Coming up with my own Ranking System for my Universe

[djday45]

For ages now I have been playing around trying to create my own ranking system which was NOT based on any numerical points values but still had a logical system to it with easy and logical rules.

What follows is my first draft of the final system. Pls comment on it and give me your feedback. It is based on a thread by montycircus at boxrec that I have taken and changed things around to suit my own tastes.

The whole basis of the system is to ensure you can only advance and crack the ratings by defeating other ranked fighters.

Ranking System Rule Description
Beating a Higher Rated Opponent - When a fighter beats a higher rated opponent, he assumes the rank of the fighter he defeated. His defeated opponent falls a number of ranks equal to half (Rounded down Minimum One) the difference in ranks before the bout. If a fighter loses to an unranked fighter, being unranked counts as 1 extra rank (e.g. 21).

Beating a Lower Rated Opponent - If a fighter defeats an opponent up to 10 places below him he will improve his ranking by 2 places. If a fighter defeats an opponent more than 10 places below him he will improve his ranking by 1 place. A fighter losing a bout to a higher rated opponent always drops 1 place in the rankings. If a fighter defeats a currently unranked opponent he will not improve his ranking.

Draws - When two fighters draw a fight the higher ranked fighter drops a number of ranks equal to a third (Rounded down Minimum One) of the difference in ranks before the bout. The lower ranked fighter will automatically assume the ranking immediately below the new ranking of the higher rated fighter.

Inactivity - If a fighter goes more than a whole year without fighting he is immediately dropped from the rankings.

Champion - The champion is placed ahead of the rankings and not given a numerical ranking. The champion can only lose his title in the ring or by retirement, he cannot be stripped of the title through inactivity. If the champion loses a championship fight he assumes the ranking of the fighter that beat him.

Top Twenty - 20 fighters are ranked in each of the 8 original weight classes.
Entering the Rankings A fighter can only enter the ratings in one of two ways. Usually by defeating a ranked fighter. Or by entering the Rankings due to spots becoming available due to inactivity or retirement. In this case fighters previously ranked who are still active are queued to reenter the rankings in an order based on the last ranking they held before exciting the rankings. This ensures no fighter can ever enter the rankings without defeating a ranked opponent first.

Vacancy Tournaments - When a championship vacancy occurs due to retirement then a tournament will occur between the top 8 ranked boxers to determine the new champion.

Moving Divisions - When a ranked fighter moves divisions he will remain unranked in his new division until he defeats a ranked fighter. He will then assume their rank as per the normal rules. Once a fighter has indicated he has moved out of a division and has no further plans to fight there he loses his ranking in that division.

Updating - The rankings are updated on the first of every month.



It would be intresting to see what kind of ratings this system spat out compared to the alphabet boys, ring ratings and computer systems such as boxrec.

rgds
Dean

[mh2365]

Seems good but the "assumes the place of the fighter he beat" logic has always seemed flawed to me. For example if the #20 college football team beats the #1 team they aren't ranked #1 the next week nor should they be. So if a #20 fighter beats #4 he shouldn't be #4. That's a disservice to the #5 guy who worked his way there and didn't just have 1 good fight.

[Cap]

Originally Posted by mh2365

Seems good but the "assumes the place of the fighter he beat" logic has always seemed flawed to me. For example if the #20 college football team beats the #1 team they aren't ranked #1 the next week nor should they be. So if a #20 fighter beats #4 he shouldn't be #4. That's a disservice to the #5 guy who worked his way there and didn't just have 1 good fight.

Ah, but what if the #4 guy had previously whipped the #5 guy? Eh? What then?

Cap

[mh2365]

Originally Posted by Cap

Ah, but what if the #4 guy had previously whipped the #5 guy? Eh? What then?

Cap

And what if the #20 guy beats the #4 guy but had previously lost to #7, #11 and #14? Nice and confusing. I just think it flawed logic for someone to move up to the spot they beat, esp if there is a wide margin between the two.

[dlirag]

I'd set a limit to the maximum number of places a boxer could move up per win.

[djday45]

Well two points, firstly one of the historical principles of boxing is that if someone fights for the championship, no matter where they were previously ranked or how heavy an underdog and wins, they become champion.

No one says well hold on a minute they were previously ranked number 20 so they are probably not the best fighter so we wont name them champion.

No, they are now champion as simple as that. Why cant we apply the same principle to the contender rankings? If the number 10 ranked fighter beats the number one contender why should he not become the number one? he would become champion if he beat the champ so why the difference?

Secondly on the point on previous results, well yes they have some effect as you would not be able to achieve a high ranking in this system without consistently beating contenders. But at the same time your only as good as your last fight and you should not be highly ranked because of past achievments if you are now on the wrong end of results.

Both good points though It would be good to do some kind of experiment with previous results to see how the system worked out.

rgds
Dean

[Kevin]

What do you do when the formulae in a particular month creates a situation where two or moe fighters are determined to be #5 and there is no #8. It's very possible in your scenario.

[djday45]

The rankings would be changed on a date basis, so as each relevant result come sin the rankings are changed and all slots of the top twenty filled.

rgds
Dean

[Cap]

A fellow named Michael G Paul has a website promoting his system based on one created by Bob Bordier. He ranks every heavyweight since Sullivan on a year by year basis. I wonder if this could be adapted to suit TBCB?

[mking55]

Is it possible that computer generating the rankings is impossible? Perhaps that's why they don't do it in real life. I know everyone likes to rag on the alphabets for this, that, and the other including their rankings. Maybe they rank things as well as any computer system.

I think everyone is right. That's the problem. Rankings cannot be totally objective. What's the greatest movie of all time? How about what's the best movie playing at the local cineplex right now? It's subjective. Who's better than whom today?

It would probably be best to have rankings that can be edited by the user. That way no one can complain about them. And it's not a programming flaw or a design flaw that makes them not right. They just can't be right.

Everyone hated the college football polls so "they" developed the BCS. Does anyone like that? Same thing.

It's a no-win for the gamemakers.

[djday45]

One of the main reasons I came up with this is that I strongly feel that in any ranking system if boxer A beats boxer B, boxer A should always be ranked above boxer B in the latest rankings.

With the current title bout ranking system this just does not happen with any regularity.

Also with the 10 bout drop off effect, you can see some really strange movements in the rankings because effectively all fighters are "defending" their previously won points before they drop off the system.

In this system a fighter cannot pull off a run of 10 wins against modest opposition to creep high into the rankings. He only gets as far as the quality of opposition he was defeated, and he has to reguarly beat ranked fighters to both keep his ranking and progress, otherwise other fighters will start to leapfrog him and his ranking will decline.

rgds
Dean

[djday45]

Originally Posted by Cap

A fellow named Michael G Paul has a website promoting his system based on one created by Bob Bordier. He ranks every heavyweight since Sullivan on a year by year basis. I wonder if this could be adapted to suit TBCB?

I know the site well Cap. In fact he very usefully has all the major heavyweight fights listed by date as well. Perhaps I will use this as an extended example to see how my system works in practice in a historical situation.

Rgds
Dean

[djday45]

Ok, using Mike Paul's site and starting in 1994 lets see just how this system works out.

The starting ratings are taken from the site.


Ratings JAN 1 1994

Champion - George Foreman
1. Riddick Bowe
2. Evander Holyfield
3. Oliver McCall
4. Lennox Lewis
5. Frank Bruno
6. Herbie Hide
7. Tim Withaspoon
8. Jorge L Gonzalez
9. Larry Holmes
10. Tony Tucker
11. Micheal Moorer
12. Lionel Butler
13. Phil Jackson
14. Nate Tubbs
15. Razor Ruddock
16. Micheal Bentt
17. Ross Puritty
18. Tommy Morrison
19. Mike Weaver
20. Henry Akinwande

Rgds
Dean

[djday45]

I am including results only between fighters ranked in the top twenty and fighters entering the ratings by beating fighters in the top twenty.

btw the rankings for the previous post were YEAR END 1994 rankings

JAN 1995 RESULTS
None

FEB 1995 RESULTS
None

MAR 1995 RESULTS
Riddick Bowe KO6 Herbie Hide

This drops Hide one place.

Champion - George Foreman
1. Riddick Bowe
2. Evander Holyfield
3. Oliver McCall
4. Lennox Lewis
5. Frank Bruno
6. Tim Withaspoon
7. Herbie Hide
8. Jorge L Gonzalez
9. Larry Holmes
10. Tony Tucker
11. Micheal Moorer
12. Lionel Butler
13. Phil Jackson
14. Nate Tubbs
15. Razor Ruddock
16. Micheal Bentt
17. Ross Puritty
18. Tommy Morrison
19. Mike Weaver
20. Henry Akinwande

APR 1995 RESULTS
Bruce Seldon KO8 Tony Tucker
Oliver McCall W12 Larry Holmes

Seldon enters the rankings at 10, Tucker goes down to 15
McCall goes up two spots to 1, Holmes goes down 1 to 10 pushing Seldon up again to 9.
Akinwande is pushed out of the rankings by Seldon's entry.

Champion - George Foreman
1. Oliver McCall
2. Riddick Bowe
3. Evander Holyfield
4. Lennox Lewis
5. Frank Bruno
6. Tim Withaspoon
7. Herbie Hide
8. Jorge L Gonzalez
9. Bruce Seldon
10. Larry Holmes
11. Micheal Moorer
12. Lionel Butler
13. Phil Jackson
14. Nate Tubbs
15. Tony Tucker
16 Razor Ruddock
17. Micheal Bentt
18. Ross Puritty
19. Tommy Morrison
20. Mike Weaver

Rgds
Dean

[djday45]

MAY 1995 RESULTS
Lennox Lewis KO5 Lionel Butler

Lewis rises to 2 Butler drops to 13.

Champion - George Foreman
1. Oliver McCall
2. Lennox Lewis
3. Riddick Bowe
4. Evander Holyfield
5. Frank Bruno
6. Tim Withaspoon
7. Herbie Hide
8. Jorge L Gonzalez
9. Bruce Seldon
10. Larry Holmes
11. Micheal Moorer
12. Phil Jackson
13. Lionel Butler
14. Nate Tubbs
15. Tony Tucker
16 Razor Ruddock
17. Micheal Bentt
18. Ross Puritty
19. Tommy Morrison
20. Mike Weaver

JUNE 1995 RESULTS
Tommy Morrison KO6 Razor Ruddock
Riddick Bowe KO5 Jorge L Gonzalez

Morrison rises to 16 Ruddock drops to 17.
Bowe rises to 1 Gonzalez drops to 9.


Champion - George Foreman
1. Riddick Bowe
2. Oliver McCall
3. Lennox Lewis
4. Evander Holyfield
5. Frank Bruno
6. Tim Withaspoon
7. Herbie Hide
8. Bruce Seldon
9. Jorge L Gonzalez
10. Larry Holmes
11. Micheal Moorer
12. Phil Jackson
13. Lionel Butler
14. Nate Tubbs
15. Tony Tucker
16 Tommy Morrison
17 Razor Ruddock
18. Micheal Bentt
19. Ross Puritty
20. Mike Weaver

JULY 1995 RESULTS
No results

AUG 1995 RESULTS
No Results

SEPT 1995 RESULTS
Frank Bruno W12 Oliver McCall
Jorge Valdez W12 Nate Tubbs

Bruno up to 2, McCall down to 3.
Valdez enters the rankings at 14 Tubbs down to 17, Weaver pushed out of the rankings by Valdez's entry.


Champion - George Foreman
1. Riddick Bowe
2. Frank Bruno
3. Oliver McCall
4. Lennox Lewis
5. Evander Holyfield
6. Tim Withaspoon
7. Herbie Hide
8. Bruce Seldon
9. Jorge L Gonzalez
10. Larry Holmes
11. Micheal Moorer
12. Phil Jackson
13. Lionel Butler
14. Jorge Valdez
15. Tony Tucker
16 Tommy Morrison
17 Nate Tubbs
18. Razor Ruddock
19. Micheal Bentt
20. Ross Puritty

Rgds
Dean

[djday45]

OCT 1995 RESULTS
Lennox Lewis KO6 Tommy Morrison

Lewis up one to 3. Morrison down one to 17.

Champion - George Foreman
1. Riddick Bowe
2. Frank Bruno
3. Lennox Lewis
4. Oliver McCall
5. Evander Holyfield
6. Tim Withaspoon
7. Herbie Hide
8. Bruce Seldon
9. Jorge L Gonzalez
10. Larry Holmes
11. Micheal Moorer
12. Phil Jackson
13. Lionel Butler
14. Jorge Valdez
15. Tony Tucker
16 Nate Tubbs
17 Tommy Morrison
18. Razor Ruddock
19. Micheal Bentt
20. Ross Puritty


NOV 1995 RESULTS
Riddick Bowe KO8 Evander Holyfield
Chris Byrd W12 Phil Jackson

Holyfield drops a place to 6. Byrd enters the rankings at 12. Jackson drops to 16. Puritty is pushed out of the rankings by Byrd's entry.


Champion - George Foreman
1. Riddick Bowe
2. Frank Bruno
3. Lennox Lewis
4. Oliver McCall
5. Tim Withaspoon
6. Evander Holyfield
7. Herbie Hide
8. Bruce Seldon
9. Jorge L Gonzalez
10. Larry Holmes
11. Micheal Moorer
12. Chris Byrd
13. Lionel Butler
14. Jorge Valdez
15. Tony Tucker
16 Phil Jackson
17. Nate Tubbs
18 Tommy Morrison
19. Razor Ruddock
20. Micheal Bentt

DEC 1995 RESULTS
Henry Akinwande W10 Tony Tucker

Akinwande returns to the rankings at 15. Tucker drops to 18.
Micheal Bentt is pushed out of the rankins by Akinwande's return.


Champion - George Foreman
1. Riddick Bowe
2. Frank Bruno
3. Lennox Lewis
4. Oliver McCall
5. Tim Withaspoon
6. Evander Holyfield
7. Herbie Hide
8. Bruce Seldon
9. Jorge L Gonzalez
10. Larry Holmes
11. Micheal Moorer
12. Chris Byrd
13. Lionel Butler
14. Jorge Valdez
15. Henry Akinwande
16 Phil Jackson
17. Nate Tubbs
18 Tony Tucker
19. Tommy Morrison
20. Razor Ruddock

Rgds
Dean

[djday45]

Well thats one year done. A couple of observations, firstly how little do the top twenty fighters fight each other?
secondly although i am pretty happy with the results of the ranking system after one year, I can see a problem with the number one contender not getting full benefit for his wins if he is already at number one. Not sure how to address this.

Also maybe limiting the +2 jump for beating contenders up to 10 places below you to 5 places belwo you and wins over all other ranked contenders more than five places below you to +1.

Thoughts?

rgds
Dean

[Catalion]

Originally Posted by djday45

Well thats one year done. A couple of observations, firstly how little do the top twenty fighters fight each other?
secondly although i am pretty happy with the results of the ranking system after one year, I can see a problem with the number one contender not getting full benefit for his wins if he is already at number one. Not sure how to address this.

Also maybe limiting the +2 jump for beating contenders up to 10 places below you to 5 places belwo you and wins over all other ranked contenders more than five places below you to +1.

Thoughts?

rgds
Dean

In my opinion, regarding the number one contender, the only problem -in real life boxing- is that his only way to improve his ranking is defeating the champion, and that can only happen if they ever meet in a ring...something that probably his manager and the champion's manager will try to avoid...So your #1 guy will be stuck there for as long as he doesn't lose a bout...or he gets to fight the champ -who will be fighting some weaker opposition

[djday45]

The problem how I saw it regarding the number one contender is that at the moment in my system Riddick Bowe (lets use him as an example) could beat a top ten contender and receive no benefit as he is already the number one contender.

The very next month the no 2 contender can have a good win and become number one contender and Bowe is shunted into 2nd place with his previous months win having no effect.

Perhaps once a contender reaches the number one spot he should be frozen in place until he either fights the champion nd wins/loses or loses to a lesser ranked fighter. But he CANNOT be moved down out of the number one spot just because of other ranked fighters results.

Not sure..

Rgds
Dean

[mking55]

Originally Posted by djday45

Perhaps once a contender reaches the number one spot he should be frozen in place until he either fights the champion nd wins/loses or loses to a lesser ranked fighter. But he CANNOT be moved down out of the number one spot just because of other ranked fighters results.

Why not use the same rule for the #2 contender? It's only fair. And then use it for the #3, and so on.

I think your system is fine. It's as fine as any other system. Luckily for you, the only person you need to please is yourself. If this was the publicized Official rankings of boxing, you would have a lot of people saying how corrupt and unfair your rankings were.

My comments are not meant to be a knock on your system, but rather express my belief that the job of doing a 'fair' rankings system is impossible.