling Alp II]

Yet you have Ray Leonard rated so low.
The guy has win over 4 different Top 50 Fighters of All time. There are less than 10 guys who have done that. One of your problems is that you are not giving fighters enough credit for really huge wins.

[gilgamesh]

Yet you have Ray Leonard rated so low.
The guy has win over 4 different Top 50 Fighters of All time. There are less than 10 guys who have done that. One of your problems is that you are not giving fighters enough credit for really huge wins.

I gave him more credit for his biggest wins than anybody else on the list so far. He's the only person on my list as of this moment with 3 All Time wins to his credit.

My rating of Leonard is not low. I just haven't measured many fighters below Heavyweight yet. When I do I wouldn't think many of them will pass up Leonard, and the ones that do will all have a hell of a resume, and as strong a case to be made for them as Leonard has if not stronger.

[Ezzard]

My biggest issue with this system are the subtractions for defeats.

I don't know another sport where this happens. Teams don't lose points for a defeat. They just score zero. Nobody criticises a tennis player for losing a game.

In other sports the teams/competitors are all but guaranteed to play all the others, or at least a large number of them. In boxing you can easily steer your career away from the real challenges, or even force the other guy up a division, force him to weight drain, wait until he is old... In fact it's actually rare that the two best guys fight one another at their peaks, or even close to them. Just think of the gap between Spinks-Braxton and Bivol-Bet... That's a lot of decades before we saw that kind of fight again.

We saw with Leonard's second career, Roy Jones and Mayweather how the guy who makes the money calls the shots. Mayweather carefully curated a record for himself.

So... Subtractions basically penalise a guy for taking a risk. I do not believe that is a good system.

But, just to say, this is your theory and model and I'm enjoying following it.

Boxing isn't any other Sport though. If you're defeated in Boxing it does hurt your reputation. It does hurt your drawing power. If a Sports team loses 2 or 3 games in a row, they're still going to have all of their fans at the next game.

If a fighter loses 2 or 3 in a row. People are saying they're washed up, and need to retire.

Losing a game doesn't matter. Losing a fight does.

That's a different thing. If you're ranking on reputation or drawing power then fine. If you're trying to work out who achieved the most then that's a different thing.

Boxing as a sport does reward undefeated records, and that's a big problem for us fans.

[jimglen]

Every Fighter should get 1 point for every fight
and another for a Win = 2 points

so how do you reconcile then Lesser Fighters with say 200 Fights against Greater Fighters with say just 35 fights for example...

well then you have to make that up in Title Points, attaching Big Numbers to TITLE Fights, i.e National Titles, Alphabet Titles, Lineal TOP Titles...

so, for a National Title you would give a Fighter say 3 Points for the Loss and the Winner gets 5 Points

for Alphabet Titles (lesser Titles), the Loser gets the same 3 Points, the Winner 10 Points

but for TOP Lineal Titles, there the BIG Points come into it, the Losser gets say 25 Points for Competing in it but the Winner gets 50 Points or a 100 even, that way Great Fighters with lesser numbers of Fights are Found in the Top Listings of Rankings...

I mean it wouldn't be hard to work out.

Every Fight Deserves a Point, or at the Very Least Every WIN deserves a point and then the more Points for the Eliminators & Titles gaining more the more important the Titles are.

as it stands now BoxRec Ratings are a laughingstock mockery and an Insult to both Boxers and Boxing History.

[gilgamesh]

Here's a guy who gets the basic idea of what I'm going for here ^

My version is slightly different, but my thinking is certainly along the same lines in trying to create a more logical ranking system that makes sense.

It's hard to take everything into account in such a nuanced sport, but i certainly have given it a whirl.

[gilgamesh]

My biggest issue with this system are the subtractions for defeats.

I don't know another sport where this happens. Teams don't lose points for a defeat. They just score zero. Nobody criticises a tennis player for losing a game.

In other sports the teams/competitors are all but guaranteed to play all the others, or at least a large number of them. In boxing you can easily steer your career away from the real challenges, or even force the other guy up a division, force him to weight drain, wait until he is old... In fact it's actually rare that the two best guys fight one another at their peaks, or even close to them. Just think of the gap between Spinks-Braxton and Bivol-Bet... That's a lot of decades before we saw that kind of fight again.

We saw with Leonard's second career, Roy Jones and Mayweather how the guy who makes the money calls the shots. Mayweather carefully curated a record for himself.

So... Subtractions basically penalise a guy for taking a risk. I do not believe that is a good system.

But, just to say, this is your theory and model and I'm enjoying following it.

Boxing isn't any other Sport though. If you're defeated in Boxing it does hurt your reputation. It does hurt your drawing power. If a Sports team loses 2 or 3 games in a row, they're still going to have all of their fans at the next game.

If a fighter loses 2 or 3 in a row. People are saying they're washed up, and need to retire.

Losing a game doesn't matter. Losing a fight does.

That's a different thing. If you're ranking on reputation or drawing power then fine. If you're trying to work out who achieved the most then that's a different thing.

Boxing as a sport does reward undefeated records, and that's a big problem for us fans.

Who achieved the most and who looked best doing it is probably the overall purpose of the list once it's done.

Losses just like wins are not created equally, and performance and quality of opposition is taken into account there as well.

HOW you lost and who you lost to is often more important than it is THAT you lost. Most guys lose eventually. It's the nature of the beast.

Having an unbeaten record certainly never hurt anyone's Legacy though. Let's not kid ourselves.