Ratings - please read before commenting - Archived

[computerrank]

perfect record and 500 points and more ...

Heavyweight 1332 Rocky Marciano
Welterweight 1216 Floyd Mayweather Jr
Minimumweight 869 Ricardo Lopez
Super Middleweight 821 Joe Calzaghe
Welterweight 549 Miguel Angel Cotto
Super Middleweight 528 Sven Ottke

[computerrank]

perfect record and 500 points and more ...

Heavyweight 1332 Rocky Marciano
Welterweight 1216 Floyd Mayweather Jr
Minimumweight 869 Ricardo Lopez
Super Middleweight 821 Joe Calzaghe
Welterweight 549 Miguel Angel Cotto
Super Middleweight 528 Sven Ottke

Thanks

Lopez has a draw so not "perfect" :)

... this was a TD not a DRAW by performance. So this does not count ...

Lopez has a perfect record ...

[JCS]

What's happened to Hatton's rating?

He shouldn't be behind Witter or out of the top 25 P4P just for losing to Floyd?!!!!

Calm down. The P4P list is artificial and depends on the boxer being placed in a division where he's accomplished the most recently. The editors are playing musical chairs in deciding whether he belongs at 140 or 147.

[JCS]

What's happened to Hatton's rating?

He shouldn't be behind Witter or out of the top 25 P4P just for losing to Floyd?!!!!

Calm down. The P4P list is artificial and depends on the boxer being placed in a division where he's accomplished the most recently. The editors are playing musical chairs in deciding whether he belongs at 140 or 147.

He belongs at 140 where they have him now but to put him behind Witter is crazy. Yesterday he was still at LW but ahead of Witter so I don't know why he has dropped since.

He was at LW before Floyd and number 4 P4P. Sure he has to move down after a loss but not that much. I don't think it's anything to do with the weight he has been classed at though that was my first thought too.

The ratings are dependent on the boxer being placed at the proper division going into the overnight hours. Only after the re-calculation will the ratings make sense.

[JCS]

He belongs at 140 where they have him now but to put him behind Witter is crazy. Yesterday he was still at LW but ahead of Witter so I don't know why he has dropped since.

He was at LW before Floyd and number 4 P4P. Sure he has to move down after a loss but not that much. I don't think it's anything to do with the weight he has been classed at though that was my first thought too.

The ratings are dependent on the boxer being placed at the proper division going into the overnight hours. Only after the re-calculation will the ratings make sense.

So they are meant to be correct now?! That's even worse...Also, unless my memory is going (a possibility) Cotto has dropped right down the P4P list suggesting his rating has changed. It all looks weird to me. Looks like something has changed behind the scenes...

One thing about Martin's system is that everything must make sense before the calculation, which occurs overnight. A lot of things happen during this time. The division strength is calculated and each boxer is given a rating AT THAT TIME which corresponds to the division in which they are currently set.

Hatton was set to 147 going into last night, so he is listed with a 147 rating. When moved back to 140 today, he still has his 147 rating. Also Cotto's downward shift is likely due to the fact that the divisional strength was changed, due to Hatton being assigned there.

[JCS]

So they are meant to be correct now?! That's even worse...Also, unless my memory is going (a possibility) Cotto has dropped right down the P4P list suggesting his rating has changed. It all looks weird to me. Looks like something has changed behind the scenes...

One thing about Martin's system is that everything must make sense before the calculation, which occurs overnight. A lot of things happen during this time. The division strength is calculated and each boxer is given a rating AT THAT TIME which corresponds to the division in which they are currently set.

Hatton was set to 147 going into last night, so he is listed with a 147 rating. When moved back to 140 today, he still has his 147 rating. Also Cotto's downward shift is likely due to the fact that the divisional strength was changed, due to Hatton being assigned there.

So does that mean it will look differently tomorrow?

That would depend on what division Hatton is assigned to, going into the overnight. And it also depends on whether or not an editor changes his division after the fact.

[thismodernlove]

ok i know this has probably already been explained so forgive me for asking but i am just curious what kind of software is used to determine the ratings at each weight?

and can this software be bought at a store? how much would it cost? lol thanks i am just curious because i am in school and some of my classes have to do with statistics and what not so i am just wondering.

Thank You.

[JCS]

ok i know this has probably already been explained so forgive me for asking but i am just curious what kind of software is used to determine the ratings at each weight?

and can this software be bought at a store? how much would it cost? lol thanks i am just curious because i am in school and some of my classes have to do with statistics and what not so i am just wondering.

Thank You.

The programming code is custom, created by Martin, with some insight from me, and maybe others (not sure about that).

It stores all of BoxRec's bouts in memory, and analyzes them from the oldest, to the newest, carrying a boxer's rating throughout, until the very end, where it is stored back into the database.

[thismodernlove]

ok i know this has probably already been explained so forgive me for asking but i am just curious what kind of software is used to determine the ratings at each weight?

and can this software be bought at a store? how much would it cost? lol thanks i am just curious because i am in school and some of my classes have to do with statistics and what not so i am just wondering.

Thank You.

The programming code is custom, created by Martin, with some insight from me, and maybe others (not sure about that).

It stores all of BoxRec's bouts in memory, and analyzes them from the oldest, to the newest, carrying a boxer's rating throughout, until the very end, where it is stored back into the database.

Ah, I see.

Because I find this stuff very fascinating and I was just curious how it works... Thanks!

[JCS]

ok i know this has probably already been explained so forgive me for asking but i am just curious what kind of software is used to determine the ratings at each weight?

and can this software be bought at a store? how much would it cost? lol thanks i am just curious because i am in school and some of my classes have to do with statistics and what not so i am just wondering.

Thank You.

The programming code is custom, created by Martin, with some insight from me, and maybe others (not sure about that).

It stores all of BoxRec's bouts in memory, and analyzes them from the oldest, to the newest, carrying a boxer's rating throughout, until the very end, where it is stored back into the database.

Ah, I see.

Because I find this stuff very fascinating and I was just curious how it works... Thanks!

The complexity of it might blow your mind. It blows mine sometimes.

[thismodernlove]

The programming code is custom, created by Martin, with some insight from me, and maybe others (not sure about that).

It stores all of BoxRec's bouts in memory, and analyzes them from the oldest, to the newest, carrying a boxer's rating throughout, until the very end, where it is stored back into the database.

Ah, I see.

Because I find this stuff very fascinating and I was just curious how it works... Thanks!

The complexity of it might blow your mind. It blows mine sometimes.

Yeah. I just love the idea, the notion. A mathematical, statistical, objective approach to rating a fighter. I think that is a revolutionary approach to the sport of boxing and I think its great that it is employed here on BoxRec.

[JCS]

Daniel Geale at #6 @ 160????

I'm amazed at this one.

[conan_the_cribber]

ok i know this has probably already been explained so forgive me for asking but i am just curious what kind of software is used to determine the ratings at each weight?

and can this software be bought at a store? how much would it cost? lol thanks i am just curious because i am in school and some of my classes have to do with statistics and what not so i am just wondering.

Thank You.

The programming code is custom, created by Martin, with some insight from me, and maybe others (not sure about that).

It stores all of BoxRec's bouts in memory, and analyzes them from the oldest, to the newest, carrying a boxer's rating throughout, until the very end, where it is stored back into the database.

Jeez, if it was just u two then we would still have had Stipe Drews at #2 at Light heavy and Shannon Briggs at #1 at Heavy.

JohnShep wrote the first draft. Martin took over. I ended up convincing Martin to change his algorithm. Martin did all the coding work for the new algorithm, though in the end, I probably spent more effort convincing him to change than he did coding it.

Just to jog your memory JCS.

[CheckLeftHook]

i havent been on boxrec for about a year and have questions about hte ratings

why is chris byrd so low?

why is geale at middleweight so high. has anyone heard of him outside of his family?

there are a lot of japanese,argentine, and s african fighters high in the ranks. could this be because they are building ratin points stayin at home, constantly fighting each other? i see some georgian fighters very high also. this should be compensated for.

[computerrank]

i havent been on boxrec for about a year and have questions about hte ratings

why is chris byrd so low?

why is geale at middleweight so high. has anyone heard of him outside of his family?

there are a lot of japanese,argentine, and s african fighters high in the ranks. could this be because they are building ratin points stayin at home, constantly fighting each other? i see some georgian fighters very high also. this should be compensated for.

Byrd ... a win against #172 within the last 2 years

Geale ... as he got his points from others having owned this points.

Japanese, argentine and african boxers are not discriminated against US and european domestic boxers ... they got their points from defeated opponents, who had owned this points.

[JCS]

Martin,

I think what he's saying is, what's stopping a band of fighters (such as those in South Africa, Argentina, or Georgia) from continually fighting each other, thus creating a false pool of rating points???


http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?hu ... &cat=boxer

You cannot tell me Shalva deserves a ranking of #33 by playing round robin with his countrymen... can you?

[computerrank]

Martin,

I think what he's saying is, what's stopping a band of fighters (such as those in South Africa, Argentina, or Georgia) from continually fighting each other, thus creating a false pool of rating points???


http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?hu ... &cat=boxer

You cannot tell me Shalva deserves a ranking of #33 by playing round robin with his countrymen... can you?

... what is a false pool and what is a right pool?

... the boxers gain points from opponents, who themselves achieved them - and the losers loose these points.

... the optional addtional points (max 25 per bout) for the winner are mainly important at the very low level, say below 50 points.

I see no reason to introduce some douty 'wrong pool factor'.

I see a strong domestic tradition in sports in these countries like Argentina, South Africa and Georgia and I see no reason for argueing in that way.

[JCS]

Martin,

I think what he's saying is, what's stopping a band of fighters (such as those in South Africa, Argentina, or Georgia) from continually fighting each other, thus creating a false pool of rating points???


http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?hu ... &cat=boxer

You cannot tell me Shalva deserves a ranking of #33 by playing round robin with his countrymen... can you?

... what is a false pool and what is a right pool?

... the boxers gain points from opponents, who themselves achieved them - and the losers loose these points.

... the optional addtional points (max 25 per bout) for the winner are mainly important at the very low level, say below 50 points.

I see no reason to introduce some douty 'wrong pool factor'.

I see a strong domestic tradition in sports in these countries like Argentina, South Africa and Georgia and I see no reason for argueing in that way.

I agree

Anyway. So really what you're saying is, the best of a stable of say.. 25 Georgian boxers can get to 300 points by just fighting each other.

And that 300 point boxer should be equal to one who got it fighting in a much more talent-rich country, fighting proven vets, etc?

OK then, perhaps I should get 25 of my buddies together, fight on some Goodson cards, and maybe I will get a Top 50 ranking?

Really, you could line up nobodies off the street. I mean imagine, we're talking those in the Goodson stable.

A beats B
C beats D
E beats F
G beats H

A beats C
E beats G

A beats E

Then maybe.. A beats E again. E gets some good wins vs. G, and C, then A beats E again.


At this point, wouldn't A have a fair amount of points? Let's multiply the depth of this by 2, or 4.


What this CheckLeftHook guy said has some validity, and I had some success using a "Global Establishment Factor" in a rating system I'm testing. Shalva is barely in my Top 100. In boxing, I think you need to factor in these sort of scenarios because they definitely happen. I doubt Shalva would ever hit the Top 10, but the fact that he got to #33 is saying something.

I think the point of having zero bias leaves you vulnerable to these types of scenarios. I mean its not the prediction-based system anymore.. we are aiming for overall validity.

[computerrank]

... so what is behind your global establishment factor ?

[JCS]

... so what is behind your global establishment factor ?

In testing, I saw big problems with certain boxers. The first I focused on was Aladin Stevens. IF you look at his career in the 80s, you will see he is very close (or may have reached) the Top 5 at Lightweight. And for what? Notice all of his opponents are South African based and NEVER fought outside the country. Same thing with their opponents, etc.


Its somewhat complex though.

- The factor influences the overall meaning of the bout. In Boxrec's case the $fix/$cd, etc. The match modifier uses an average of each boxer's factor.

- The factor maxes out at 100.

- If a boxer leaves his first country fought in, to fight another, he is given "left country" status and awarded 20 points.

- If a boxer fights an opponent w/ "left country" status anywhere, he is awarded 20% of their factor points.


However, this involves implanting some initial global factor points somewhere in the lineage. This is up for debate. Whether you award points to all boxers from proven countries, or simply award it to the very first boxer in history. I used the country method.

Perhaps you could come up with a better idea?

[JCS]

I don't see that this matters at all. The principle is the same no matter how big the pool is. It's one of those "where do you draw the line" questions and, in the end, there can't be a line.

A lot of UK and US fighters fight predominately fighters of the same nationality. The important thing IMHO is that each fighter has their own individual rating. The nationality of the fighters seems unimportant to me.

Sorry I don't agree with you so far JCS.

With Martin giving a debuting winner up to 25 points for (potentially) beating another debuting fighter, you're making some kind of assumption that the winner is worth something, even though he only beat a debuting fighter. In other words, you're making the assumption that the average US 1-0 fighter with a win over a US 0-0 guy is equal to a Mongolian 1-0 w/ a win over a Mongolian 0-0.

It may seem small, but if you create a pool of dozen fighters that have similar careers up until that point, you have an equal pool in the USA, a country with an amateur system and the richest history in boxing, with that of Mongolia, a country with no boxing history.

That's just an example scenario.. but it should be easy enough to understand.

[computerrank]

I tried a linear combination of

- the current forumula regarding an averaged peak of best performances
-- impact from top performances - weight 50%
- the sum of all annual ratings
-- impact from long and high level career - weight 5% of sum

I find them clearly superior.


World All Time Heavyweight Ratings

1 Muhammad Ali 2,242 1960 - 1981 56-5-0
2 Joe Louis 2,046 1934 - 1951 69-3-0
3 Floyd Patterson 1,463 1952 - 1972 55-8-1
4 Ezzard Charles 1,378 1940 - 1959 90-25-1
5 Rocky Marciano 1,293 1947 - 1955 49-0-0
6 Sonny Liston 1,146 1953 - 1970 50-4-0
7 Larry Holmes 1,105 1973 - 2002 69-6-0
8 Max Schmeling 1,091 1924 - 1948 56-10-4
9 Jack Johnson 1,076 1894 - 1938 89-14-12
10 Jimmy Bivins 1,053 1940 - 1955 86-25-1
11 Sam Langford 1,005 1902 - 1926 200-47-46
12 Harry Wills 998 1911 - 1932 79-10-4
13 Joe Frazier 968 1965 - 1981 32-4-1
14 Jack Sharkey 939 1924 - 1936 38-14-3
15 George Foreman 905 1969 - 1997 76-5-0
16 Evander Holyfield 902 1984 - 2007 42-9-2
17 Max Baer 872 1929 - 1941 68-13-0
18 Jersey Joe Walcott 869 1930 - 1953 51-18-2
19 Melio Bettina 826 1934 - 1948 82-13-3
20 Lennox Lewis 823 1989 - 2003 41-2-1
21 Mike Tyson 793 1985 - 2005 50-6-0
22 Ingemar Johansson 730 1952 - 1963 26-2-0
23 Zora Folley 728 1953 - 1970 79-11-6
24 Eddie Machen 721 1955 - 1967 50-11-3
25 Primo Carnera 711 1928 - 1946 89-14-0


World All Time Light Heavyweight Ratings

1 Archie Moore 2,155 1935 - 1963 185-23-11
2 Gene Tunney 1,386 1915 - 1928 82-1-3
3 Tommy Loughran 1,335 1919 - 1937 115-30-12
4 Tommy Gibbons 1,192 1911 - 1925 94-5-2
5 Harold Johnson 1,180 1946 - 1971 76-10-0
6 Roy Jones Jr 1,072 1989 - 2007 51-4-0
7 Billy Conn 1,064 1934 - 1948 64-12-1
8 Bernard Hopkins 1,034 1988 - 2007 48-4-1
9 Maxie Rosenbloom 1,016 1923 - 1939 221-42-32
10 Joey Maxim 981 1941 - 1958 82-29-4
11 Bob Foster 953 1961 - 1978 56-8-1
12 Young Stribling 940 1921 - 1933 256-16-15
13 John Henry Lewis 813 1931 - 1939 94-8-5
14 Battling Levinsky 782 1910 - 1930 195-54-36
15 Michael Spinks 781 1977 - 1988 31-1-0
16 Gus Lesnevich 764 1934 - 1949 59-14-5
17 Victor Emilio Galindez 758 1969 - 1980 55-9-4
18 Philadelphia Jack O'Brien 734 1896 - 1912 134-11-24
19 Mike McTigue 719 1914 - 1930 108-46-13
20 Billy Miske 689 1913 - 1923 73-16-13
21 Jack Delaney 687 1919 - 1932 77-13-2
22 Tiger Jack Fox 680 1928 - 1950 154-22-12
23 Jose Torres 675 1958 - 1969 41-3-1
24 Willie Pastrano 646 1951 - 1965 63-13-8
25 Paul Berlenbach 627 1923 - 1933 42-8-3


World All Time Middleweight Ratings

1 Sugar Ray Robinson 2,238 1940 - 1965 173-19-6
2 Carlos Monzon 1,719 1963 - 1977 87-3-9
3 Harry Greb 1,674 1913 - 1926 260-21-17
4 Dick Tiger 1,561 1952 - 1970 60-19-3
5 Marvin Hagler 1,456 1973 - 1987 62-3-2
6 Mickey Walker 1,197 1919 - 1935 109-22-5
7 Carl (Bobo) Olson 1,155 1944 - 1966 97-16-2
8 Joey Giardello 1,152 1948 - 1967 101-25-7
9 Nino Benvenuti 1,119 1961 - 1971 82-7-1
10 Gene Fullmer 1,105 1951 - 1963 55-6-3
11 Charley Burley 909 1936 - 1950 83-12-2
12 Jake LaMotta 904 1941 - 1954 83-19-4
13 Holman Williams 888 1932 - 1948 146-30-11
14 Jack Dillon 888 1908 - 1923 178-23-30
15 Mike Gibbons 866 1908 - 1922 110-10-10
16 Mike McCallum 791 1981 - 1997 49-5-1
17 Ceferino Garcia 776 1923 - 1945 102-28-12
18 Michael Nunn 774 1984 - 2002 58-4-0
19 Tiger Flowers 772 1918 - 1927 135-16-8
20 Fred Apostoli 767 1934 - 1948 61-10-1
21 Charles Humez 742 1948 - 1958 94-7-1
22 Rodrigo Valdez 742 1963 - 1980 63-8-2
23 Freddie Steele 741 1926 - 1941 125-5-11
24 Mike O'Dowd 733 1914 - 1923 85-17-6
25 Gustav Scholz 733 1948 - 1964 88-2-6


World All Time Welterweight Ratings

1 Emile Griffith 1,787 1958 - 1977 85-24-2
2 Jose Angel Napoles 1,584 1958 - 1975 79-7-0
3 Young Corbett III 1,295 1919 - 1940 124-12-22
4 Henry Armstrong 1,235 1931 - 1945 149-21-10
5 Luis Manuel Rodriguez 1,228 1956 - 1972 107-13-0
6 Sugar Ray Leonard 1,214 1977 - 1997 36-3-1
7 Thomas Hearns 1,184 1977 - 2006 61-5-1
8 Jimmy McLarnin 1,156 1923 - 1936 54-11-3
9 Jack Britton 1,074 1905 - 1930 212-52-42
10 Dave Shade 1,062 1918 - 1935 147-27-62
11 Ted (Kid) Lewis 1,061 1909 - 1929 228-44-23
12 Kid Gavilan 1,044 1943 - 1958 108-30-5
13 Carmen Basilio 1,004 1948 - 1961 56-16-7
14 Barney Ross 957 1929 - 1938 74-4-3
15 Pernell Whitaker 898 1984 - 2001 40-4-1
16 Floyd Mayweather Jr 893 1996 - 2007 39-0-0
17 Curtis Cokes 867 1958 - 1972 62-14-4
18 Felix Trinidad 858 1990 - 2005 42-2-0
19 Johnny Griffiths 804 1911 - 1924 62-37-30
20 Jackie Fields 777 1925 - 1933 74-9-2
21 Virgil Akins 717 1948 - 1962 58-32-2
22 Jack Carroll 708 1923 - 1938 90-10-4
23 Johnny Saxton 707 1949 - 1958 55-9-2
24 Pete Latzo 696 1919 - 1934 92-39-12
25 Shane Mosley 677 1993 - 2007 44-5-0


World All Time Lightweight Ratings

1 Carlos Ortiz 1,801 1955 - 1972 61-7-1
2 Roberto Duran 1,347 1968 - 2001 103-16-0
3 Benny Leonard 1,333 1911 - 1932 183-18-12
4 Tony Canzoneri 1,149 1925 - 1939 141-24-10
5 Ike Williams 1,127 1940 - 1955 125-24-5
6 Joe Gans 1,014 1891 - 1909 130-8-15
7 Sammy Angott 992 1935 - 1950 94-28-8
8 Lou Ambers 977 1932 - 1941 94-8-7
9 Joe Brown 967 1943 - 1970 105-46-13
10 Ismael Laguna 952 1960 - 1971 65-9-1
11 Packey McFarland 943 1904 - 1915 101-1-7
12 Beau Jack 924 1939 - 1955 88-24-5
13 Kenny Lane 899 1953 - 1985 82-16-2
14 Bob Montgomery 856 1938 - 1950 75-19-3
15 Freddie Dawson 820 1943 - 1954 101-13-3
16 Johnny Dundee 777 1910 - 1932 185-64-39
17 Billy Petrolle 770 1922 - 1934 121-25-14
18 Jimmy Carter 730 1946 - 1960 81-31-9
19 Sammy Mandell 728 1920 - 1934 137-27-11
20 Louis (Kid) Kaplan 725 1919 - 1933 112-19-15
21 Rocky Kansas 716 1911 - 1932 125-26-13
22 Art Aragon 690 1944 - 1960 90-20-6
23 Lockport Jimmy Duffy 686 1908 - 1921 93-22-26
24 Freddie Welsh 684 1905 - 1922 110-24-16
25 Esteban De Jesus 682 1969 - 1980 57-5-0


World All Time Featherweight Ratings

1 Willie Pep 1,168 1940 - 1966 229-11-1
2 Lew Tendler 969 1913 - 1928 132-14-8
3 Vicente Saldivar 886 1961 - 1973 37-3-0
4 Sandy Saddler 791 1944 - 1956 144-16-2
5 Davey Moore 785 1953 - 1963 59-7-1
6 Naseem Hamed 759 1992 - 2002 36-1-0
7 Sugar Ramos 758 1957 - 1972 55-7-4
8 Freddie Miller 720 1927 - 1940 210-32-8
9 Johnny Kilbane 669 1907 - 1934 96-14-10
10 Ray Famechon 659 1944 - 1956 100-13-3
11 Young Corbett II 635 1896 - 1910 67-21-16
12 Percy Bassett 618 1947 - 1955 64-12-1
13 Abe Attell 617 1900 - 1917 126-17-21
14 Nel Tarleton 617 1926 - 1945 116-20-8
15 Howard Winstone 606 1959 - 1968 61-6-0
16 Kid Chocolate 601 1927 - 1938 136-10-6
17 Jose Legra 582 1960 - 1975 134-12-4
18 Salvador Sanchez 575 1975 - 1982 44-1-1
19 Terry McGovern 571 1897 - 1908 65-6-7
20 Petey Sarron 568 1925 - 1939 101-24-12
21 Hogan 'Kid' Bassey 564 1949 - 1959 59-13-2
22 Eusebio Pedroza 554 1973 - 1992 41-6-1
23 Dick Finnegan 524 1920 - 1930 58-12-2
24 Leo Rodak 521 1933 - 1946 77-27-11
25 Ernesto Marcel 508 1966 - 1974 40-4-2


World All Time Bantamweight Ratings

1 Eder Jofre 767 1957 - 1976 72-2-4
2 Manuel Ortiz 718 1938 - 1955 98-29-3
3 Jose Medel 666 1955 - 1974 69-31-8
4 Panama Al Brown 658 1922 - 1942 135-19-13
5 Fighting Harada 653 1960 - 1970 55-7-0
6 Ruben Olivares 650 1965 - 1988 88-13-3
7 Peter Kane 634 1934 - 1951 88-7-2
8 Bud Taylor 587 1920 - 1931 102-31-11
9 Bushy Graham 578 1921 - 1937 113-17-9
10 Kid Williams 557 1910 - 1929 155-26-16
11 Chucho Castillo 547 1962 - 1975 46-18-2
12 Rafael Herrera 528 1963 - 1986 48-9-4
13 Carlos Zarate 528 1970 - 1988 66-4-0
14 Lou Salica 515 1932 - 1944 62-17-12
15 Joe Burman 509 1916 - 1924 81-19-14
16 Rodolfo (Baby) Casanova 502 1932 - 1940 49-16-1
17 Memphis Pal Moore 499 1913 - 1930 140-51-35
18 Pete Herman 477 1912 - 1922 92-24-14
19 Midget Wolgast 472 1925 - 1940 156-36-16
20 Joe Lynch 470 1915 - 1926 86-30-15
21 Rodolfo Martinez 469 1965 - 1979 44-7-1
22 Carl Tremaine 467 1918 - 1929 74-24-9
23 Paul Ferreri 455 1968 - 1986 78-13-5
24 Jeff Chandler 447 1976 - 1984 33-2-2
25 Mike Dundee 445 1917 - 1933 98-27-19


World All Time Flyweight Ratings

1 Jackie Paterson 781 1938 - 1951 64-25-3
2 Benny Lynch 657 1931 - 1938 81-12-15
3 Pancho Villa 648 1919 - 1925 91-8-4
4 Horacio Enrique Accavallo 614 1956 - 1967 75-2-6
5 Santos Benigno Laciar 598 1976 - 1990 79-10-11
6 Jean Sneyers 596 1947 - 1959 70-13-5
7 Pascual Perez 594 1952 - 1964 84-7-1
8 Fidel LaBarba 556 1924 - 1933 72-15-7
9 Efren Torres 553 1961 - 1972 52-9-1
10 Chartchai Chionoi 543 1959 - 1975 61-18-3
11 Betulio Gonzalez 514 1968 - 1988 75-12-4
12 Miguel Canto 500 1969 - 1982 61-9-4
13 Jackie Brown 486 1925 - 1948 108-24-9
14 Newsboy Brown 484 1922 - 1933 64-14-7
15 Salvatore Burruni 464 1957 - 1969 99-9-1
16 Abe Goldstein 454 1916 - 1927 100-21-8
17 Frankie Genaro 451 1920 - 1934 94-25-8
18 Jimmy Wilde 430 1910 - 1923 137-5-2
19 Erbito Salavarria 430 1963 - 1978 39-11-3
20 Young Montreal 428 1916 - 1931 74-44-9
21 Masao Ohba 425 1966 - 1973 35-2-1
22 Rinty Monaghan 422 1934 - 1949 51-9-6
23 Hiroyuki Ebihara 416 1959 - 1969 62-5-1
24 Pongsaklek Wonjongkam 416 1994 - 2007 67-3-0
25 Johnny Farr 396 1922 - 1934 44-56-13[/img]

[JCS]

I tried a linear combination of

- the current forumula regarding an averaged peak of best performances
-- impact from top performances - weight 50%
- the sum of all annual ratings
-- impact from long and high level career - weight 5% of sum

I find them clearly superior.


World All Time Heavyweight Ratings

1 Muhammad Ali 2,242 1960 - 1981 56-5-0
2 Joe Louis 2,046 1934 - 1951 69-3-0
3 Floyd Patterson 1,463 1952 - 1972 55-8-1
4 Ezzard Charles 1,378 1940 - 1959 90-25-1
5 Rocky Marciano 1,293 1947 - 1955 49-0-0
6 Sonny Liston 1,146 1953 - 1970 50-4-0
7 Larry Holmes 1,105 1973 - 2002 69-6-0
8 Max Schmeling 1,091 1924 - 1948 56-10-4
9 Jack Johnson 1,076 1894 - 1938 89-14-12
10 Jimmy Bivins 1,053 1940 - 1955 86-25-1
11 Sam Langford 1,005 1902 - 1926 200-47-46
12 Harry Wills 998 1911 - 1932 79-10-4
13 Joe Frazier 968 1965 - 1981 32-4-1
14 Jack Sharkey 939 1924 - 1936 38-14-3
15 George Foreman 905 1969 - 1997 76-5-0
16 Evander Holyfield 902 1984 - 2007 42-9-2
17 Max Baer 872 1929 - 1941 68-13-0
18 Jersey Joe Walcott 869 1930 - 1953 51-18-2
19 Melio Bettina 826 1934 - 1948 82-13-3
20 Lennox Lewis 823 1989 - 2003 41-2-1
21 Mike Tyson 793 1985 - 2005 50-6-0
22 Ingemar Johansson 730 1952 - 1963 26-2-0
23 Zora Folley 728 1953 - 1970 79-11-6
24 Eddie Machen 721 1955 - 1967 50-11-3
25 Primo Carnera 711 1928 - 1946 89-14-0


World All Time Light Heavyweight Ratings

1 Archie Moore 2,155 1935 - 1963 185-23-11
2 Gene Tunney 1,386 1915 - 1928 82-1-3
3 Tommy Loughran 1,335 1919 - 1937 115-30-12
4 Tommy Gibbons 1,192 1911 - 1925 94-5-2
5 Harold Johnson 1,180 1946 - 1971 76-10-0
6 Roy Jones Jr 1,072 1989 - 2007 51-4-0
7 Billy Conn 1,064 1934 - 1948 64-12-1
8 Bernard Hopkins 1,034 1988 - 2007 48-4-1
9 Maxie Rosenbloom 1,016 1923 - 1939 221-42-32
10 Joey Maxim 981 1941 - 1958 82-29-4
11 Bob Foster 953 1961 - 1978 56-8-1
12 Young Stribling 940 1921 - 1933 256-16-15
13 John Henry Lewis 813 1931 - 1939 94-8-5
14 Battling Levinsky 782 1910 - 1930 195-54-36
15 Michael Spinks 781 1977 - 1988 31-1-0
16 Gus Lesnevich 764 1934 - 1949 59-14-5
17 Victor Emilio Galindez 758 1969 - 1980 55-9-4
18 Philadelphia Jack O'Brien 734 1896 - 1912 134-11-24
19 Mike McTigue 719 1914 - 1930 108-46-13
20 Billy Miske 689 1913 - 1923 73-16-13
21 Jack Delaney 687 1919 - 1932 77-13-2
22 Tiger Jack Fox 680 1928 - 1950 154-22-12
23 Jose Torres 675 1958 - 1969 41-3-1
24 Willie Pastrano 646 1951 - 1965 63-13-8
25 Paul Berlenbach 627 1923 - 1933 42-8-3


World All Time Middleweight Ratings

1 Sugar Ray Robinson 2,238 1940 - 1965 173-19-6
2 Carlos Monzon 1,719 1963 - 1977 87-3-9
3 Harry Greb 1,674 1913 - 1926 260-21-17
4 Dick Tiger 1,561 1952 - 1970 60-19-3
5 Marvin Hagler 1,456 1973 - 1987 62-3-2
6 Mickey Walker 1,197 1919 - 1935 109-22-5
7 Carl (Bobo) Olson 1,155 1944 - 1966 97-16-2
8 Joey Giardello 1,152 1948 - 1967 101-25-7
9 Nino Benvenuti 1,119 1961 - 1971 82-7-1
10 Gene Fullmer 1,105 1951 - 1963 55-6-3
11 Charley Burley 909 1936 - 1950 83-12-2
12 Jake LaMotta 904 1941 - 1954 83-19-4
13 Holman Williams 888 1932 - 1948 146-30-11
14 Jack Dillon 888 1908 - 1923 178-23-30
15 Mike Gibbons 866 1908 - 1922 110-10-10
16 Mike McCallum 791 1981 - 1997 49-5-1
17 Ceferino Garcia 776 1923 - 1945 102-28-12
18 Michael Nunn 774 1984 - 2002 58-4-0
19 Tiger Flowers 772 1918 - 1927 135-16-8
20 Fred Apostoli 767 1934 - 1948 61-10-1
21 Charles Humez 742 1948 - 1958 94-7-1
22 Rodrigo Valdez 742 1963 - 1980 63-8-2
23 Freddie Steele 741 1926 - 1941 125-5-11
24 Mike O'Dowd 733 1914 - 1923 85-17-6
25 Gustav Scholz 733 1948 - 1964 88-2-6


World All Time Welterweight Ratings

1 Emile Griffith 1,787 1958 - 1977 85-24-2
2 Jose Angel Napoles 1,584 1958 - 1975 79-7-0
3 Young Corbett III 1,295 1919 - 1940 124-12-22
4 Henry Armstrong 1,235 1931 - 1945 149-21-10
5 Luis Manuel Rodriguez 1,228 1956 - 1972 107-13-0
6 Sugar Ray Leonard 1,214 1977 - 1997 36-3-1
7 Thomas Hearns 1,184 1977 - 2006 61-5-1
8 Jimmy McLarnin 1,156 1923 - 1936 54-11-3
9 Jack Britton 1,074 1905 - 1930 212-52-42
10 Dave Shade 1,062 1918 - 1935 147-27-62
11 Ted (Kid) Lewis 1,061 1909 - 1929 228-44-23
12 Kid Gavilan 1,044 1943 - 1958 108-30-5
13 Carmen Basilio 1,004 1948 - 1961 56-16-7
14 Barney Ross 957 1929 - 1938 74-4-3
15 Pernell Whitaker 898 1984 - 2001 40-4-1
16 Floyd Mayweather Jr 893 1996 - 2007 39-0-0
17 Curtis Cokes 867 1958 - 1972 62-14-4
18 Felix Trinidad 858 1990 - 2005 42-2-0
19 Johnny Griffiths 804 1911 - 1924 62-37-30
20 Jackie Fields 777 1925 - 1933 74-9-2
21 Virgil Akins 717 1948 - 1962 58-32-2
22 Jack Carroll 708 1923 - 1938 90-10-4
23 Johnny Saxton 707 1949 - 1958 55-9-2
24 Pete Latzo 696 1919 - 1934 92-39-12
25 Shane Mosley 677 1993 - 2007 44-5-0


World All Time Lightweight Ratings

1 Carlos Ortiz 1,801 1955 - 1972 61-7-1
2 Roberto Duran 1,347 1968 - 2001 103-16-0
3 Benny Leonard 1,333 1911 - 1932 183-18-12
4 Tony Canzoneri 1,149 1925 - 1939 141-24-10
5 Ike Williams 1,127 1940 - 1955 125-24-5
6 Joe Gans 1,014 1891 - 1909 130-8-15
7 Sammy Angott 992 1935 - 1950 94-28-8
8 Lou Ambers 977 1932 - 1941 94-8-7
9 Joe Brown 967 1943 - 1970 105-46-13
10 Ismael Laguna 952 1960 - 1971 65-9-1
11 Packey McFarland 943 1904 - 1915 101-1-7
12 Beau Jack 924 1939 - 1955 88-24-5
13 Kenny Lane 899 1953 - 1985 82-16-2
14 Bob Montgomery 856 1938 - 1950 75-19-3
15 Freddie Dawson 820 1943 - 1954 101-13-3
16 Johnny Dundee 777 1910 - 1932 185-64-39
17 Billy Petrolle 770 1922 - 1934 121-25-14
18 Jimmy Carter 730 1946 - 1960 81-31-9
19 Sammy Mandell 728 1920 - 1934 137-27-11
20 Louis (Kid) Kaplan 725 1919 - 1933 112-19-15
21 Rocky Kansas 716 1911 - 1932 125-26-13
22 Art Aragon 690 1944 - 1960 90-20-6
23 Lockport Jimmy Duffy 686 1908 - 1921 93-22-26
24 Freddie Welsh 684 1905 - 1922 110-24-16
25 Esteban De Jesus 682 1969 - 1980 57-5-0


World All Time Featherweight Ratings

1 Willie Pep 1,168 1940 - 1966 229-11-1
2 Lew Tendler 969 1913 - 1928 132-14-8
3 Vicente Saldivar 886 1961 - 1973 37-3-0
4 Sandy Saddler 791 1944 - 1956 144-16-2
5 Davey Moore 785 1953 - 1963 59-7-1
6 Naseem Hamed 759 1992 - 2002 36-1-0
7 Sugar Ramos 758 1957 - 1972 55-7-4
8 Freddie Miller 720 1927 - 1940 210-32-8
9 Johnny Kilbane 669 1907 - 1934 96-14-10
10 Ray Famechon 659 1944 - 1956 100-13-3
11 Young Corbett II 635 1896 - 1910 67-21-16
12 Percy Bassett 618 1947 - 1955 64-12-1
13 Abe Attell 617 1900 - 1917 126-17-21
14 Nel Tarleton 617 1926 - 1945 116-20-8
15 Howard Winstone 606 1959 - 1968 61-6-0
16 Kid Chocolate 601 1927 - 1938 136-10-6
17 Jose Legra 582 1960 - 1975 134-12-4
18 Salvador Sanchez 575 1975 - 1982 44-1-1
19 Terry McGovern 571 1897 - 1908 65-6-7
20 Petey Sarron 568 1925 - 1939 101-24-12
21 Hogan 'Kid' Bassey 564 1949 - 1959 59-13-2
22 Eusebio Pedroza 554 1973 - 1992 41-6-1
23 Dick Finnegan 524 1920 - 1930 58-12-2
24 Leo Rodak 521 1933 - 1946 77-27-11
25 Ernesto Marcel 508 1966 - 1974 40-4-2


World All Time Bantamweight Ratings

1 Eder Jofre 767 1957 - 1976 72-2-4
2 Manuel Ortiz 718 1938 - 1955 98-29-3
3 Jose Medel 666 1955 - 1974 69-31-8
4 Panama Al Brown 658 1922 - 1942 135-19-13
5 Fighting Harada 653 1960 - 1970 55-7-0
6 Ruben Olivares 650 1965 - 1988 88-13-3
7 Peter Kane 634 1934 - 1951 88-7-2
8 Bud Taylor 587 1920 - 1931 102-31-11
9 Bushy Graham 578 1921 - 1937 113-17-9
10 Kid Williams 557 1910 - 1929 155-26-16
11 Chucho Castillo 547 1962 - 1975 46-18-2
12 Rafael Herrera 528 1963 - 1986 48-9-4
13 Carlos Zarate 528 1970 - 1988 66-4-0
14 Lou Salica 515 1932 - 1944 62-17-12
15 Joe Burman 509 1916 - 1924 81-19-14
16 Rodolfo (Baby) Casanova 502 1932 - 1940 49-16-1
17 Memphis Pal Moore 499 1913 - 1930 140-51-35
18 Pete Herman 477 1912 - 1922 92-24-14
19 Midget Wolgast 472 1925 - 1940 156-36-16
20 Joe Lynch 470 1915 - 1926 86-30-15
21 Rodolfo Martinez 469 1965 - 1979 44-7-1
22 Carl Tremaine 467 1918 - 1929 74-24-9
23 Paul Ferreri 455 1968 - 1986 78-13-5
24 Jeff Chandler 447 1976 - 1984 33-2-2
25 Mike Dundee 445 1917 - 1933 98-27-19


World All Time Flyweight Ratings

1 Jackie Paterson 781 1938 - 1951 64-25-3
2 Benny Lynch 657 1931 - 1938 81-12-15
3 Pancho Villa 648 1919 - 1925 91-8-4
4 Horacio Enrique Accavallo 614 1956 - 1967 75-2-6
5 Santos Benigno Laciar 598 1976 - 1990 79-10-11
6 Jean Sneyers 596 1947 - 1959 70-13-5
7 Pascual Perez 594 1952 - 1964 84-7-1
8 Fidel LaBarba 556 1924 - 1933 72-15-7
9 Efren Torres 553 1961 - 1972 52-9-1
10 Chartchai Chionoi 543 1959 - 1975 61-18-3
11 Betulio Gonzalez 514 1968 - 1988 75-12-4
12 Miguel Canto 500 1969 - 1982 61-9-4
13 Jackie Brown 486 1925 - 1948 108-24-9
14 Newsboy Brown 484 1922 - 1933 64-14-7
15 Salvatore Burruni 464 1957 - 1969 99-9-1
16 Abe Goldstein 454 1916 - 1927 100-21-8
17 Frankie Genaro 451 1920 - 1934 94-25-8
18 Jimmy Wilde 430 1910 - 1923 137-5-2
19 Erbito Salavarria 430 1963 - 1978 39-11-3
20 Young Montreal 428 1916 - 1931 74-44-9
21 Masao Ohba 425 1966 - 1973 35-2-1
22 Rinty Monaghan 422 1934 - 1949 51-9-6
23 Hiroyuki Ebihara 416 1959 - 1969 62-5-1
24 Pongsaklek Wonjongkam 416 1994 - 2007 67-3-0
25 Johnny Farr 396 1922 - 1934 44-56-13[/img]

Martin,

Would you consider factoring in world titles?

[computerrank]

Jason,

no I won't - as these titles are not really bound to the performances and achievements (in wins and losses to quality opponents).

Additionally - not all these titles were in reach of all boxers at all times under comparable conditions.

[JCS]

Martin,

Consider this scenario. Zab Judah remains active, yet keeps losing to much higher rated fighters for the next few years. Since he keeps his opponent quality high, and remains active, he will not lose points, because his opponents are much higher rated. However, he will not have won, so is this correct?

Technically, he could remain at his current position for years, without winning a bout.