.....how is it that Joe Calzaghe (40-0, 31KO's), a guy who has never had a year of inactivity in his whole career can be lower in the rankings than Jeff Lacy (20-0, 16KO's), Markus Beyer (33-2, 12KO's), Vitali Tsypko (16-0, 9KO's), and Mikkel Kessler (36-0, 27KO's)?
Clearly Calzaghe has a much better record than all of these fighters, and he's also fought an arguably better quality of opponent than all of these guys, and he has never gone more than a couple of months of inactivity, so how is it that he ends up lower than them?
In order to understand better, can someone explain.....
-
jomothepure
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 2660
- Joined: 24 Oct 2004, 08:43
You're talking about boxrec ratings I take it? They're all done by computer, so there is no-one there thinking "Calzaghe's crap, I'll put him down to #5"
http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.php/B ... escription
That's the ratings system, basically everyone starts on x points. You get a % of your opponents points if you beat him, and 'bonuses' for the type of win ie. TKO better than a SD.
So for example, the system gave Lacy more points for his last win than Calzaghe, as a) Reid had more points (or was rated higher) than Ashira, and b) the result was better (TKO v UD)
You're not the first to ask something like this. Obviously you think JC should be #1 (or at least higher than the others you mentioned) based on activity and the level of opponent. That's fair enough, a lot would agree with you, and an argument could probably be made that JC's opponents have been the best, but one thing an objective system like boxrec's does is to be able to search back a long way into records to make it's calculations about a boxer's record - but it's dependant on what formula you give it.
Well, I think I've totally confused you know. Why don't we just have Lacy-Calzaghe and that'll settle it for everyone
http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.php/B ... escription
That's the ratings system, basically everyone starts on x points. You get a % of your opponents points if you beat him, and 'bonuses' for the type of win ie. TKO better than a SD.
So for example, the system gave Lacy more points for his last win than Calzaghe, as a) Reid had more points (or was rated higher) than Ashira, and b) the result was better (TKO v UD)
You're not the first to ask something like this. Obviously you think JC should be #1 (or at least higher than the others you mentioned) based on activity and the level of opponent. That's fair enough, a lot would agree with you, and an argument could probably be made that JC's opponents have been the best, but one thing an objective system like boxrec's does is to be able to search back a long way into records to make it's calculations about a boxer's record - but it's dependant on what formula you give it.
Well, I think I've totally confused you know. Why don't we just have Lacy-Calzaghe and that'll settle it for everyone