Boxrec ratings are f*cked up sometimes

[boxing_rocks]

Seriously, any formula is bound to throw up some very curious results, but if you dispense with the formula then of course the results become subjective and unscientific. I guess we have to live with the anomalies.

There is some truth in it, but algorithms need to be constantly corrected in order to get better. I think my examples show that there are disproportions related to weight jumping which need to be corrected.

[JCS]

Boxrec ratings are awful.

http://www.premierboxingorganisation.com

Produced monthly. You won't find the Shafikov/Commey type situations. These are linear based so YOU rise up in the ratings by beating quality. In Boxrec you can jump up by beating poor opponents. Their formula is dire.

Sometimes the BoxRec way is necessary. Linear movement doesn't always make the most sense.

[Lennox]

Boxrec ratings are awful.

http://www.premierboxingorganisation.com

Produced monthly. You won't find the Shafikov/Commey type situations. These are linear based so YOU rise up in the ratings by beating quality. In Boxrec you can jump up by beating poor opponents. Their formula is dire.

Sometimes the BoxRec way is necessary. Linear movement doesn't always make the most sense.

Blind squirrels sometimes find nuts. Subjectively Anthony Joshua is the best heavyweight in my opinion. Boxrec have him 1. Boxrec have got him there by his Charles Martin win. You would need to explain to me why linear movement does not always make sense (accepting that there needs to be time factors).

The problem with any computer or formula is that no 40 year old is the same as another 40 year old. Two welterweights moving up to Super-welterweight will not take the same % of power or resiliance. Things do you out of sync when fighters move divisions no ratings program will get everything exact but if you are sensible the fairest method to make the top 100 is by beating someone in the top 100 and it must surely be hard to argue that a fighter should fight for a world title without having being measured against anyone in an independent top 100.

No one can ever point out to me where we have fighters wildly placed.

[JCS]

No one can ever point out to me where we have fighters wildly placed.

Maybe true, maybe not.. but I still don't understand why you have to come here and bad mouth the system. Does anyone come over to your site and do that?

Quite honestly, my interest in boxing has waned in comparison to a few years ago.. but I'm sure someone that's hardcore into the sport can find flaws in your rankings as well. I mean, Povetkin over Wilder feels wrong.. and given your linear approach, I'm not sure how you could've had Garcia over Thurman before they fought... but maybe you're right all along.

I will say that having the point totals visible here makes the ratings a bit more interesting and more easy to judge for oneself. Who really knows what's going on behind the scenes w/ your rankings with the limited info and as they update so infrequently.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Boxrec ratings are awful.

http://www.premierboxingorganisation.com

Produced monthly. You won't find the Shafikov/Commey type situations. These are linear based so YOU rise up in the ratings by beating quality. In Boxrec you can jump up by beating poor opponents. Their formula is dire.

Your ratings suck too.

It must be your eyes are corrupt. The ratings are based on results of the man that beat the beat man. They are not subjective so you will find fighters who are likely to beat higher ranked fighters. If you think someone is lower than they should be it is because they have avoided quality opposition. They are the finest ratings.

No, it's the shitty ratings you always try and push. They're not better than the ones here. Your life's work is crap.

[Lennox]

No one can ever point out to me where we have fighters wildly placed.

Maybe true, maybe not.. but I still don't understand why you have to come here and bad mouth the system. Does anyone come over to your site and do that?

Quite honestly, my interest in boxing has waned in comparison to a few years ago.. but I'm sure someone that's hardcore into the sport can find flaws in your rankings as well. I mean, Povetkin over Wilder feels wrong.. and given your linear approach, I'm not sure how you could've had Garcia over Thurman before they fought... but maybe you're right all along.

I will say that having the point totals visible here makes the ratings a bit more interesting and more easy to judge for oneself. Who really knows what's going on behind the scenes w/ your rankings with the limited info and as they update so infrequently.

Thurman's best win was against an opponent ranked 5. Garcia has beaten a number 1. That information is for all to see on all 100 fighters in each division. Whilst there is a background points system I am not prepared to publish it so to let Boxrec see the points allocation so they can use it. Boxrec ratings are crap and have soured people against computer ranking system my rankings have suffered because of the backlash. Povetkin has the second best resume of the current heavyweights, it is unargueable. If they fought then plenty would favour Wilder, but this system is not subjective it is based soley on factual evidence that would and has held up in court. Where does Boxrec have Povetkin? I rest my case, the ratings are very poor. The fact that Povetkin has cheated on drugs is another issue, there is a case he should not be ranked at all but as it stands he is not banned from boxing and is an active fighter.

[JCS]

No one can ever point out to me where we have fighters wildly placed.

Maybe true, maybe not.. but I still don't understand why you have to come here and bad mouth the system. Does anyone come over to your site and do that?

Quite honestly, my interest in boxing has waned in comparison to a few years ago.. but I'm sure someone that's hardcore into the sport can find flaws in your rankings as well. I mean, Povetkin over Wilder feels wrong.. and given your linear approach, I'm not sure how you could've had Garcia over Thurman before they fought... but maybe you're right all along.

I will say that having the point totals visible here makes the ratings a bit more interesting and more easy to judge for oneself. Who really knows what's going on behind the scenes w/ your rankings with the limited info and as they update so infrequently.

Thurman's best win was against an opponent ranked 5. Garcia has beaten a number 1. That information is for all to see on all 100 fighters in each division. Whilst there is a background points system I am not prepared to publish it so to let Boxrec see the points allocation so they can use it. Boxrec ratings are crap and have soured people against computer ranking system my rankings have suffered because of the backlash. Povetkin has the second best resume of the current heavyweights, it is unargueable. If they fought then plenty would favour Wilder, but this system is not subjective it is based soley on factual evidence that would and has held up in court. Where does Boxrec have Povetkin? I rest my case, the ratings are very poor. The fact that Povetkin has cheated on drugs is another issue, there is a case he should not be ranked at all but as it stands he is not banned from boxing and is an active fighter.

You're justifying the rankings of fighters based on previous output of your own system. If the foundation is flawed, the rest of the house is screwed.

Garcia beat a #1 147lb fighter at 147lb?

[Lennox]

The foundation is not flawed.

Boxers are not confined to a life in one division and their merits should be taken into account forever. You need a mechanism to factor division change and to factor length of time of the win/loss.

Any mechanism won't suit ALL boxers the same. Some go up and carry the weight, some don't. It's never going to get everyone exactly into the correct spot but it will get it pretty close. The Thurman-Garcia fight after all was a pretty even fight but their ranking is still not wildly incorrect.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

That's a nice explanation why your rankings are trash. How many years are you going to try and push them here? Nobody gives a single fornicate and they never will.

[Lennox]

That's a nice explanation why your rankings are trash. How many years are you going to try and push them here? Nobody gives a single eff and they never will.

No Rankings will please everyones eyes. The Finest ratings are these, these are the ones HBO call their bible and the ones the WBC, WBA, WBO and IBO use to cross check. The IBF I don't even care. I don't care if the uneducated think their trash. JCS knows their very good overall he just won't admit it.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

That's a nice explanation why your rankings are trash. How many years are you going to try and push them here? Nobody gives a single eff and they never will.

No Rankings will please everyones eyes. The Finest ratings are these, these are the ones HBO call their bible and the ones the WBC, WBA, WBO and IBO use to cross check. The IBF I don't even care. I don't care if the uneducated think their trash. JCS knows their very good overall he just won't admit it.

JC's couldn't care less, nobody does.

[Lennox]

That's a nice explanation why your rankings are trash. How many years are you going to try and push them here? Nobody gives a single eff and they never will.

No Rankings will please everyones eyes. The Finest ratings are these, these are the ones HBO call their bible and the ones the WBC, WBA, WBO and IBO use to cross check. The IBF I don't even care. I don't care if the uneducated think their trash. JCS knows their very good overall he just won't admit it.

JC's couldn't care less, nobody does.

It is only the idiots that don't understand and they obviously don't care because they don't know sh1t from pudding. You can't come up with a reason why they are trash, why the man that beat the man is a trash method.. The people that care are the ones that pay.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

They've always sucked, I wouldn't even give you a click for a specific example now. Idiocy is continuing to come on here and shill your bullshit that nobody gives a fornicate about. Your rankings mean nothing and they never will.

[Lennox]

They've always sucked, I wouldn't even give you a click for a specific example now. Idiocy is continuing to come on here and shill your bullshit that nobody gives a eff about. Your rankings mean nothing and they never will.

What sort of comment is "they've always sucked"? They just mean nothing to you. Why did Golden Boy want to buy them? Why can't you look at it and accept all the information in it. What is bad?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

They've always sucked, I wouldn't even give you a click for a specific example now. Idiocy is continuing to come on here and shill your bullshit that nobody gives a eff about. Your rankings mean nothing and they never will.

What sort of comment is "they've always sucked"? They just mean nothing to you. Why did Golden Boy want to buy them? Why can't you look at it and accept all the information in it. What is bad?

What is bad is you puffing out your chest like you invented the wheel. Noble as it may be to try and take human bias out of the system you simply can't have better rankings with a computer system. Anyway, I've wasted enough time with you. See you next time you log onto boxrec to bitch about the boxrec system and beg people to care about yours. As for Golden boy you should have taken the $20.

[MachoTime]

Boxrec ratings are awful.

http://www.premierboxingorganisation.com

Produced monthly. You won't find the Shafikov/Commey type situations. These are linear based so YOU rise up in the ratings by beating quality. In Boxrec you can jump up by beating poor opponents. Their formula is dire.

Seriously you need to fix the real champion Klitschko bit.

[Lennox]

They've always sucked, I wouldn't even give you a click for a specific example now. Idiocy is continuing to come on here and shill your bullshit that nobody gives a eff about. Your rankings mean nothing and they never will.

What sort of comment is "they've always sucked"? They just mean nothing to you. Why did Golden Boy want to buy them? Why can't you look at it and accept all the information in it. What is bad?

What is bad is you puffing out your chest like you invented the wheel. Noble as it may be to try and take human bias out of the system you simply can't have better rankings with a computer system. Anyway, I've wasted enough time with you. See you next time you log onto boxrec to bitch about the boxrec system and beg people to care about yours. As for Golden boy you should have taken the $20.

We did invent the computer rankings. Boxrec copied us pretty much identically to how we posted ours. I should have sued for infringement of artistic creation as the presentation was too close but I was persuaded not too. The rankings have earned a lot of money in payments and commissions.

[Lennox]

Boxrec ratings are awful.

http://www.premierboxingorganisation.com

Produced monthly. You won't find the Shafikov/Commey type situations. These are linear based so YOU rise up in the ratings by beating quality. In Boxrec you can jump up by beating poor opponents. Their formula is dire.

Seriously you need to fix the real champion Klitschko bit.

It is difficult because with Tyson Fury out of the picture Wlad is next best. I suppose April 29th will settle it.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

boxrec copied your great rankings and they became awful. You shouldn't have the audacity to call anyone uneducated after clowning yourself like that.

[Lennox]

boxrec copied your great rankings and they became awful. You shouldn't have the audacity to call anyone uneducated after clowning yourself like that.

They copied the way we presented them, not the formula.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

[JCS]

The foundation is not flawed.

Boxers are not confined to a life in one division and their merits should be taken into account forever. You need a mechanism to factor division change and to factor length of time of the win/loss.

Any mechanism won't suit ALL boxers the same. Some go up and carry the weight, some don't. It's never going to get everyone exactly into the correct spot but it will get it pretty close. The Thurman-Garcia fight after all was a pretty even fight but their ranking is still not wildly incorrect.

I'm not saying the foundation IS flawed, but what you're doing is akin to what the English teachers in elementary school taught us...

When you define a word, don't use that word in the definition, which I think is what you are essentially doing.

I do realize it is difficult to try to prove the worth of something without scientific backing... it is even more difficult to try and argue your system over BoxRec's or vice versa, but you do keep trying to do it.

Personally, I hate an "all in" linear, ladder-based system, because it doesn't always work and nothing is worse in a rating system than hard cliffs and black/white views. The exception to this comment, is a sport that adheres to a system like this... which is not happening here. In my opinion, a good rating system has to acknowledge that there is definitely a gray area that needs to be observed. If you say you have a linear system than I can't see how Garcia beating a #1 at 140 has much bearing at 147. In a BoxRec system, it makes perfect sense.

If a not very dominant #1 fighter loses by KO to a #75... in your system, does the #75 become #1 and the #1 becomes #2? Is it that simple?

[MachoTime]

Boxrec ratings are awful.

http://www.premierboxingorganisation.com

Produced monthly. You won't find the Shafikov/Commey type situations. These are linear based so YOU rise up in the ratings by beating quality. In Boxrec you can jump up by beating poor opponents. Their formula is dire.

Seriously you need to fix the real champion Klitschko bit.

It is difficult because with Tyson Fury out of the picture Wlad is next best. I suppose April 29th will settle it.

This is constructive criticism. Being a Fan Of Boxing. If I found your site cruising the internet. I would see you have Klitschko as Champion. I would think your site is outdated. Klitschko lost to Fury 15 months or so. I wouldn't bother even looking further.

[Heretic]

Boxrec ratings are awful.

http://www.premierboxingorganisation.com

Produced monthly. You won't find the Shafikov/Commey type situations. These are linear based so YOU rise up in the ratings by beating quality. In Boxrec you can jump up by beating poor opponents. Their formula is dire.

Wach at 29 Teper at 11

[JCS]

Boxrec ratings are awful.

http://www.premierboxingorganisation.com

Produced monthly. You won't find the Shafikov/Commey type situations. These are linear based so YOU rise up in the ratings by beating quality. In Boxrec you can jump up by beating poor opponents. Their formula is dire.

Wach at 29 Teper at 11

He hasn't updated in nearly a month.

I wonder if he parses BoxRec for the fight updates?