BoxRec

pbf is retired..and pacman has some questionable wins..pavlik has disposed of all his opponents and calzaghe has fought no one other than kessler and an old ass b hop..pavlik #1

< Yeh, that's a huge problem ... Pavlik should not be considered top 3 at this point, computer or not.

Its close enough. Who can definitively prove where a fighter should be placed in a divisionless list? Noone, that's who.

CoreyWash wrote:pbf is retired..and pacman has some questionable wins..pavlik has disposed of all his opponents and calzaghe has fought no one other than kessler and an old ass b hop..pavlik #1

Whereas Pavlik has beat McKart, Miranda, Taylor and Lockett

CoreyWash wrote:pbf is retired..and pacman has some questionable wins..pavlik has disposed of all his opponents and calzaghe has fought no one other than kessler and an old ass b hop..pavlik #1

PBF may unretire any time. And had Pavlik fought even remotely Pacman's competition, he would have some unquestionable losses.

JCS wrote:Its close enough. Who can definitively prove where a fighter should be placed in a divisionless list? Noone, that's who.

I can. Not everyone understands the proof though.

< I think the point the original poster is making is that there should be no way Pavlik is rated number one p4p. If a computer comes up with that, then the ranking system is flawed. Pavlik has not been around long enough, nor done enough.

I am far from Calzaghe's biggest fan, but he is WAAAAAAAAAY more deserving of the p4p crown. Once again, I don't care if it was generated via computer, it's still very incorrect.

BAD INTENTIONS wrote: < I think the point the original poster is making is that there should be no way Pavlik is rated number one p4p. If a computer comes up with that, then the ranking system is flawed. Pavlik has not been around long enough, nor done enough.

I am far from Calzaghe's biggest fan, but he is WAAAAAAAAAY more deserving of the p4p crown. Once again, I don't care if it was generated via computer, it's still very incorrect.

I guess you're right.

BAD INTENTIONS wrote: < I think the point the original poster is making is that there should be no way Pavlik is rated number one p4p. If a computer comes up with that, then the ranking system is flawed. Pavlik has not been around long enough, nor done enough.

I am far from Calzaghe's biggest fan, but he is WAAAAAAAAAY more deserving of the p4p crown. Once again, I don't care if it was generated via computer, it's still very incorrect.

Making software that can come up with a list that's even CLOSE is a lot tougher than complaining and making your smiley faces.

So does this mean Hopkins will be ahead of Calzaghe P4P when he starches Pavlik?

pundit wrote:

CoreyWash wrote:pbf is retired..and pacman has some questionable wins..pavlik has disposed of all his opponents and calzaghe has fought no one other than kessler and an old ass b hop..pavlik #1

PBF may unretire any time. And had Pavlik fought even remotely Pacman's competition, he would have some unquestionable losses.

he's still young so he'll get his chances to fight great competition

Neither fighter deserves the number 1 spot. Pacman has beaten two ATG. Calzaghe, at a push, has beaten one. And it was hardly a clear decision.

I don't see what all the fuss is about. I mean, it's just a website, nothing more. This mania for "best pound for pound" is just so much Monster Trucks nonsense to me. For those who really must have a P4P best list, they should just create a parallel ranking based on a vote if the computer is not giving the results they want.

By the way, how exactly does the computer points system work? Anyone know?

earl of queensbury wrote:By the way, how exactly does the computer points system work? Anyone know?

God knows, but the Boxrec Ratings thread should give you an idea, if you can stomach reading it all.

Pavlik is way too overrated. Let him fight a good elusive boxer then if he wins we should put him there. All these past fights were tailor made for his style. Even JT was. Why is this guy so over hyped? Are us American boxing fans to ignorant to skill in boxing and too unintelligent to see anything, but a ko as defining whether a boxer is good or not?

< A great post sits above mine. Yes, boxing fans in GENERAL have given into the Mike Tyson craze, and overrate fighters with KO power.

JT is not an elusive fighter and he lost the 2nd fight with Pavlik 7-5. I am very wary of this match VS Hopkins. Hopkins can crack Kelly and he will move. Pavlik will have a hard time finding him to land punches.

Kelly should have fought Winky. He has less power, and he will stand and block punches ... of course most of you and HBO would score those blocked punches as connected power shots ... but at least Winky will be there to make it look like he's landing.

If Hopkins (who lost a SD to Calzaghe) shows up and blocks Kelly's power shot (which he will), Pavlik may come up with an L.

Also, JCS ... if you have ever done any computer programming in your life, you should know that creating a points system is not that difficult.

charlieb wrote:So does this mean Hopkins will be ahead of Calzaghe P4P when he starches Pavlik?

for one there is no way hopkins beats pavlic but imo calzaghi is #1 p4p until someone can miraculously stop him but it doesnt seem like thats gonna happen.

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:Also, JCS ... if you have ever done any computer programming in your life, you should know that creating a points system is not that difficult.

You can view the calculations used to provide the ratings here: http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.php/Ratings

Please make some suggestions, seeing as you don't find it difficult.

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:
Also, JCS ... if you have ever done any computer programming in your life, you should know that creating a points system is not that difficult.

I've actually assisted with this one.

Create one that makes any semblance of sense, then we can talk.

george06 wrote:Pavlik is way too overrated. Let him fight a good elusive boxer then if he wins we should put him there. All these past fights were tailor made for his style. Even JT was. Why is this guy so over hyped? Are us American boxing fans to ignorant to skill in boxing and too unintelligent to see anything, but a ko as defining whether a boxer is good or not?

I don't think it's a purely US American thing (I'm not from the US). I see it in Germany and the UK, and it seems to be common in most countries. It's kind of a shame that a lot of fight fans confuse national pride and/or racist thinking for the love of the sport. The worst thing is, when an over-hyped fighter gets beaten, a lot of his so-called fans can't even come out an speak intelligently in his defence. I don't know if Pavlik's over-rated, because he's damned good, but I think the 'KO' and the '0' are over-rated.

Hate to bitch, but I find it hard to believe, that after I won the New Zealand title on DQ against Daniel Tai, I move up 1 spot and he moves UP 60 spots!

How does that work out?

Bug in the DQ calculation perhaps?

Chauncy wrote:Hate to bitch, but I find it hard to believe, that after I won the New Zealand title on DQ against Daniel Tai, I move up 1 spot and he moves UP 60 spots!

How does that work out?

Chauncy,

2 remarks to your questions

- On August 16 a bug fix in the ratings was released, correcting the handling of missing opponent quality. Before the bug fix a boxer could get punished multiple within 18 month for missing opponent quality. This affected the ratings of Daniel Tai, I guess. His rating definitely didn't improve caused by his DQ loss to you.

- Your rating only improved minorly, because the rating weight of a DQ depends on the number of rounds boxed. As it was a 2nd round DQ the effective weight was 2/12 only.

Hopefully this will help
Martin

I've got an idea...

How about a feature for the front page? A result recap of the past 24 hours that listed some of the matches, based off the ratings..

Biggest Upset
Most Noteworthy Matches (Highest cumulative point total)
Biggest Mismatch

JCS wrote:I've got an idea...

How about a feature for the front page? A result recap of the past 24 hours that listed some of the matches, based off the ratings..

Biggest Upset
Most Noteworthy Matches (Highest cumulative point total)
Biggest Mismatch

I'd love to see that implemented.