Official results are what accurately portray what is happening in boxing; that is the norm.JCS wrote:Who's to say what accurately portrays what is happening in boxing?sharpei_louis wrote:I understand, but my question is what is the point of producing ratings that don't have any bearing on what is happening? I'm as prepared as the next man to think outside the box, but why? What is the point of the ratings? If the viewer has to apply this much lateral thinking I'd suggest they already have their own ratings. The point of a ratings system, and a computerised one is, as far as I am concerned, to show the layperson an accurate perspective of the state of play in the sport. The boxrec doesn't achieve this, and IMO that renders it a futile system.JCS wrote:You do understand that a fighter has a point total, regardless of what division he is in, or where he has fought, correct? As long as that fighter is active, a point total will be calculated. If Pacquiao was placed at Heavyweight, he would have a point total, and probably be ranked in the Top 50.
The system depends on norms, and it also depends on its viewers thinking outside the box just a bit on determining why things are how they are.
You are straying too far outside the box with subjective criteria’s of adding & subtracting
points for activity/inactivity, age/diminishing skills, hometown/promoters etc., etc.
It is too vague to be applied across the board like a cookie cutting sheet.
AFAIK, Sharpie is talking about traditional ratings which is a blue print demonstrating where
the boxer stands on a scale in relation to his competitors, while BoxRec ratings are more
equivalent to a handicapping report in horse racing in attempting to predict the future.
We are talking apples and oranges
