Jens S wrote: ↑01 Apr 2019, 19:19
As I read your answer, you wrote, that you were going to change the ratings so 50 % would have a point. Now you won't do it anyway? But I honestly really don't think, I got an answer. Why the sudden and extreme change in the level of points? Has Boxrec been wrong for a decade or so? It seems more like a personal opinion to me, than anything else. And it gives lack of transparency and therefore lack of credibility.
I would like to quote you:
"You cannot give points for meaningless bouts".
As you say, Boxrec gives fractional points. So you do give points
There are some meaningless fights, and I know, that you are aware of that. Bogus fights in Eastern Europe, that hardly can be called sparring. It''s more like shadowboxing. I know that Boxrec has demanded videos of fights from suspicious areas as verification. Thanks! A great step which I appreciate. But fights building up fighters or even fights at a lower level are not meaningless. It is a wrong way to look at boxing.
I think the owners of Boxrec should take a step back and look at what Boxrec is about, what the rankings should show, and who they are for. Is the idea of Boxrec not to give transparency in boxing? Instead of bogus rankings from governing bodies we get computerrankings based on results (which of course is not an exact science, but gives a very good idea of the strength of the boxers). Isn't the basis of Boxrec the users? Isn't it fulfilling their need of information, that makes the site great? Why keep information back from the users? If you really insist on only giving the fighters fractional points, then why not make them public?
I also think, that you should announce on the front page of Boxrec, every time you chance the ratings. In Denmark, where I live, there arose a feud between two promotors/managers, because you changed the ratings. One of them claimed that his fighter was the higher rated (which was correct at the time). A few days later, the other came out publicly calling the other one a liar, because his fighter was ranked higher (which was correct that day). Only because of a screendump was it possible to verify the first claim. That is not good for anybody. Not the promotors/managers, nor boxing or Boxrec.
But let me show you some things from the rankings:
http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/664616
Joe Jones (8-0, 7 KO) beats a guy with one point. He knocks out Rex Harris (4-5-2, 2 KO) in the third round. After that fight we have two fighters with no points. Joe Jones (Now 9-0, 8 KO) then gets knocked out by Shawndell Terell Winters (9-1, 8 KO) in the fifth round. Still no points.
Now lets look at Jonas Madsen versus Andreas Lynggaard:
http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/736932
Two fighters with both 0 points fights to a SD. Jonas Madsen moves to 2 points. So a close win over a opponent with fewer points give more.
That really seems weird. But maybe there is an explanation.
But this seems inexplicable:
Sarah Mahfoud (6-0, 3 KO) versus Stephanie Ducastel (8-4-2, 2 KO):
http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/786389
Ducastel has fought a draw with Jelena Mrdjenovic - the best in the division - just 16 months before. And Ducastel came in with two points. Sarah Mahfoud came in with 0 points, but won every single round against a fighter with 2 points on all three scorecards - 80-72. She only moves from 0 to 1 point.
In the same division:
http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/718233
Licia Boudersa (3-1-1, 0 KO) versus Elodie Bouchlaka (1-0-2, 0 KO)
None of Licia Boudersas opponents has ever had a point before or after.
None of Elodie Bouchlakas opponents has ever had a point before or after - except Boudersa.
Boudersa wins 79-73, 78-75 and 78-74. A fairly clear win, but not a shutout as Mahfoud did in her fight against Ducastel.
They were both at 0 points. Still Boudersa moved from 0 to 2 points.
How can this happen??? Mahfoud clearly fought better opponents before her fight than Boudersa, she had better results - all wins, she beat a clearly better fighter, and she did it more convincingly. Yet she didn't even get the same amount of points. No, she got less.
There is something wrong in the system!
About the stars - there are problems too.
http://boxrec.com/en/ratings?offset=7750
The fighter ranked 7790 has half a star. The fighter ranked 7977 has one star. So the higher ranked fighter has half a star less. He is ranked 187 spots above.
Here it is the same in a weight division
Look a number 695, Larry Smith. He has a full star. Jarvis Shephard at number 672 has half a star.
http://boxrec.com/en/ratings?offset=650 ... ddleweight
The same story here:
http://boxrec.com/en/ratings?offset=450 ... therweight
How can this happen?
Now if such things had happened in the rankings of WB-something - how would you look upon it? Transparency and comprehensibility is needed in boxing. That also goes for Boxrec.
Best regards
Jens S
PS. Duran1970: Hall of Famer, all time great, four time world champion George Dixon is ranked 194 at the all time featherweight:
http://boxrec.com/en/ratings?r_go=&yrR% ... offset=150
