Ratings - please read before commenting

[Manrae]

May I ask you to explain why Michael Hunter is in the 9th place in the ranking? On what basis is he so highly ranked? I can't comprehend it. He recently lost to Artem Suslenkov and you ignore that fight. I can see you have finally adjusted the ranking of the overrated Jared Anderson, who was again ranked in the top 10 for no rational reason except for paid rankings of government bodies as he never fought anyone except for Charles Martin, the worst world heavyweight champion in history, with whom he struggled big time. I'm patiently waiting for your plausible explanation.

F90cking over innocent boxers to appease corrupt organizations against another...

[SportsRatings]

May I ask you to explain why Michael Hunter is in the 9th place in the ranking? On what basis is he so highly ranked? I can't comprehend it. He recently lost to Artem Suslenkov and you ignore that fight. I can see you have finally adjusted the ranking of the overrated Jared Anderson, who was again ranked in the top 10 for no rational reason except for paid rankings of government bodies as he never fought anyone except for Charles Martin, the worst world heavyweight champion in history, with whom he struggled big time. I'm patiently waiting for your plausible explanation.

Boxrec has ignored several IBA fights, including the Michael Hunter loss, and there's been no explanation so far. It's been months that people here have been bringing the issue up.

As for Jared Anderson, his rating wasn't "adjusted" he actually lost a fight and dropped because of that. He belonged in the top 10 before that though, pretty much everyone had him top 10 or very close, so you're the outlier there.

[computerrank]

May I ask you to explain why Michael Hunter is in the 9th place in the ranking? On what basis is he so highly ranked? I can't comprehend it. He recently lost to Artem Suslenkov and you ignore that fight. I can see you have finally adjusted the ranking of the overrated Jared Anderson, who was again ranked in the top 10 for no rational reason except for paid rankings of government bodies as he never fought anyone except for Charles Martin, the worst world heavyweight champion in history, with whom he struggled big time. I'm patiently waiting for your plausible explanation.

Boxrec has ignored several IBA fights, including the Michael Hunter loss, and there's been no explanation so far. It's been months that people here have been bringing the issue up.

As for Jared Anderson, his rating wasn't "adjusted" he actually lost a fight and dropped because of that. He belonged in the top 10 before that though, pretty much everyone had him top 10 or very close, so you're the outlier there.

This thread only is for discussion of the ratings algorithm. It is not for a discussion, which bouts are counted in BoxRec and which are not.

[damage]

Is Tommy Welch now counted as a Bridgerweight fighter, he's not in the heavyweight ratings & fought in May.

[computerrank]

Is Tommy Welch now counted as a Bridgerweight fighter, he's not in the heavyweight ratings & fought in May.

It wasn't an editor, who erased his division - so it was the housekeeping routine .. yes.

[Manrae]

Hypothetical Question

If Eduardo Nunez...
https://boxrec.com/en/box-pro/733152

would've had his 11th round KO victory on February 16th, 2024 against Shavkatdzhon Rakhimov...
https://boxrec.com/en/box-pro/740705

count as an official bout on Boxrec, what would be his current ranking at 130 and what would've been the bout's star rating as of today?

[computerrank]

Hypothetical Question

If Eduardo Nunez...
https://boxrec.com/en/box-pro/733152

would've had his 11th round KO victory on February 16th, 2024 against Shavkatdzhon Rakhimov...
https://boxrec.com/en/box-pro/740705

count as an official bout on Boxrec, what would be his current ranking at 130 and what would've been the bout's star rating as of today?

#3 and 4 stars

[Manrae]

Hypothetical Question

If Eduardo Nunez...
https://boxrec.com/en/box-pro/733152

would've had his 11th round KO victory on February 16th, 2024 against Shavkatdzhon Rakhimov...
https://boxrec.com/en/box-pro/740705

count as an official bout on Boxrec, what would be his current ranking at 130 and what would've been the bout's star rating as of today?

#3 and 4 stars

I see, thank you

2 more questions, if you don't mind

https://boxrec.com/en/box-pro/720968 This boxer just lost, yet is still ranked significantly higher than his opponent. Is this a bug or correct?

What's more important in improving a boxer"s rating, activity or quality of opponent? (with all other variables held constant)

For example, if boxer A wins 4 bouts by KO against 1 star opponents and (in the same time frame) boxer Z wins 1 bout against a 4 star opponent, (with all other variables held constant) which has greater value?

[margaret thatcher]

looks like kj and kenbun are ranked in different divisions

[computerrank]

...
2 more questions, if you don't mind

https://boxrec.com/en/box-pro/720968 This boxer just lost, yet is still ranked significantly higher than his opponent. Is this a bug or correct?

What's more important in improving a boxer"s rating, activity or quality of opponent? (with all other variables held constant)

For example, if boxer A wins 4 bouts by KO against 1 star opponents and (in the same time frame) boxer Z wins 1 bout against a 4 star opponent, (with all other variables held constant) which has greater value?

The winner is rated higher than the loser. But the competition in Super Flyweight is much weaker than at Batamweight. So the winner's rank at Bantamweight is much worse than the loser's at Super Flyweight.

Quality of opponent is more important than activity.

[Manrae]

...
2 more questions, if you don't mind

https://boxrec.com/en/box-pro/720968 This boxer just lost, yet is still ranked significantly higher than his opponent. Is this a bug or correct?

What's more important in improving a boxer"s rating, activity or quality of opponent? (with all other variables held constant)

For example, if boxer A wins 4 bouts by KO against 1 star opponents and (in the same time frame) boxer Z wins 1 bout against a 4 star opponent, (with all other variables held constant) which has greater value?

The winner is rated higher than the loser. But the competition in Super Flyweight is much weaker than at Batamweight. So the winner's rank at Bantamweight is much worse than the loser's at Super Flyweight.

Quality of opponent is more important than activity.

Got it. Thanks.

[Manrae]

...
2 more questions, if you don't mind

https://boxrec.com/en/box-pro/720968 This boxer just lost, yet is still ranked significantly higher than his opponent. Is this a bug or correct?

What's more important in improving a boxer"s rating, activity or quality of opponent? (with all other variables held constant)

For example, if boxer A wins 4 bouts by KO against 1 star opponents and (in the same time frame) boxer Z wins 1 bout against a 4 star opponent, (with all other variables held constant) which has greater value?

The winner is rated higher than the loser. But the competition in Super Flyweight is much weaker than at Batamweight. So the winner's rank at Bantamweight is much worse than the loser's at Super Flyweight.

Quality of opponent is more important than activity.

I see that Kenbun is now ranked at Super Flyweight. And is still way behind his opponent...

[computerrank]

...
2 more questions, if you don't mind

https://boxrec.com/en/box-pro/720968 This boxer just lost, yet is still ranked significantly higher than his opponent. Is this a bug or correct?

What's more important in improving a boxer"s rating, activity or quality of opponent? (with all other variables held constant)

For example, if boxer A wins 4 bouts by KO against 1 star opponents and (in the same time frame) boxer Z wins 1 bout against a 4 star opponent, (with all other variables held constant) which has greater value?

The winner is rated higher than the loser. But the competition in Super Flyweight is much weaker than at Batamweight. So the winner's rank at Bantamweight is much worse than the loser's at Super Flyweight.

Quality of opponent is more important than activity.

I see that Kenbun is now ranked at Super Flyweight. And is still way behind his opponent...

He is ranked correct now after the daily rating ...

[Oscar1999]

Can you please add Aman Rehman and Christopher king to uk Ratings

[Manrae]

The winner is rated higher than the loser. But the competition in Super Flyweight is much weaker than at Batamweight. So the winner's rank at Bantamweight is much worse than the loser's at Super Flyweight.

Quality of opponent is more important than activity.

I see that Kenbun is now ranked at Super Flyweight. And is still way behind his opponent...

He is ranked correct now after the daily rating ...

Ahh, so the rating is updated as soon as the bout is added, but the ranking changes after the daily refresh, correct?

[computerrank]

I see that Kenbun is now ranked at Super Flyweight. And is still way behind his opponent...

He is ranked correct now after the daily rating ...

Ahh, so the rating is updated as soon as the bout is added, but the ranking changes after the daily refresh, correct?

yes

[computerrank]

Can you please add Aman Rehman and Christopher king to uk Ratings

for both nationality wasn't added ...

[Manrae]

He is ranked correct now after the daily rating ...

Ahh, so the rating is updated as soon as the bout is added, but the ranking changes after the daily refresh, correct?

yes

Got it.

Thanks

[Khash]

Some boxers with recorded Amateur fights on Boxrec do not get their Professional rating activated, even though the Professional fights is the most recent or in some case the amateur fight was over a year ago while the pro fight is a couple months ago, what is the time limits in that matter? Or how to get them activated please look into it

[computerrank]

Some boxers with recorded Amateur fights on Boxrec do not get their Professional rating activated, even though the Professional fights is the most recent or in some case the amateur fight was over a year ago while the pro fight is a couple months ago, what is the time limits in that matter? Or how to get them activated please look into it

This is no ratings algorithm question. Please post that in the forum 'Record Questions and Updates'

[Andrew Brown]

Hello,

I hope you’re doing well.

I’m writing to ask for some clarification regarding recent changes to Victor Nagbe’s ranking on Boxrec.com.

After the Nikita Tszyu vs Koen Mazoudier fight on 28/08/2024, Victor was ranked #5 in the Super Welterweight division, with Koen dropping to #8. However, about a week later, without any new fights or events, Victor’s rank dropped from #5 to #6, and Dan Hill moved up to #5. This is surprising given that Victor had, and still has, a superior record (8 Wins, 3 KOs, 1 Loss, 0 KOs) compared to Dan Hill (6 Wins, 3 KOs, 1 Loss, 1 KO).

Interestingly, after Dan Hill’s fight on 14/09/2024, the rankings automatically returned Victor to #5, but a few days later, his rank dropped again without any fights taking place. This has raised some questions, particularly around the possibility of human intervention in the rankings.

Could you please help us understand how these ranking changes occurred and whether there were any factors or interventions involved? We are trying to get a clearer picture of how the system works and what might have influenced these adjustments.

Please note that we have read the information about how the Boxrec algorithm works. But any information you can provide regarding this case would be very helpful.

[margaret thatcher]

if you've read about the algorithm surely you understand that rankings arent just about win to loss ratios. 8-1 is not itself 'superior' to 7-1 from a ranking perspective. if it were just about counting wins, 10-0 vs cans who've never boxed would be superior to 9-1 with 9 wins over reigning world champs.

further, you didnt mention that dan hill, the guy supposedly with the inferior record, actually beat victor.....

fair enough to want to know about the changes that happened, but surely you arent so naive about what makes one record better than another.

[Andrew Brown]

Thank you for your response. However, I find it necessary to address a few points that seem to have been overlooked and clarify my initial inquiry, which remains unanswered—specifically, whether there was any human intervention involved in the ranking changes.

You rightly mentioned that rankings are not solely based on win-to-loss ratios. However, if we’re going to evaluate the records thoroughly, it’s important to note that Victor Nagbe’s record (8 Wins, 3 KOs, 1 Loss, 0 KOs) versus Dan Hill’s record (6 Wins, 3 KOs, 1 Loss, 1 KO) at the time the rankings changed demonstrates a clear difference. While both fighters have similar KO percentages, Victor had more wins overall, and importantly, he was never knocked out, whereas Dan Hill was.

Furthermore, it's crucial to consider that Victor had beaten a former WBC World Champion and previously held both the Australasian WBC and ANBF titles. His accolades in the sport are notable, yet these seem to have been ignored in favour of Dan Hill, whose form has been inconsistent with a loss in his last three fights before the ranking changes. Victor, on the other hand, had not lost in his three bouts leading up to this period, clearly indicating more consistent form and momentum.

As you pointed out, Dan Hill did beat Victor on points, but one loss to Dan does not justify Victor being ranked lower overall, especially when you compare their career achievements and recent form. A single fight result does not automatically override a boxer’s entire body of work, particularly when the fighter with the loss has a superior overall record and history of success in the ring.

My inquiry remains: was there human intervention in the rankings at any point? I am not disputing the algorithm itself, but I am seeking clarity on how the rankings changed so frequently, particularly in a manner that seems unjustifiable by the metrics you claim are used. You mentioned Dan Hill’s 7-1 record, but this entire situation started when his record was 6-1, which was conveniently left out of your response. The timing of these ranking adjustments, combined with the discrepancy between the records, suggests that something beyond the algorithm may have influenced these changes.

I would appreciate a more direct and unbiased response addressing my questions, as this inquiry is not about being "naive" about rankings but about transparency in how they are determined.

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your clarification on the matter.

[margaret thatcher]

nope, thats not true at all, 8-1 is not superior to 6-1 , that's not how boxing works. by that measure you;d say victor has a better record than lomachenko when he was 6-1 and a 2 weight world champ. you are indeed very naive if this is how you assess the quality of boxing records.

ya nice win over sam soliman for victor, and nice win for dan hill over victor himself just last year

like i said fair enough to ask about the changes, but no its not clear at all that victor has the better record and no dan hill being ahead of him is not unfair. i dont see what reason boxrec would have to manipulate their rankings against him either.

[Andrew Brown]

Okay so you are not from Boxrec!

You are just swinging statements and throwing irrelevant names and scores without actually explaining yourself or anything.

I have provided evidence and records.
But you wish to ignore that.

Then you go into Boxrec manipulation, which no one mentioned other than you.

I have asked legitimate questions and if you don't have any answers for me which you clearly don't, please mind your business and let someone who knows what they're talking about handle this.

Thank you for trying to answer this query, but you're being counter productive than helpful.

Cheers.