AJ's alltime rating here on boxrec

[man]

he has now 705 points, which
would place him around thirty
in the all time rankings, but he
doesn't show up there. why?

[KiwiRider]

I noticed that last week. I don't know why and asked on the AJ Pulev thread and no one responded. Love to know as well.

[jamamb]

he is rated #173 all time. the atg points are clearly done differently than current. they apparently arent just someones peak points when they boxed.

he has 705 in contemporary but only 153 in atg rankings. seems to me that being pro not that long compared to others and with just 19 fights hurts his atg ranking. will probably have ranking go way up overtime.

[KiwiRider]

he is rated #173 all time. the atg points are clearly done differently than current. they apparently arent just someones peak points when they boxed.

he has 705 in contemporary but only 153 in atg rankings. seems to me that being pro not that long compared to others hurts his atg ranking. will probably have ranking go way up overtime.

Thank you.I had no idea of how it was different - current point etc.

[Lackeos]

The All Time Rating for a boxer is the sum of the sum of annual rank points he gets for his annual ratings - and the sum of annual rank points of best defeated opponents at time of bout - and the square root of his career top rating:
the annual rating is the rating at the end of every year the boxer was active
rank points = 100 / annual rank in division for annual rating
best opponent rank points = 100 / (best opponent rank - 1) for annual rating (if rank is 1 use rank 1)
the value of 100 annual points for the top boxer is reduced, if the annual rating of #10 in the division is less than 67 for men, - and if the annual rating of #5 in the division is less than 30 for women

From having read this system, it sounds like the all-time rating basically just rewards you for longevity and rewards you for being highly-ranked in your division each year. Perfectly explains why fighters like Bernard Hopkins are so close to the top. Even when Hopkins was no longer top 10 p4p, he was still hanging in the LHW division's top 3 ranks for years and years and years and years and years...

Someone like Anthony Joshua who has not been around long would not have a good all-time rating. Someone like Wlad, who had a high divisional rank for an extremely wide window of time, would have a good all-time rating.

[asdfjkl]

He will probably never achieve a high all time great rank since his weightclass isn't as active as it used to be in the past. It's really like a factor 4, while he already got like 2 times as much points as the current other active boxers.

[Lackeos]

He will probably never achieve a high all time great rank since his weightclass isn't as active as it used to be in the past. It's really like a factor 4, while he already got like 2 times as much points as the current other active boxers.

Again, the all-time rating is rewarding you for basically the number of years that you spend as your division's #1. If Joshua is head and shoulders above a bad division, and reigns at the top for a very long time, he could be a threat to achieve a top 40 all-time rating. The worse the heavyweight division is, the more it benefits his all-time rating.

Having said that, by the time Joshua retires, Boxrec's all-time rating formula will have undergone 30 revisions, Boxrec will have been bought-out by ESPN, the planet will be 1 degree hotter, and the internet will have been replaced by the quantumnet. So the current formula in place won't be much of a factor by then.

[man]

he is rated #173 all time. the atg points are clearly done differently than current. they apparently arent just someones peak points when they boxed.

he has 705 in contemporary but only 153 in atg rankings. seems to me that being pro not that long compared to others and with just 19 fights hurts his atg ranking. will probably have ranking go way up overtime.

yet david haye has 622 points
and is ranked 36.

[man]

The All Time Rating for a boxer is the sum of the sum of annual rank points he gets for his annual ratings - and the sum of annual rank points of best defeated opponents at time of bout - and the square root of his career top rating:
the annual rating is the rating at the end of every year the boxer was active
rank points = 100 / annual rank in division for annual rating
best opponent rank points = 100 / (best opponent rank - 1) for annual rating (if rank is 1 use rank 1)
the value of 100 annual points for the top boxer is reduced, if the annual rating of #10 in the division is less than 67 for men, - and if the annual rating of #5 in the division is less than 30 for women

From having read this system, it sounds like the all-time rating basically just rewards you for longevity and rewards you for being highly-ranked in your division each year. Perfectly explains why fighters like Bernard Hopkins are so close to the top. Even when Hopkins was no longer top 10 p4p, he was still hanging in the LHW division's top 3 ranks for years and years and years and years and years...

Someone like Anthony Joshua who has not been around long would not have a good all-time rating. Someone like Wlad, who had a high divisional rank for an extremely wide window of time, would have a good all-time rating.

thnx!

[Lackeos]

Some related trivia: this same system ranks Lomachenko as #980 all-time, and Golovkin as #816 all-time, and Usyk as #1143 all-time. Just thought that was worth mentioning, since I'm always arguing with people who think these fighters are all like top 10 p4p all-time.

[man]

Some related trivia: this same system ranks Lomachenko as #980 all-time, and Golovkin as #816 all-time, and Usyk as #1143 all-time. Just thought that was worth mentioning, since I'm always arguing with people who think these fighters are all like top 10 p4p all-time.

do you have an idea why david haye is
no 36 at the heavies?

[Lackeos]

Some related trivia: this same system ranks Lomachenko as #980 all-time, and Golovkin as #816 all-time, and Usyk as #1143 all-time. Just thought that was worth mentioning, since I'm always arguing with people who think these fighters are all like top 10 p4p all-time.

do you have an idea why david haye is
no 36 at the heavies?

Well, he started to have a respectable rating in 2005, so he's basically been accumulating all-time points for 12 years (some of those years as a #1 cruiserweight or a #2 heavyweight, which contributes 100 and 50 points at a time). He also probably got good points for beating Mormeck (who has #1 at the time?) and Maccarinelli (who must've been top 3 at the time?).

Of course, for the fighters who are behind him like Tim Witherspoon, Ken Norton, Frank Bruno, Jerry Quarry, Jimmy Ellis, Henry Cooper, Jim Braddock, etc.; you are going to have to explain on a case-by-case basis why their ratings aren't higher. But in most cases, it's going to be because their window of having a high ranking was shorter than 12 years, or because they were more than a few spots away from #1 in their primes (i.e. for heavyweights in the 90's, you're gonna be behind Tyson, Holyfield, Lewis, Bowe, sometimes Foreman, sometimes Douglass, etc., so you're gonna be ranked like #5-7, so you're only getting like 17 all-time points per year).

[ewenhay]

I think Joshua has an awful lot to prove before anyone starts wondering where he sits on the all time heavyweight rankings let alone the all time p4p rankings. At the moment he would barely register on the richter scale for either list.

[greg]

I think Joshua has an awful lot to prove before anyone starts wondering where he sits on the all time heavyweight rankings let alone the all time p4p rankings. At the moment he would barely register on the richter scale for either list.

yep, exactly what I thought..

[man]

I think Joshua has an awful lot to prove before anyone starts wondering where he sits on the all time heavyweight rankings let alone the all time p4p rankings. At the moment he would barely register on the richter scale for either list.

sure. still. it is an interesting thought
for me and i did not have that for a
splitsecond with tyson fury and even
less with deontay wilder.

[Kalan]

Boxrec's rating system sucks and needs to be scraped..Unbiased computer inputs need to be used.. The field is tilted toward the old timers or you wouldn't have incomprehensible rankings like Bob Fitzsimmons ranked way ahead of Sonny Liston who would knock him out within a round... And Also Floyd Patterson, who Liston smashed twice in a couple minutes, when Sonny was well past his best and Patterson was 27, being ranked way ahead of Sonny?

The ranking are very fluid as well... Jim Jeffries was ranked 320th or something a couple years ago...or way down the list. All of a sudden he's 18th???

Jack Sharkey, with low win, KO, and activity ratios is ranked well ahead of Jack Dempsey---who has much better numbers and knocked Sharkey stiff as an old man.. Sharkey tailed off early, getting knocked out by the crude, wide open swinger Carnera, and refusing to fight Baer or Uzcudun.. If there's anyone Joshua would destroy it would be the chinny Sharkey, talk about horrific mismatches. Another quaint ranking is Chinny-chin-chin Ingemar Johansson.. Ingo wins one massive upset over Patterson, but is destroyed in the rematch and rubber match.. So 3 World Title fights and 1 win does wonders??? I don't see him beating anyone in the active top 10 because of his crude boxing skills and lack of durability. Anything that can be evaluated by the human eye is not a consideration of course. Two horrific KO losses to a lighter man -- is that any consideration??

Vitali Klitschko stopped 3 men who either knocked his brother Wladimir out, or knocked him to the canvas several times.. Vitali was never knocked down and was winning on points after every fight he fought.. But I guess because he lost only twice due to unfortunate injuries and finished his career winning like 13 straight World Title Fights, and finishing up when he was 41 -- and coming back after a 4-year layoff at 37 and winning a World Championship very easily with no tuneup fights -- that doesn't hit the computer.

[man]

Boxrec's rating system sucks

i love boxrec and its ratings, but
i do agree. the historic rankings
seem weird and inconsistent.

[ewenhay]

Boxrec's rating system sucks and needs to be scraped..Unbiased computer inputs need to be used.. The field is tilted toward the old timers or you wouldn't have incomprehensible rankings like Bob Fitzsimmons ranked way ahead of Sonny Liston who would knock him out within a round... And Also Floyd Patterson, who Liston smashed twice in a couple minutes, when Sonny was well past his best and Patterson was 27, being ranked way ahead of Sonny?

The ranking are very fluid as well... Jim Jeffries was ranked 320th or something a couple years ago...or way down the list. All of a sudden he's 18th???

Jack Sharkey, with low win, KO, and activity ratios is ranked well ahead of Jack Dempsey---who has much better numbers and knocked Sharkey stiff as an old man.. Sharkey tailed off early, getting knocked out by the crude, wide open swinger Carnera, and refusing to fight Baer or Uzcudun.. If there's anyone Joshua would destroy it would be the chinny Sharkey, talk about horrific mismatches. Another quaint ranking is Chinny-chin-chin Ingemar Johansson.. Ingo wins one massive upset over Patterson, but is destroyed in the rematch and rubber match.. So 3 World Title fights and 1 win does wonders??? I don't see him beating anyone in the active top 10 because of his crude boxing skills and lack of durability. Anything that can be evaluated by the human eye is not a consideration of course. Two horrific KO losses to a lighter man -- is that any consideration??

Vitali Klitschko stopped 3 men who either knocked his brother Wladimir out, or knocked him to the canvas several times.. Vitali was never knocked down and was winning on points after every fight he fought.. But I guess because he lost only twice due to unfortunate injuries and finished his career winning like 13 straight World Title Fights, and finishing up when he was 41 -- and coming back after a 4-year layoff at 37 and winning a World Championship very easily with no tuneup fights -- that doesn't hit the computer.

Yes there are some obvious anomalies there. Dempsey should be well ahead of Sharkey is a good example. It's very difficult to rank fighters from different eras but those from the same era or overlapping eras should be easier. I guess it shows how difficult it is to use numbers as the main criteria for all time lists. Things have changed so much especially the frequency boxers fight compared to say the 50s and the introduction of multiple world title belts etc.

[Kalan]

It doesn't really make a difference if there's 1 title if the division sucks.. When Marciano retired the aspirants for the title were 182-pound 21-year-old Patterson -and an ancient Light Heavyweight.. Maybe if Sonny Liston hadn't spent so many years in prison and got his deserved shot earlier it would have been different.