Saul Alvarez shown as #1 pound for pound

[istt]

Boxrec does an excellent job providing data on boxers but I find it a joke that they would show Saul Alvarez #1 on their pound for pound list. He has shown he is a coward when it comes to fighting GGG. He is willing to come up to fight Chavez at 164 but he won't fight GGG claiming he is not a true middleweight. How in the world can Boxrec show him as #1?

Also, Ward is given a gift in his fight against Kovalev but Boxrec does not show Kovalev next to Ward in the rankings. Who decides these things for Boxrec? I'd really like to know.

[Boxing Prospect]

It's all a formula based on results :)

[RScarf1]

Mayweather is pound for pound No. 1 all time on boxrec. Sugar Ray Robinson is No. 2.

[boxing_rocks]

Automated tools have to consider that Canelo won UDs against Trout and Lara and lost MD to Mayweather. They can't into account corrupt/incompetent judges. They also can't take into account that a fighter was injured. Cotto went from 294 to 781 points for defeating crippled Martinez, and Canelo than grabbed 410 of those points from him. Compare that to the second best MW, Danny Jacobs, only having a TOTAL of 394 points. Lemieux and Saunders ratings COMBINED are under 410 points.
Ridiculous.

[Kalan]

No computer with good data is doing boxrec's rankings... What computer ranks Eder Jofre 80th all-time P4P -- and Jackie Paterson 60th all-time P4P?

Jofre's record is 72-2-4 with many World Title Fight wins in 2 Divisions and a 64% KO ratio... He was never stopped and beat many top fighters.

Paterson's record is 63-25-3 with one World Title fight win and a 44% KO ratio... He was knocked out 10 times.

Jofre fought until he was 40 finishing with a long winning streak... Paterson was washed up at 30 losing 9 of his last 11

If you create inputs that pops out rankings to your liking, you're going to get tons of distortions like this. You can keep reformulating a computer ranking system until it pushes many of the names you love, from the eras you love, toward the top -- but you get a bunch of dumb rankings like we see here.. Where if your inputs are W/L ratio and KO ratio.. opponent's W/L ratio and KO ratio.. and opponent's opponent's W/L ratio and KO ratio -- and you give a proper weighting to World Title Fights and World Title Defenses -- you'll come up with much better rankings that might leave out many of your favorites.. You're still going to leave out many boxers like Ike Ibeabuchi, who had few fights and never fought a World Title Fight.

If you want really great rankings you need to visually evaluate a boxer's stance, footwork, weapons, aggression, defense, and overall form. But there you need to be very good, impartial, and have a lot of knowledge -- otherwise you'll see brilliance in boxers you like, and see boxers you don't care for as easy to hit, stiff, slow, and whatever else your biased imagination can conjure up.

[verlichte]

No computer with good data is doing boxrec's rankings... What computer ranks Eder Jofre 80th all-time P4P -- and Jackie Paterson 60th all-time P4P?

Jofre's record is 72-2-4 with many World Title Fight wins in 2 Divisions and a 64% KO ratio... He was never stopped and beat many top fighters.

Paterson's record is 63-25-3 with one World Title fight win and a 44% KO ratio... He was knocked out 10 times.

Jofre fought until he was 40 finishing with a long winning streak... Paterson was washed up at 30 losing 9 of his last 11

If you create inputs that pops out rankings to your liking, you're going to get tons of distortions like this. You can keep reformulating a computer ranking system until it pushes many of the names you love, from the eras you love, toward the top -- but you get a bunch of dumb rankings like we see here.. Where if your inputs are W/L ratio and KO ratio.. opponent's W/L ratio and KO ratio.. and opponent's opponent's W/L ratio and KO ratio -- and you give a proper weighting to World Title Fights and World Title Defenses -- you'll come up with much better rankings that might leave out many of your favorites.. You're still going to leave out many boxers like Ike Ibeabuchi, who had few fights and never fought a World Title Fight.

If you want really great rankings you need to visually evaluate a boxer's stance, footwork, weapons, aggression, defense, and overall form. But there you need to be very good, impartial, and have a lot of knowledge -- otherwise you'll see brilliance in boxers you like, and see boxers you don't care for as easy to hit, stiff, slow, and whatever else your biased imagination can conjure up.

Aren't the points primarily calculated based on the calibre of opposition faced? Percentage ratios etc. are utterly meaningless in the context of BoxRec.

This page will give you a detailed explanation, which should hopefully address your woes:
http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/BoxRe ... escription

[jezzamundo]

No computer with good data is doing boxrec's rankings... What computer ranks Eder Jofre 80th all-time P4P -- and Jackie Paterson 60th all-time P4P?

Jofre's record is 72-2-4 with many World Title Fight wins in 2 Divisions and a 64% KO ratio... He was never stopped and beat many top fighters.

Paterson's record is 63-25-3 with one World Title fight win and a 44% KO ratio... He was knocked out 10 times.

Jofre fought until he was 40 finishing with a long winning streak... Paterson was washed up at 30 losing 9 of his last 11

If you create inputs that pops out rankings to your liking, you're going to get tons of distortions like this. You can keep reformulating a computer ranking system until it pushes many of the names you love, from the eras you love, toward the top -- but you get a bunch of dumb rankings like we see here.. Where if your inputs are W/L ratio and KO ratio.. opponent's W/L ratio and KO ratio.. and opponent's opponent's W/L ratio and KO ratio -- and you give a proper weighting to World Title Fights and World Title Defenses -- you'll come up with much better rankings that might leave out many of your favorites.. You're still going to leave out many boxers like Ike Ibeabuchi, who had few fights and never fought a World Title Fight.

If you want really great rankings you need to visually evaluate a boxer's stance, footwork, weapons, aggression, defense, and overall form. But there you need to be very good, impartial, and have a lot of knowledge -- otherwise you'll see brilliance in boxers you like, and see boxers you don't care for as easy to hit, stiff, slow, and whatever else your biased imagination can conjure up.

Aren't the points primarily calculated based on the calibre of opposition faced? Percentage ratios etc. are utterly meaningless in the context of BoxRec.

This page will give you a detailed explanation, which should hopefully address your woes:
http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/BoxRe ... escription

Yep, the current ratings are far better than doing it based on W/L ratio and KO ratio. That said, I vehemently disagree with Floyd being #1 - that leads me to think that length of career has too high a bearing.

[verlichte]

No computer with good data is doing boxrec's rankings... What computer ranks Eder Jofre 80th all-time P4P -- and Jackie Paterson 60th all-time P4P?

Jofre's record is 72-2-4 with many World Title Fight wins in 2 Divisions and a 64% KO ratio... He was never stopped and beat many top fighters.

Paterson's record is 63-25-3 with one World Title fight win and a 44% KO ratio... He was knocked out 10 times.

Jofre fought until he was 40 finishing with a long winning streak... Paterson was washed up at 30 losing 9 of his last 11

If you create inputs that pops out rankings to your liking, you're going to get tons of distortions like this. You can keep reformulating a computer ranking system until it pushes many of the names you love, from the eras you love, toward the top -- but you get a bunch of dumb rankings like we see here.. Where if your inputs are W/L ratio and KO ratio.. opponent's W/L ratio and KO ratio.. and opponent's opponent's W/L ratio and KO ratio -- and you give a proper weighting to World Title Fights and World Title Defenses -- you'll come up with much better rankings that might leave out many of your favorites.. You're still going to leave out many boxers like Ike Ibeabuchi, who had few fights and never fought a World Title Fight.

If you want really great rankings you need to visually evaluate a boxer's stance, footwork, weapons, aggression, defense, and overall form. But there you need to be very good, impartial, and have a lot of knowledge -- otherwise you'll see brilliance in boxers you like, and see boxers you don't care for as easy to hit, stiff, slow, and whatever else your biased imagination can conjure up.

Aren't the points primarily calculated based on the calibre of opposition faced? Percentage ratios etc. are utterly meaningless in the context of BoxRec.

This page will give you a detailed explanation, which should hopefully address your woes:
http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/BoxRe ... escription

Yep, the current ratings are far better than doing it based on W/L ratio and KO ratio. That said, I vehemently disagree with Floyd being #1 - that leads me to think that length of career has too high a bearing.

I haven't read-up on how the pound-for-pound all-time boxers list is calculated by BoxRec, but since it uses mathematical formulas, then I suspect that Sugar Ray Robinson would have almost certainly been ranked above Floyd Mayweather Jr. had he retired after the Bobo Olson fight of 1956, because he continued boxing for another nine years with mixed fortunes.

[MachoTime]

Aren't the points primarily calculated based on the calibre of opposition faced? Percentage ratios etc. are utterly meaningless in the context of BoxRec.

This page will give you a detailed explanation, which should hopefully address your woes:
http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/BoxRe ... escription

Yep, the current ratings are far better than doing it based on W/L ratio and KO ratio. That said, I vehemently disagree with Floyd being #1 - that leads me to think that length of career has too high a bearing.

I haven't read-up on how the pound-for-pound all-time boxers list is calculated by BoxRec, but since it uses mathematical formulas, then I suspect that Sugar Ray Robinson would have almost certainly been ranked above Floyd Mayweather Jr. had he retired after the Bobo Olson fight of 1956, because he continued boxing for another nine years with mixed fortunes.

Good Point.

[luisdonado]

Box Rec is inaccurate. It's almost like they want the negative publicity so they can get traffic to their twitter and facebook which are plain dead with traffic.

This is the only reason I find they would list Canelo as #1. They are just a great data base to check records, just stay that way, because we know that they don't know about ranking boxers.

[Lackeos]

He has shown he is a coward when it comes to fighting GGG.

I've seen the boxrec computerized rating formula before. I don't remember cowardice being a variable in it.

Also, you're obviously totally new to interacting with other boxing fans, so you should be warned, professional boxers are not to be called cowards. To think of how much more cowardly you are than Alvarez, there's really no comparison.

Oh, one more thing. HOW THE F*CK ARE YOU GOING TO ACCUSE THE GUY WHO IS FIGHTING GOLOVKIN NEXT MONTH OF AVOIDING A FIGHT WITH GOLOVKIN?! THERE'S LITERALLY ONLY ONE HUMAN BEING WHO IS FIGHTING GOLOVKIN NEXT MONTH, AND THE ONLY HUMAN BEING WHO IS DOING THAT, IS SAUL ALVAREZ!

[jujigatame]

The computerized rankings only see the official scorecards. If Canelo really beat Trout and Lara by the margins listed on the scorecards, I think there'd be a pretty good argument for him being #1 P4P. Also the win over Cotto was a pretty big deal and that was very legit.

[asdfjkl]

Rigondeaux or whatever his name is is probably the best pound for pound boxer at this moment.

[jujigatame]

Rigondeaux or whatever his name is is probably the best pound for pound boxer at this moment.

Definitely not.

[gilgamesh]

Rigondeaux or whatever his name is is probably the best pound for pound boxer at this moment.

I have my doubts as to whether or not he's even still the best in his own weight class.

There are at least 6 others superior to him a P4P sense at this point.

[luisdonado]

Yes it is a joke, also look how they put Jeff Horn on the list. The guy was KOd on his feet and didn't win the fight. I really believe BoxRec is getting money for this so that management can market the fighters. But what they don't know is that BoxRec is nothing in the sport and it is just a database to check scores. What a disgrace for a site to come up with this fake list.

[punchoutsb]

Yes it is a joke, also look how they put Jeff Horn on the list. The guy was KOd on his feet and didn't win the fight. I really believe BoxRec is getting money for this so that management can market the fighters. But what they don't know is that BoxRec is nothing in the sport and it is just a database to check scores. What a disgrace for a site to come up with this fake list.

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/BoxRe ... escription

[BitPlayer]

It's a formula based on your record and he has quite a few good wins.

[gilgamesh]

It's a formula based on your record and he has quite a few good wins.

The rankings on here are always questionable. It's a computer based formula, it's not bad, but it's not perfect because there's so many factors that the computer doesn't consider.

It's alright though. It at least gives you a good idea of who to keep an eye on with divisional rankings.

[RScarf1]

Boxrec is not to blame for Canelo being number one P4P. The judges are. BoxRec has to use these biased decisions in its calculations. There are probably a lot of bad decisions all over the world that also get calculated for fights that are not televised.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I think Crawford could beat Canelo straight up. 50/50 or 60/40 Canelo because of the size, but if they were the same size Canelo wouldn't win a round.

[tiny_acres]

I think Crawford could beat Canelo straight up. 50/50 or 60/40 Canelo because of the size, but if they were the same size Canelo wouldn't win a round.

X2
Crawford is twice the boxer Canelo is

[BitPlayer]

I think Crawford could beat Canelo straight up. 50/50 or 60/40 Canelo because of the size, but if they were the same size Canelo wouldn't win a round.

I'm not convinced. Size makes a massive difference, there's a reason going up weight divisions is impressive, and if Crawford was as big as Canelo he'd be a far bit slower too.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I think Crawford could beat Canelo straight up. 50/50 or 60/40 Canelo because of the size, but if they were the same size Canelo wouldn't win a round.

I'm not convinced. Size makes a massive difference, there's a reason going up weight divisions is impressive, and if Crawford was as big as Canelo he'd be a far bit slower too.

He's slightly shorter, Crawford would have a reach advantage. The size is the only reason it could be competitive. Massive is a stretch, people overrate size. I'm glad, makes fights like Pac/Dlh & Cotto/Martinez very profitable.

[diddy]

Canelo isn't even top 5 P4P let alone #1. After he loses to GGG he won't even be on top 10 lists. He's a very good fighter. He's not a great fighter.

Why?

1) Schooled by Floyd
2) Lost to Lara and was given a gift
3) Trout fought him tooth and nail
4) Lost every round to Khan before stopping him

If he beats GGG he will have me sold. But he won't.