Boxing

Ranking Reforms: Give it up!

By Ron Widelec

02.04 - After the recent mix up in rankings all over the sport, in all its divisions, in all of the organizations, I have had an epiphany when it comes to ranking reform: GIVE IT UP! Reforms to the existing system will never fix the problems. In fact, nothing will ever create a perfect system. The only chance of creating a more fair and equitable system is to build a new one from scratch.

First, we must explain why the current system can never be fully fair. There is the obvious corruption that always pops up. I am not trying to downplay the corruption. Something must be done to bring it to an end. But that is so obvious at this point it no longer needs to be said. No system that has corruption can be fair. However, if the system itself is faulty (as it most certainly is), even without corruption it will not provide equity. So before we even deal with the corruption, we need to build a system worth fighting to clean up.

Corruptions aside, there are many problems inherent to the system. The ranking of fighters is based on so many different, often contradictory, elements. Lets take a look at some of the fallacies of the ranking system, and the reasons that there are so many complaints from fighters, promoters, fans, and experts. In order to see these problems I invite you to observe an imaginary ranking organization called the RWBA. (Ron Widelec Boxing Association)

Fallacy 1: Higher ranking implies better fighter

There is a general fallacy that the higher-ranking fighter is supposed to be better. If this could, in theory, be completely accurate in all cases then we would have the following situation.

RWBA Rankings

Champion: ??Ron Widelec (Damn I’m versatile)

Contenders: ??#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

#8

#9

#10

We will leave the contenders with numbers to easily reference them. As said above, if we could make a ranking system in which higher ranking meant better fighter, then we would the following scenario.

Fighter #1 should be able to beat #2 - #10. #2 should be able to beat #3-10, but not #1. #3 should be able to beat #4 – 10, but not #1 or #2, and so on. In other words, if we could actually make a system like that no fighter would be able to beat a higher ranking one, such as #7 beating # 4. When put this way it is clear that a system this accurate can never exist. There are far to many variables to take into account, like conditioning, styles, and many others. We know that styles can have a powerful effect on fights outcomes. #9 might not be able to beat #1, #2, and #4, but perhaps the styles match up would give him the advantage over fighter #3. So, should he then outrank #3, in this system?

All of this should seem obvious to anyone who has seen lower ranking fighters beat higher ones. It happens all the time. If we could rank with such accuracy there would be no need to actually fight the bout. So this clearly can never be the case. So to say that a higher-ranking fighter is better is evidently incorrect.

Fallacy 2: If one fighter beats another, he should be higher in the rankings

This one sounds like it should definitely be true. And in most cases it does work, but it does have some problems. Again we look to the RWBA Rankings. Lets take three imaginary fighters that would like to be ranked in the RWBA. Since I’m so creative we will call them Fighter A, B, and C.

All three are considered top rated fighters. A and B fight, and A wins. B then fights C, and B wins. Then C fights A, and C wins. And all this happens in one year..

  1. beat (B)
  2. beat (C)
  3. beat (A)

If we use the rule that you must out rank a fighter you recently beat than

  1. must outrank (B)
  2. must outrank (C)
  3. must outrank (A)

Clearly this situation cannot possible exist, unless you make circular rankings.

I only bring this one up because one of the genius boxing organizations (whose name I will not mention, but its acronym, if scrambled can be made into a synonym for LIE) recently ranked Fres Oquendo in front of David Tua, even though Tua recently knocked Oquendo out.

Fallacy #3: The fighter that has earned a title shot, or higher ranking, should get it.

This is the one that might make the most sense, and the one I have always supported. However, It has as serious flaws as the others. Who decides who deserves it the most? Certainly not me, or YOU, whoever you are, no matter how smart you think you are! Lets look at some situations.

Fighter A and Fighter B are both ranked just outside of the top 10 of the RWBA, and trying to increase their ranking. They recently fought each other and ended in a Draw on all three cards, and considered by most to be of nearly equal ability. They take two different routes in order to achieve higher ranking.

Fighter (A) decides to fight often and against other top 20 guys. He fights 4 times in the year, beating the #17, 15, 13, and 9 rated fighters.

Fighter (B) decides to wait for a big fight. After 11 months of arguing he fights, and beats, the #4 rated fighter.

Who should get the vacant #2 in the rankings?

Hmmm… depends on what you value.

Lets use these same two fighters for another situation.

Fighter (A) and (B) decide to take only one fight for the year. They both fight the same guy, 6 months apart. The Fighter (A) wins by KO. Fighter (B) wins be lopsided decision. Who should be ranked higher? Should all wins count the same?

These are just some of the problems that exist in the ranking system. The whole idea of giving number ranks to fighters can never be equitable, and another system must be developed. I do not claim to have a perfect system, but I think I have a better idea than this. I will admit I have not thought all the details through, and this is still in its nascent stages, so keep that in mind. As I improve it, I will update it. Here is what I have got so far.

RBWA Ranking system:

On top is the champion. A poll of boxing experts and writers will then be used to determine the ranking in the following way (This poll of writers is not an original idea, but one that I am now convinced will work well). The writers will tally their votes. The fighter with the most votes becomes the Mandatory challenger. The writers will then vote (in a way I have not even began to think of yet) for who will round out the rest of top 10. However, these 9 fighters will not be ranked in any particular order. They will simply be classified as the Top 10 fighters, including the mandatory. The same will be done for the top 11-20 fighters.

When the champion defends his title (how often this would happen and all that I still uncertain) against the mandatory challenger the winner obviously is the champion. The loser drops out of their position and back into the fighter pool. Then another vote will be held, and the writers will vote on which of the top 9 fighters left should get the mandatory spot, based on who gets more votes. Then the poll will once again revote the other top 19 fighters, in no particular order, the only separations being between Champion, Mandatory, Top 9, and 11-20, with no individual positions. Fighters may shift from top 9 to Next 10, or vice-versa, as the writer’s votes change based on recent wins and losses.

Here is a diagram to explain it better. It is starting to get more complicated here, so the numbers will be for rank, and the letters will represent the fighter.

Champion: Ron Widelec

Mandatory: A

Top 9: B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J

Next 10: K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T

When the Champ fights fighter (A) the winner is champion. Lets say the Champ wins, (A) might drop to the NEXT 10 level, while fighter (M) moves into the TOP 9, and fighter G is elected to the mandatory slot.

This is about as much as I have worked out so far. It definitely needs some major tinkering, but it’s a start, and has the potential to offer a more equitable system of "ranking" without individually ranking.

Please feel free to let me know any problem that you think this system might have, or any ideas to help. Its time to stop bashing the system without trying to create a better one. If a better system can be developed, supported by fans, and offered up, it might even catch on. To acknowledge the problem, and do nothing about, is as good as supporting the current system.

Any questions or comments. Email me at Beowolf88Aol.com

0 comments
 


Bookmark and Share

 

If you detect any issues with the legality of this site, problems are always unintentional and will be corrected with notification.
The views and opinions of all writers expressed on eastsideboxing.com do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Management.
Copyright © 2001- 2015 East Side Boxing.com - Privacy Policy