50 boxrec points and now suddenly to 40

[DazBoxingFan]

Why has ALex Dilmaghani’s points suddenly dropped from 50 to 40? Since he’s only been winning, and fought only a couple of months ago knocking his lad out in the first.

[computerrank]

Why has ALex Dilmaghani’s points suddenly dropped from 50 to 40? Since he’s only been winning, and fought only a couple of months ago knocking his lad out in the first.

Please look here:

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=28051&p=5070228#p5070225

[Teflondon]

Why has ALex Dilmaghani’s points suddenly dropped from 50 to 40? Since he’s only been winning, and fought only a couple of months ago knocking his lad out in the first.

Please look here:

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=28051&p=5070228#p5070225

As a maths graduate I never truly understood the boxrec formula, or its actual relevance to ranking outside the top 20, and judging by its 'updated systems' neither does its implementer. As a boxing fan, it seems to me whoever is responsible for the rankings doesn't really understand the sport. Lets take Alex Dilmaghani as an example...….Abraham Montoya aka the slowest man in the super featherweight division is ranked around 50, and has a record full of cab driving Mexicans, and split division wins against questionable opposition, same can be said for Daniel lugo also ranked high, then theres Zoltan kovacs, with a far worse ledger. where are these points coming from? Alex Dilmaghani has fought and beaten better men than all of these guys, as has jon fernadez and Orlando cruz. you've got zelfa barrett rated around there too....hes fought and beaten nothing but guys with heavy upside down records......how can you say its an improved system?

I could continue to shred the rankings, but its obvious the new system has more holes than swiz cheese, its worse than the old one, which was pretty poor too.

Hopefully one day there will be a system that is more accurate.

[jamamb]

lol you on team alex bruh?

[DazBoxingFan]

@teflondon on point there pal

[Teflondon]

lol you on team alex bruh?

"bruh"?.........nah I just fux with team Dilmaghani homeboi, nahimsayin?!

All jokes aside though hes built himself into a solid ranking but this year the boy is going straight to the top.

Im serious in what i say though; hed beat all those guys i mentioned, watch him fight, hes world class in all departments.

seriously got to be joking having montoya and kovacs where they are....one is slower than a dead person and the other is a hungarian, so you know right there and then he cant fight.....both of which ducked fights with alex dilmaghani.

#allfactsnolax

[computerrank]

...
Lets take Alex Dilmaghani as an example...….Abraham Montoya aka the slowest man in the super featherweight division is ranked around 50, and has a record full of cab driving Mexicans, and split division wins against questionable opposition, same can be said for Daniel lugo also ranked high, then theres Zoltan kovacs, with a far worse ledger. where are these points coming from? Alex Dilmaghani has fought and beaten better men than all of these guys, as has jon fernadez and Orlando cruz. you've got zelfa barrett rated around there too....hes fought and beaten nothing but guys with heavy upside down records......how can you say its an improved system?...

It is quite simple, all 3, Montoya, Lugo and Kovacs defeated better rated opponents than Dilmaghani did.

[Teflondon]

...
Lets take Alex Dilmaghani as an example...….Abraham Montoya aka the slowest man in the super featherweight division is ranked around 50, and has a record full of cab driving Mexicans, and split division wins against questionable opposition, same can be said for Daniel lugo also ranked high, then theres Zoltan kovacs, with a far worse ledger. where are these points coming from? Alex Dilmaghani has fought and beaten better men than all of these guys, as has jon fernadez and Orlando cruz. you've got zelfa barrett rated around there too....hes fought and beaten nothing but guys with heavy upside down records......how can you say its an improved system?...

It is quite simple, all 3, Montoya, Lugo and Kovacs defeated better rated opponents than Dilmaghani did.

simple? like that ridiculous mathematical fabled boxrec formula, that is not mathematically sound?

Id like you to indulge me; what are your actual credentials, both academic and boxing.

I can instantly tell you know very little about boxing, trying to defend your ridiculous updates with a empty clarification.

its that simple? ...well if it is id like you to name them please.....go ahead and name them. Miguel angel gonzalez was a standout amatuer in mexico ( origionally signed by canelo promotions) and only lost to top prospects, tell me who has montoya or lugo fought better than him?
YouTube Montoya and his padded record opposition bums....you telling me that's legit competition? lugo too. Kovacs has beaten no one...what a 1 round job on chinny marco mccluough? whose he been beating on since then?

like I said name them.....andwhile youre at it are you saying your system is now accurate?....because I could shred your list like a piece of paper.....zelfa barretts resume for starters....his best win is a 9-2 southern area level at best fighter. I would have a little more respect for your ridiculous claims if you can back them up.


your ratings and rankings have more holes than spongebob, and boxrecs authenticity regarding them is still weak, and looked down upon.


the way you attribute points to certain wins is comical, if you would like me to i will list several recent instances.


so i would suggest you come back with factual evidence to support your theories next time you make a point......because i will present you with them in retorts.

[computerrank]

...
Lets take Alex Dilmaghani as an example...….Abraham Montoya aka the slowest man in the super featherweight division is ranked around 50, and has a record full of cab driving Mexicans, and split division wins against questionable opposition, same can be said for Daniel lugo also ranked high, then theres Zoltan kovacs, with a far worse ledger. where are these points coming from? Alex Dilmaghani has fought and beaten better men than all of these guys, as has jon fernadez and Orlando cruz. you've got zelfa barrett rated around there too....hes fought and beaten nothing but guys with heavy upside down records......how can you say its an improved system?...

It is quite simple, all 3, Montoya, Lugo and Kovacs defeated better rated opponents than Dilmaghani did.

the only thing simple is your brain. Id like you to indulge me; what are your actual credentials, both academic and boxing.

I can instantly tell you know very little about boxing, trying to defend your ridiculous updates with a empty clarification.

its that simple? ...well if it is id like you to name them please.....go ahead and name them. Miguel angel gonzalez was a standout amatuer in mexico ( origionally signed by canelo promotions) and only lost to top prospects, tell me who has montoya or lugo fought better than him?
YouTube Montoya and his padded record opposition bums....you telling me that's legit competition? lugo too. Kovacs has beaten no one...what a 1 round job on chinny marco mccluough? whose he been beating on since then?

its clear you dont know your boxing frauline.....like the majority of your countrymen, who rob anyone coming over to visit ze germans :). You must be the only one who doesn't run efficiently!

like I said name them.....and are you saying your system is now accurate?....because I could shred your list like a piece of paper.....zelfa barretts resume for starters....his best win is a 9-2 southern area level at best fighter. I would have a little more respect for your ridiculous claims if you can back them up.

Dilmaghani's best win was Ulises Perez with 19 points before the bout.

Montoyas' best wins were against Suarez 37 points, Lopez 36 points and Lara 29 points.

Lugo's best win is Pins with 34 points.

Kovacs's best wins were against McCullough with 51 points, Cheka with 28 points and Herrnandez with 22 points.

Boxrec goes for facts not for mouth work

[Teflondon]

It is quite simple, all 3, Montoya, Lugo and Kovacs defeated better rated opponents than Dilmaghani did.

the only thing simple is your brain. Id like you to indulge me; what are your actual credentials, both academic and boxing.

I can instantly tell you know very little about boxing, trying to defend your ridiculous updates with a empty clarification.

its that simple? ...well if it is id like you to name them please.....go ahead and name them. Miguel angel gonzalez was a standout amatuer in mexico ( origionally signed by canelo promotions) and only lost to top prospects, tell me who has montoya or lugo fought better than him?
YouTube Montoya and his padded record opposition bums....you telling me that's legit competition? lugo too. Kovacs has beaten no one...what a 1 round job on chinny marco mccluough? whose he been beating on since then?

its clear you dont know your boxing frauline.....like the majority of your countrymen, who rob anyone coming over to visit ze germans :). You must be the only one who doesn't run efficiently!

like I said name them.....and are you saying your system is now accurate?....because I could shred your list like a piece of paper.....zelfa barretts resume for starters....his best win is a 9-2 southern area level at best fighter. I would have a little more respect for your ridiculous claims if you can back them up.

Dilmaghani's best win was Ulises Perez with 19 points before the bout.

Montoyas' best wins were against Suarez 37 points, Lopez 36 points and Lara 29 points.

Lugo's best win is Pins with 34 points.

Kovacs's best wins were against McCullough with 51 points, Cheka with 28 points and Herrnandez with 22 points.

Boxrec goes for facts not for mouth work

lol so youre reading off of fighters who had more points that you attributed incorrectly for meaningless wins, when you have admitted you attributed them incorrectly in the first place and thats why you needed a new system.

suarez record...how did he get to 37 points please? or lopez? look at he records of those men he fought.....EXACTLY?!

same with everyone else you listed.

Youve been giving crazy points to guys for meaningless wins, and then try and use that as the SUPPORTING reason for why your system is accurate?

id stick to golf if i was you.

Again you dont even dare touch the other points i made....theres been occasion for fighters losing points for knockout wins.....for example when andy townends trainer had to make a post about it.

Your system is flawed, and i dont think you can use your jedi mind tricks on anyone to convince them otherwise.

boxrec has so many 'factual flaws' not 'mouth work' so don't patronise me frauline :).....your boxrec ratings sytems is as reliable as your famous countrymen judges

oh is this the special lara (http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/685576) who got to 29 points beating debutants and guys with no wins....in his penultimate bout he beat a guy who was 2 and 12 (and fought pies to get that record) on a low end mickey mouse show, and you gave him 2 points for that, wheras Dilmaghani stops arrazola with a 24-16 record (whose fought a combined 9 ex world champions) and never ever been knocked out in a round....and you gave him 1 point? Come on man, you cant defend that!

That's why myself and others have little faith in boxrec rankings for the future.

I can only think that there is some extraneous factor (possibly human) that has some bias against certain fighters, I will be monitoring this more closely to see if I am right or wrong.

Lastly I would like to ask why only boxrec employees seem to know the potential points from fights? and why when actual putting them into the boxrec formula they don't always match up, and in some cases are quite far out.

I think I speak for a lot of people when I say the official boxrec points calculator should be posted online. would you be against this?

[JCS]

Seeing you use the term "Boxrec Employees" and also asking if the "calculator" can be posted online, speaks to how little you know about the system and the effort that went/goes into it.

[Teflondon]

Seeing you use the term "Boxrec Employees" and also asking if the "calculator" can be posted online, speaks to how little you know about the system and the effort that went/goes into it.

well i wasnt aware this was a boxrec appreciation of effort post...so im not sure why you brought it up....as far as what goes into it...im guessing its numbers? :)

Boxrec employees, volunteers, whichever the technical term is, should be competent and implement a system that is fair and works. All i see is those such members defend a system which hasnt improved and seems to regress.

There is a calculator that they use, not sure what point you were looking to make? Because there is a formula, (one that is universally challenged) and it isnt always accurate, have you tried it out? do you have a mathematics and statistics degree? so until you have and you do, i suggest you 'steer' aware from that comment.


Besides whats wrong with having a boxrec calculator online, FYI there once was one!

[JCS]

Seeing you use the term "Boxrec Employees" and also asking if the "calculator" can be posted online, speaks to how little you know about the system and the effort that went/goes into it.

well i wasnt aware this was a boxrec appreciation of effort post...so im not sure why you brought it up....as far as what goes into it...im guessing its numbers? :)

Boxrec employees, volunteers, whichever the technical term is, should be competent and implement a system that is fair and works. All i see is those such members defend a system which hasnt improved and seems to regress.

There is a calculator that they use, not sure what point you were looking to make? Because there is a formula, (one that is universally challenged) and it isnt always accurate, have you tried it out? do you have a mathematics and statistics degree? so until you have and you do, i suggest you 'steer' aware from that comment.


Besides whats wrong with having a boxrec calculator online, FYI there once was one!

Wow.. is all I want to say to your reply, but I'll say more.

I'm not sure if you have a "mathematics and statistics" degree, but if you do... I really hope English is not your first language.. because you sound really uninformed. "There is a calculator that they use" -- Who? The tiny men inside the BoxRec server? Do you think someone manually calculates the ratings? That comment made zero sense.

If you'd read the Wiki, you'd understand that it isn't just a "formula"... there are many supporting elements that go along with it.

FYI - I used to assist w/ the inner workings of the BoxRec system many years ago and have since, created the leading MMA software-based rating system on the Internet.. you should check it out. Just like this one.. people have their complaints.. but I'll take the output of the BoxRec system over your opinions any day of the week. I doubt you have the attention span or the capacity to -really- understand how the system even begins to work, so I'm going to stop wasting my time. You ask how a certain boxer got to 37 points.. go view their profile and find out.

Just realize, the system goes from the first bout in existence and chronologically moves through each bout to the current date in order to calculate today's ratings. Any change you make, can affect any and all bouts in the sequence.. and on and on.... so your thoughts on specific fighters basically means zero.

[Teflondon]

Seeing you use the term "Boxrec Employees" and also asking if the "calculator" can be posted online, speaks to how little you know about the system and the effort that went/goes into it.

well i wasnt aware this was a boxrec appreciation of effort post...so im not sure why you brought it up....as far as what goes into it...im guessing its numbers? :)

Boxrec employees, volunteers, whichever the technical term is, should be competent and implement a system that is fair and works. All i see is those such members defend a system which hasnt improved and seems to regress.

There is a calculator that they use, not sure what point you were looking to make? Because there is a formula, (one that is universally challenged) and it isnt always accurate, have you tried it out? do you have a mathematics and statistics degree? so until you have and you do, i suggest you 'steer' aware from that comment.


Besides whats wrong with having a boxrec calculator online, FYI there once was one!

Wow.. is all I want to say to your reply, but I'll say more.

I'm not sure if you have a "mathematics and statistics" degree, but if you do... I really hope English is not your first language.. because you sound really uninformed. "There is a calculator that they use" -- Who? The tiny men inside the BoxRec server? Do you think someone manually calculates the ratings? That comment made zero sense.

If you'd read the Wiki, you'd understand that it isn't just a "formula"... there are many supporting elements that go along with it.

FYI - I used to assist w/ the inner workings of the BoxRec system many years ago and have since, created the leading MMA software-based rating system on the Internet.. you should check it out. Just like this one.. people have their complaints.. but I'll take the output of the BoxRec system over your opinions any day of the week. I doubt you have the attention span or the capacity to -really- understand how the system even begins to work, so I'm going to stop wasting my time. You ask how a certain boxer got to 37 points.. go view their profile and find out.

Just realize, the system goes from the first bout in existence and chronologically moves through each bout to the current date in order to calculate today's ratings. Any change you make, can affect any and all bouts in the sequence.. and on and on.... so your thoughts on specific fighters basically means zero.

Wow - arent you a smart guy, i guess with all those huge words you used and accolades you heaped upon yourself you really are a smart guy...much smarter than someone who 'hasnt used PEDs since college' or has been 'drinking since his early teens and destroyed his liver' or had carl frampton 'winning a wide decision'. I guess its true what they say regarding american universities....can you play a sport? ....were give you a degree :)

I could discuss right now why any formula is technical flawed when it comes to rating all fighters in a certain way, since boxing is a subjective sport in the first place, but im guessing you dont have the brain power to understand something as basic as spearmans rank, let alone testing a null hypothesis, so were leave it there. After all you cant educate pork, especially at your age :)

Now again this points system you bang on about ive read the wiki.....there is a boxing calculator......and obviously its a piece of software, are you that dense, to think people dont know that its not manually inputted?

You talk about these other magical factors that go into it?.....thats funny because they provide a 'numercial example' to show how a fighter arrives at those points....it doesnt say they add some magical dust on at the end, however like my previous points indicated, i have no doubt that this inaccurate formula is doing something strange.

There are countless examples of fighters that have had points heaped upon them for defeating poor opposition, and vice versa, that was my orig point if you actually took the time to read the post fully instead of getting butthurt, but i guess you missed that. That isnt really an opinion, its a fact, and when you look at certain fighters records and how they received the points for fighting cans, youll understand that......case and point zelfa barrett rated above mark urnanov? look at the records and the fighters they've beaten and tell me how is that possible? Zelfas beaten like 2 guys with novice winning records, and the rest out and out journeyman..... This is my whole point, how are they getting these points because MATHEMATICALLY its not possible UNDER THE FORMULA PROVIDEDBY BOXREC.

I can then progress onto the fact some fighters have points removed after as little as a 3 months inactivity whereas others dont lose any points over a much longer peroid.

Like i say boxrec can change their system, because it needs that, but they should leave the word 'improved' out of it, because its shown to not be, especially with all these other extraneous variables that only a select few it seems are privvy too.

I could say more but its obvious this will continue forever if I do, and theres clearly no point dragging this on, as the only people seemingly happy to defend the boxrec points system is those people involved in it, or know people that are.

And lastly im English, and yes its my first language, you're American, you speak a declined version of it :)

[Lennox]

The Independent World Boxing Rankings are vastly superior to Boxrec which favours useless wins.

With the IWBR you ascend by beating rated opponents. The Boxrec system tries to copy the IWBR formula.

I am not allowed to post the link to the top 100 Super-featherweight rankings but none of the fighters you mention are rated in the top 100 because they have not beaten strong enough fighters with the exception of Kovacs who has 1 rated opponent.

[JCS]

The Independent World Boxing Rankings are vastly superior to Boxrec which favours useless wins.

With the IWBR you ascend by beating rated opponents. The Boxrec system tries to copy the IWBR formula.

I am not allowed to post the link to the top 100 Super-featherweight rankings but none of the fighters you mention are rated in the top 100 because they have not beaten strong enough fighters with the exception of Kovacs who has 1 rated opponent.

I scrolled past Mr. Teflon's wall of text... done wasting effort on him.

As for you, the problem with posting your links is that you almost always do it strictly for advertising. In this case, you've at least tried to make a post with some substance in a relevant thread.. so I'd be OK with you linking here.

However, the last time I tried to take your rankings seriously, I saw you dismissed the full weight of the Burnett/Donaire fight. It ended on an injury, yes, but one that occurred while boxing... it isn't like he tripped getting off the stool in between rounds.. Seems pretty pretentious to make a call like that.

You've cited "rated" opponents.... how does a rated opponent get rated in the first place? Your system makes the call, right? Sounds like a chicken and egg sort of ordeal.. no? That's the problem with these types of comparisons and arguments... if there's no independent tribunal or criteria that's independent of the rating system, it's really just a different way of looking at things and I can't see how one system can be called better than the other in this case.

[Lennox]

JCS - Anyone that really understands boxing knows that the IWBR is in a different league to Boxrec rankings.

Reasoning why IWBR is better or different is really just done with the eyes. Boxrec's top 10 has vastly improved as its operator tweaks the system but what is he tweaking it too? Mine.

Yes we have over-riders for injury defeats/wins. It might be wrong to Boxrec but ultimately it produces a skewed rating later down the line. Once again its.... if you understand boxing.

Everyone looking at any set of ratings will think that one fighter is out of position with their own reasoning. IWBR is about beating a rated opponent with Boxrec it has been more about beating anyone. TBRN is more about who is a champion. Each will produce some better ratings than another at different times.

We did not just start with a set of ratings out of fresh air. We firstly took the champions in each weight class and produced a 5 year tree back to 1986. We based the first set of 10 on the combination of the top 10 from the Ring, Boxing News, Boxing Illustrated, we added the fighters ranked in each of the 5 orgs top 10 but a top 30 from the WBC. We added the figters they fought and who fought them and from there we found a lineage display based on the man that beat the man, over 7 years it is impossible that we missed anyone, every fighter in fightax was added and every fight was recorded thereafter, at one stage we ranked every fighter but it was pointless so in late 1998 we went back to publishing just a top 100 (there is ofcourse an active 100 or so below below the line which are worthy). To get in the ratings the best way is to just beat an opponent that is rated. We have some back door methods to help African fighters where it is not easy to get opponents and some old methods are now shut down mainly because Ali Raymi got to number 46 (#1 or 2 in Boxrec I think).

So it was not just chicken and the egg, there was significant research from 1986 to establish lineage.

[JCS]

Don't think Raymi made the top two at Boxrec,,, maybe #6 or 7... this doesn't feel like the first time you've exaggerated that, but I won't swear to it.

I'm sure plenty of folks will disagree with that Burnett/Donaire override.. it's not like it wasn't also a close fight, it was. The Ring acknowledged it.. but you will not?

So one of the last times we discussed.. I suggested there was some manual handling and you took that as a compliment, suggesting that wasn't the case.. but it obviously is if you're overriding outcomes and did some manual placements in the past..

Can you produce rankings prior to 1986?

[computerrank]

Ali Haymi's career top Boxrec rating is 19 points in 2015 at Light Flyweight, ranking him #45. The seed algorithm was changed in 2015.

[Lennox]

Ali Haymi's career top Boxrec rating is 19 points in 2015 at Light Flyweight, ranking him #45. The seed algorithm was changed in 2015.

You had him much higher than that at the time. He was def top 10. He was 1 or 2 with the IBO. JCS is right he was prob 5 or 7.

[Lennox]

Don't think Raymi made the top two at Boxrec,,, maybe #6 or 7... this doesn't feel like the first time you've exaggerated that, but I won't swear to it. I think you are right 6 or 7

I'm sure plenty of folks will disagree with that Burnett/Donaire override.. it's not like it wasn't also a close fight, it was. The Ring acknowledged it.. but you will not?No we will continue to put in over-riders where appropriate

So one of the last times we discussed.. I suggested there was some manual handling and you took that as a compliment, suggesting that wasn't the case.. but it obviously is if you're overriding outcomes and did some manual placements in the past.. We did not do any manual changes until Mads Larsen got beat on a cut and we realised it was stupid to count it as a knock out loss reduce points and put Trevor Ambrose higher. Manual changes for divisions is very regular, for other things it is unusual

Can you produce rankings prior to 1986?yes but would take a long time

[JCS]

Don't think Raymi made the top two at Boxrec,,, maybe #6 or 7... this doesn't feel like the first time you've exaggerated that, but I won't swear to it. I think you are right 6 or 7

I'm sure plenty of folks will disagree with that Burnett/Donaire override.. it's not like it wasn't also a close fight, it was. The Ring acknowledged it.. but you will not?No we will continue to put in over-riders where appropriate

So one of the last times we discussed.. I suggested there was some manual handling and you took that as a compliment, suggesting that wasn't the case.. but it obviously is if you're overriding outcomes and did some manual placements in the past.. We did not do any manual changes until Mads Larsen got beat on a cut and we realised it was stupid to count it as a knock out loss reduce points and put Trevor Ambrose higher. Manual changes for divisions is very regular, for other things it is unusual

Can you produce rankings prior to 1986?yes but would take a long time

I'll have to re-visit the BoxRec rating system as there have been recent changes I haven't kept up on... but it sounds like we're comparing two different systems at this point.

One can go from bout 1 to current and can be paused at any point.. doesn't rely on a comprehensive manual pre-rank and isn't subjected to manual overrides.

Your system is ultimately a hybrid approach that can't provide historical rankings prior to the mid 1980s and can have its inputs tweaked when necessary to provide a more pleasing result on a subjective level.


What I personally don't like in either system, are the non-gradual rating reductions/removals.

On BoxRec, if you don't face a quality opponent in the last 18 months, you can lose a ton of your rating... but if you faced one in 17 months 29 days, your rating is fine.

I realize at SOME level, you have to do things like this... but unless the system is strictly used as a core principle in matchmaking.. such as in a formalized, governed sports league.. they (in my opinion) should always err on the side of leniency.

[Lennox]

JCS - I don't think it takes long to understand that boxing is rarely about even matches. Matchmakers let the house fighter build a record with some experience of the different genres and styles before testing the water with top 200 gatekeepers, top 100 gatekeeper and higher. It is pretty much repeated for every fighter that signs with a promotional company. Some fighters are not so good, some were not great but get better, these become losers or stepping stones some are good fighters and some are tested fighters that did not pass a certain gatekeeper stage. By and large until people fight and beat a measured top 100 fighter we don't know how good they are, the method of how they win will also give some indication of their next or future level.

PBO or IWBR top 100 has measured fighters. Boxrec top 100 is littered fighters with no strong wins. Boxrec ratings are now better I once argued that Ray Mercer was ranked too low at 300...computerrank could not see it, yet there were three fight novices ranked higher.

Boxrec and IWBR both make a decision where to place a fighter if he weights 169 pounds. Sometimes Boxrec will get it wrong sometimes IWBR will place the fighter in the wrong division. Some fighters can add weight or lose it fairly easily some can't but it has to be a manual call.

I think rankings will get severly distorted if you count a silly win so if 'the press' by 76% say the other man won we flip the result. If we disagree then we disagree but it is the way we have worked since Trevor Ambrose beat Mads Larsen.

We link fighters so if you have beaten me you will be ahead of me for a given time. If I win I push you, if you win I cushion you.

I will watch Boxrec new ratings and see if there is an improvement, there definitely has been in the first 10, Merry xmas anyway.

[JCS]

JCS - I don't think it takes long to understand that boxing is rarely about even matches. Matchmakers let the house fighter build a record with some experience of the different genres and styles before testing the water with top 200 gatekeepers, top 100 gatekeeper and higher. It is pretty much repeated for every fighter that signs with a promotional company. Some fighters are not so good, some were not great but get better, these become losers or stepping stones some are good fighters and some are tested fighters that did not pass a certain gatekeeper stage. By and large until people fight and beat a measured top 100 fighter we don't know how good they are, the method of how they win will also give some indication of their next or future level.

PBO or IWBR top 100 has measured fighters. Boxrec top 100 is littered fighters with no strong wins. Boxrec ratings are now better I once argued that Ray Mercer was ranked too low at 300...computerrank could not see it, yet there were three fight novices ranked higher.

Boxrec and IWBR both make a decision where to place a fighter if he weights 169 pounds. Sometimes Boxrec will get it wrong sometimes IWBR will place the fighter in the wrong division. Some fighters can add weight or lose it fairly easily some can't but it has to be a manual call.

I think rankings will get severly distorted if you count a silly win so if 'the press' by 76% say the other man won we flip the result. If we disagree then we disagree but it is the way we have worked since Trevor Ambrose beat Mads Larsen.

We link fighters so if you have beaten me you will be ahead of me for a given time. If I win I push you, if you win I cushion you.

I will watch Boxrec new ratings and see if there is an improvement, there definitely has been in the first 10, Merry xmas anyway.

Are you going to count Charlo/Harrison?

[Lennox]

Yeah atm going to treat it as a Harrison win. looks like most thought JC won but it does not look like going to 76%.