new WBA HW Rankings

[Tony1244]

WBA wasn't always this bad. Seems the more sanctioning bodies, the worse everyone's rankings get. Without inclusion of each others champs and belt holders, it's just sad. How they think their ratings are acceptable to the fanbase is an insult to our collective intelligence.

They just don't give a sh!t and it's sad. An amazing facet to this is IBF will often have their #2 or #3 ranked vacant. What the hell does that even mean?

[oogiebe]

They just don't give a sh!t and it's sad. An amazing facet to this is IBF will often have their #2 or #3 ranked vacant. What the hell does that even mean?

LOL!! I know. I think it's there for the other champs who don't pay their fees. Although after thinking about it, it just may be for the other champs. Rather than rank them there, they leave it blank to 'sure up' the rest of the rankings.

[Tony1244]

LOL!! I know. I think it's there for the other champs who don't pay their fees. Although after thinking about it, it just may be for the other champs. Rather than rank them there, they leave it blank to 'sure up' the rest of the rankings.

It's sort of like saying, "We're waiting for the best bribe to come in." I understand a title being vacant, but a #2 or #3 slot?
Umm, math wasn't my best subject but if 3 is "vacant" then the #4 guys becomes #3.

[oogiebe]

It's sort of like saying, "We're waiting for the best bribe to come in." I understand a title being vacant, but a #2 or #3 slot?
Umm, math wasn't my best subject but if 3 is "vacant" then the #4 guys becomes #3.

LMAO! Maybe in our world, but not in theirs! Such a joke sometimes. Geez, just tell me how you rank all the fighters in the division by accomplishment and talent and not by payment.

[oogiebe]

Ratings will always be a mess until these are adopted www.premierboxingorganisation.com/heavyweight-200
They are totally independent and fair. If you want to ascend the ratings you just have to fight someone in them. You need the top 100 so as not to be corrupt and just fill the 15th spot.

Nice layout. Maybe a bit too busy. As I eyeballed the list, I got stuck at Artur Spilkza, as it became a bit wonky after that.

I really like the ability to see previous rankings; Highest ranked boxer beaten; and vs top 50 all on one view. I don't quite understand the additional columns on Highest Ranked Boxer beaten (36, 30, 24, 18, 12).

Interesting how Dillian Whyte has the busiest record vs top 50 of all fighters at 16-2 compared to Wilder 10-0-1 and AJ 11-0.

[Lennox]

Nice layout. Maybe a bit too busy. As I eyeballed the list, I got stuck at Artur Spilkza, as it became a bit wonky after that.

I really like the ability to see previous rankings; Highest ranked boxer beaten; and vs top 50 all on one view. I don't quite understand the additional columns on Highest Ranked Boxer beaten (36, 30, 24, 18, 12).

Interesting how Dillian Whyte has the busiest record vs top 50 of all fighters at 16-2 compared to Wilder 10-0-1 and AJ 11-0.

36 30 24 18 12 are the columns for the highest ranked fighter beaten in the last 12 months, 18 months, 2 years, 30 months and 3 years,

Povetkin is 16-2 v top 50 opponents not Whyte.

Spilkza beat Wach, which in the scheme of things is pretty good. The numbers tell the story.

To create a top 10 you really need a good top 20 and to create at good top 20 you need a good top 40, the top 100 is the alignment of the man than beat the man, there are points for meaningless wins but not many points

[oogiebe]

36 30 24 18 12 are the columns for the highest ranked fighter beaten in the last 12 months, 18 months, 2 years, 30 months and 3 years,

Povetkin is 16-2 v top 50 opponents not Whyte.

Spilkza beat Wach, which in the scheme of things is pretty good. The numbers tell the story.

To create a top 10 you really need a good top 20 and to create at good top 20 you need a good top 40, the top 100 is the alignment of the man than beat the man, there are points for meaningless wins but not many points

Thanks for clearing up the top columns. Sorry I misread Pov's record as Whyte's. The screen was bit difficult to read with my aging eyes. I get what you're saying.

[Fightnight Scores]

Ratings will always be a mess until these are adopted www.premierboxingorganisation.com/heavyweight-200

They are totally independent and fair. If you want to ascend the ratings you just have to fight someone in them. You need the top 100 so as not to be corrupt and just fill the 15th spot.

I like how thorough this is with the stats or facts as such. The concept and clarity is great, but as another user has said it is a bit tricky to read, but that's purely an aesthetics thing. The basis is nice.

The idea that a "totally independant" body is needed is kind of a mute point though I feel. All the governing bodies are supposed to be independant organisations without any bias or links to boxers, promoters or tv stations....

Say IF, somehow this far down the line everyone started to value and use the PBO ranking system, and they began awarding title belts, then they will become a target for any shady dealing by promoters at that point....

I've no doubt each boxing body started out with good intentions for the sport....

[candyslim]

What I like about BoxRecs rankings is that they are totally devoid of politics and human interference, save in the creation and development of the programme and organic improvements to the algorithm. I also love the fact that every boxer is rated.

Obviously no rankings are perfect (sorry Lennox) and the system throws up some curious anomalies, but how refreshing to be free from the corruption and the mindlessness ot the "Yes he may have cleaned up the division but we don't rate him because he's your champion" bullsh1t.

My only real criticism is that when you look at rankings you're considering fighters and their position relative to each other other, you aren't really concerned with their points (being the basis of the BoxRec system). There may be a substantial number of boxers with the same number of points or no points at all, but as far as I'm aware there is no attempt to rate the fighters beyond how many points they have and I think that's a pity.

This first came to my attention when i noticed a guy with for example at 29-33-3 record rated say 50 places below a guy with a record of say 0-26. Now it turns out the first guy built an impressive win-streak and then hit the skids. This I learned when I queried this, and was told neither had any points. That makes sense but it seems to me a guy who was once fairly decent but not any more, still rates a damn sight higher in my book than someone who hasn't found anyone he can beat in 26 fights.

Now the points is one thing but I don't see any problem in applying subjective criteria (i.e. common sense) to rank those fighters relative to each other who are on the same number of points. Ok it's added work but it doesn't need to be continually updated as it doesn't need to be that accurate, just enough to eradicate that kind of jarring example that I mentioned above.

[oogiebe]

Seriously Candy. Who really wants to nitpick rankings beyond say the top 100??? Anything below that is probably not worth really tracking. So long as the entire process produces decent top 50 rankings, I'm on board. As you said and I agree that nothing is perfect, BoxRec seems to offer among the very best if not best non-subjective set of rankings. Again, not perfect, but all inclusive and a rating system approach that isn't kept secret from the public.

[candyslim]

Seriously Candy. Who really wants to nitpick rankings beyond say the top 100??? Anything below that is probably not worth really tracking. So long as the entire process produces decent top 50 rankings, I'm on board. As you said and I agree that nothing is perfect, BoxRec seems to offer among the very best if not best non-subjective set of rankings. Again, not perfect, but all inclusive and a rating system approach that isn't kept secret from the public.

I expect you're probably right. It's just me then

[oogiebe]

I expect you're probably right. It's just me then

Awww...poor boy! You make good points, but lower ranked fighters are scored to help rank those above like another poster described.

[candyslim]

Woe, woe, woe is me

Seriously I know I can be a bit anal (I hate that expression) but I do think if it's worth rating fighters, it's worth doing it to the best of your ability. If it's meaninglessly inaccurate why bother?

I realize that is of limited value and of zero value in the eyes of most. What can I say, I guess it's akin to the urge to straighten a picture hanging on someone else's wall.

[oogiebe]

Woe, woe, woe is me

Seriously I know I can be a bit anal (I hate that expression) but I do think if it's worth rating fighters, it's worth doing it to the best of your ability. If it's meaninglessly inaccurate why bother?

I realize that is of limited value and of zero value in the eyes of most. What can I say, I guess it's akin to the urge to straighten a picture hanging on someone else's wall.

I get ya'. Just keep your eyes on the important parts. The 150th ranked guy is probably decimal places above/below those around them. The purpose is for the accuracy of the top ranked fellows.

[candyslim]

Stop using logic. It's not fair

[oogiebe]

Stop using logic. It's not fair

[Fightnight Scores]

This first came to my attention when i noticed a guy with for example at 29-33-3 record rated say 50 places below a guy with a record of say 0-26. Now it turns out the first guy built an impressive win-streak and then hit the skids. This I learned when I queried this, and was told neither had any points. That makes sense but it seems to me a guy who was once fairly decent but not any more, still rates a damn sight higher in my book than someone who hasn't found anyone he can beat in 26 fights.

Okay which fighter are you? The one win 33 or 26 losses?

[Lennox]

Seriously Candy. Who really wants to nitpick rankings beyond say the top 100??? Anything below that is probably not worth really tracking. So long as the entire process produces decent top 50 rankings, I'm on board. As you said and I agree that nothing is perfect, BoxRec seems to offer among the very best if not best non-subjective set of rankings. Again, not perfect, but all inclusive and a rating system approach that isn't kept secret from the public.

Do you really think Boxrec is a better top 100 than Premier Boxing Organisation. I really don't think it is possible for anyone with a reasonable boxing knowledge to find more 'out of position' fighters in PBO v Boxrec.
I accept any system will have a weirdy that gets thrown up.
No ones top 10 or top 15 will mirror another everyone has somebody a couple of places different.
The most perfect ratings in my opinion would be a computer top 100 but adjusted for the top 10, with the caveat that 10 people alter and concentrate on just one division, they can't select anyone outside the computer top 20.

[Lennox]

I like how thorough this is with the stats or facts as such. The concept and clarity is great, but as another user has said it is a bit tricky to read, but that's purely an aesthetics thing. The basis is nice.

The idea that a "totally independant" body is needed is kind of a mute point though I feel. All the governing bodies are supposed to be independant organisations without any bias or links to boxers, promoters or tv stations....

Say IF, somehow this far down the line everyone started to value and use the PBO ranking system, and they began awarding title belts, then they will become a target for any shady dealing by promoters at that point....

I've no doubt each boxing body started out with good intentions for the sport....

Many years ago I had plenty of cash offers to insert a fighter. Obviously you can't have such a SYSTEM and do that.

[oogiebe]

Seriously Candy. Who really wants to nitpick rankings beyond say the top 100??? Anything below that is probably not worth really tracking. So long as the entire process produces decent top 50 rankings, I'm on board. As you said and I agree that nothing is perfect, BoxRec seems to offer among the very best if not best non-subjective set of rankings. Again, not perfect, but all inclusive and a rating system approach that isn't kept secret from the public.

Do you really think Boxrec is a better top 100 than Premier Boxing Organisation. I really don't think it is possible for anyone with a reasonable boxing knowledge to find more 'out of position' fighters in PBO v Boxrec.
I accept any system will have a weirdy that gets thrown up.
No ones top 10 or top 15 will mirror another everyone has somebody a couple of places different.
The most perfect ratings in my opinion would be a computer top 100 but adjusted for the top 10, with the caveat that 10 people alter and concentrate on just one division, they can't select anyone outside the computer top 20.

I didn't say either was better than the other. Not sure what your point is here.

[candyslim]

Okay which fighter are you? The one win 33 or 26 losses?

Funny guy but there is a serious point implying that no one is going to care other than the boxers themselves. Even if that's true except for a couple of weirdos like me, is that not reason enough to take care of the quality from top to bottom?

I mean you might play football for your local sunday league pub team, but if you're playing for the Rose and Crown and you've just hammered your hated rivals at the King's head, you'rs still going to want to see the results accurately reflected in the local pub league table, you'd be a bit peeved if the teams were listed in alphabetical order rather than achievement because it's only the Shitton-on-Peas district pub league, and nobody really gives a sh1t below Football league division 2.

@Lennox : Jeez I struggle to read it with those garish colours but the rankings are a vast improvement on those of the governing bodies, but having looked through them you don't have to look far to find some very questionable results: I mean Szpilka at 15. Seriously?

I go to BoxRec because it's convenient as I'm often using the forum, it lists every fighter and it's independent of any human bias. That'll do for me.

[oogiebe]

Funny, I mentioned Szpilka at 15 on another post as when I was stopped in my tracks. I like those rankings more for the additional information it provided but too much for wanting to see a quick view while I'm on BoxRec, as you mention.