New Boxing Website

[bricey]

It allows me to post some articles and also acts as a home for my statistical analysis of the various sanctioning bodies and their rankings.

The aim is to consolidate the rankings to see which fighters are universally ranked by all (or the majority) of rankings, whilst also highlighting those oddities (like David Haye's recent victim, Mark De Mori) who manage to attain a top ten ranking with one body, despite not being ranked by any other body as anything remotely close to being called a contender.

The Consolidated Boxing Index (CBi) is still a bit of a work in progress, and there are a few points I have issues with that I would invite thoughts and feedback on.

I'd also welcome anyone's thoughts with regards to the articles I have written and posted up.

The site is called "Bricey's Boxing Blog of Choice", the address is http://www.bbboc.co.uk

Thank you to anyone kind enough to take a look, and double thanks for anyone with enough time or interest to offer thoughts or feedback.

All the best.

[Cholo_cws]

I found it interesting to see the various ratings highlighted side by side in this way - to see a total of 43 different super-featherweights rated is staggering. Personally I don't think the alphabets ratings should be taken seriously but that doesn't mean the absurdity of them should just be ignored - as some people here seem to suggest. So I am more likely to visit your website for the format of seeing all ratings rather than your actual CBI rating. However, anything that brings the concept of ratings to the fore is a good thing in my book. It has been very convenient to many in the boxing industry to have 'sensible' ratings swept under the carpet. So nice work and good luck.

[davie]

Looking at it, I like your reasoning and think it's given some very good lists.
I appreciate the issues you've raised regarding scoring, particularly for recently dethroned champs, the only solution I could think is to give a sort of "parachute payment" like dropping out of the Premiership, Give them a gradually decreasing score, maybe drop them to 10, then lower it each month. but obviously once they re appear on rankings you need to keep an eye on them and stop giving them points for the sake of it. There's no easy answer to that one I suppose.

The only real issue I have is 15 points for the WBA ordinary title. You are legitmising the WBA's 2 champion bullshit and I think you should just rank that belt as 10 points like any other no 1 ranked or interim champion.

Other than that, good site and good lists.
Can you post it up here every month, so we can keep an eye on it and use it as a stick to beat Horse with when he posts his monthly top 30's

[azzman]

I had a look on my phone and found it so hard to find the consolidated rankings that I've left the site without even seeing them. I expected the rankings to be the first thing I'd see or very prominent on the menus at least.

[Cholo_cws]

I had a look on my phone and found it so hard to find the consolidated rankings that I've left the site without even seeing them. I expected the rankings to be the first thing I'd see or very prominent on the menus at least.

Yeah, I must admit it took me a while to find them too.

[bricey]

Thank you all for the feedback, positive and negative. I'll have a play with the format to ensure it is easier to find the index (I hadn't used a phone to view the site previously).

Thanks again and I really will listen to any feedback and thoughts.

[Boxing Prospect]

Think you have Suriyan included at 115 &118, at 115 it should be Srisaket
Btw great idea :)

[davie]

TBR and Ring both have a "champion" which you assign a 20 ranking to, yet Boxrec's top man is always just ranked no1, which is assigned a 10 rating, I think this skews the rankings in favour of people rated by TBR and Ring ahead of Boxrec.
I'd either stick with 1-10 points for TBR and Ring ranked fighters or treat the Boxrec no1 as a 20 point score to make it more consistent.

I appreciate that Ring only elevates someone to champion status if they have been no1 or 2 and have beaten the no 1 or 2 ranked opponent, but Boxrec does not have an equivalent, so for me, something has to be changed to even the weightings.

[Tarkus]

It allows me to post some articles and also acts as a home for my statistical analysis of the various sanctioning bodies and their rankings.

The aim is to consolidate the rankings to see which fighters are universally ranked by all (or the majority) of rankings, whilst also highlighting those oddities (like David Haye's recent victim, Mark De Mori) who manage to attain a top ten ranking with one body, despite not being ranked by any other body as anything remotely close to being called a contender.

The Consolidated Boxing Index (CBi) is still a bit of a work in progress, and there are a few points I have issues with that I would invite thoughts and feedback on.

I'd also welcome anyone's thoughts with regards to the articles I have written and posted up.

The site is called "Bricey's Boxing Blog of Choice", the address is http://www.bbboc.co.uk

Thank you to anyone kind enough to take a look, and double thanks for anyone with enough time or interest to offer thoughts or feedback.

All the best.

This is neither all nor majority. I can name you 10 other rankings that are comparable to those. Generally including subjective rankings like TBR and Ring and objective system the boxrec plus mysterious sanctioning rankings makes it a bit of a mess. Hence you have Canelo as a no1 MW!!! Wilder ranked higher then Klitschko!!! And other oddities.

[Tarkus]

I also dont like the scoring system. Champion gets 20 point, contender 10. Why? Thats completely arbitrary. If you want to determine the most popular fighter among those rankings then you should simply score positions, calculate average and adjust it to the number of rankings.

[bricey]

I just joined twitter to try and get some traffic and first day I get a retreat from Peter Fury for my article on Tyson.

[magwitch]

Thank you all for the feedback, positive and negative. I'll have a play with the format to ensure it is easier to find the index (I hadn't used a phone to view the site previously).

Thanks again and I really will listen to any feedback and thoughts.

A lot of websites these days have a "mobile friendly" version..... Not sure how you configure that exactly. Is this a little hobby of yours pal (creating websites)? It looks pretty good imo .... is it expensive? I thought you had to pay to operate a website, out of interest.

This statement seems pretty telling:

At Super Featherweight EIGHT of their top ten are not present in the top ten of either the WBC, IBF, WBO, Ring, Box Rec or Transnational Boxing Rankings

seems daft. Do you have to pay an annual fee to these bodies in order to be ranked by them? Or is it just that they ask for a slice of your wage if you contest their belt?

[johnswan1]

The gaps between Champ and others are too high IMO. Champ should be 10 points, no.1 contender 9 points etc. Or champ 12 points even - 20 seems too high.

Personally I would give more credibility and weightings to any independent rankings like Ring/Boxrec etc. than the sanctioning bodies as sanctioning fees and the payment of such will always give biased ratings with the alphabet orgs.

Should a WBA regular champ when they already have a super get 15 points compared to a Ring no.1 in a division with no clear champ who gets a mere 10? No. Regular champ should be seen as no.1 contender just as somebody else here suggested.

It's interesting to see how the sanctioning bodies come out of it all but really their ratings should probably be completely ignored for an exercise like this as they are completely biased re fees and many fighters will choose a route and head down that with one particular org rather than try to get their fights sanctioned by all bodies to improve ratings.

[Sklar]

Nobody else chuckling at the url? Subtle not.

[Dixonian]

Nobody else chuckling at the url? Subtle not.

What do you mean!? It stands for 'Bricey's Boxing Blog of Choice', clearly no similarity was intended.