BoxRec

Posted: **31 Mar 2009, 14:30**

"You're basing your opinions on pure numbers. I could win 50 times and get 50 KOs against debuting fighters."True, I am basing my opinion on numbers, but not just. Boxrec. is a computer calculated ranking, based on a strange formula, therefore suggesting objectivity. Let's look at the resumes, starting with flyweight Galassi (no1). Out of 11 wins she fought 4 opponents with negative resumes, I doubt they are quality fighters, although I like to be convinced of the opposite by you. One fighter, Nadja Hokmi, she has a draw against was beaten twice by Kentikian (Hokmi is a quality fighter, therefore I refering to her). Her "only" quality wins are twice against Stefania Bianchi and once against Eileen Olczewski (who is good but has just 6 fights). Now look at Kentikian's resume, she is double world champion (holding two acknowledged belts) and holds wins against Elena Reid, Nadja Hokmi, Mary Ortega, Sarah Goodson, Hagar Shmoulefeld Finer...you can read the list yourself. If this is what you call "wins against debuting fighters", I don't understand what you are talking about. Sorry, these arguments are just striking!

"Would you rank me #1 over fighters who have faced tough competition over and over?" Lets have a look at featherweight now. Out of the 9 wins of Hrnandez, I can only derive 3 competitive fights she's, against stiff opposition (Fiorento, McCarter, Brown). What about Menzer? She's won two acknowledged belts, fought former world champions in Esther Schouten, Yasmin Rivas, Silke Weikenmeier...to name just a few). She has never lost or even drew to any of these stiff opponents. How do you base your argument about "stiff opponents over and over"? Logically there is a big gap!

Also, the rating points are not division specific.

sweet-s wrote:"Hernandez accumulated quite a bit of points at higher weight divisions and took them down to Feather. Usually, heavier divisions are considered stronger ones." Still, she could be ranked high in the featherweight division, but with a tko on her account and two draws, it doesn't make her number 1. Menzer almost has triple the number of fights and never lost. Her tko rate is more than triple the amount of Hernandez. This makes the ranking questionable.

"Galassi and Kentikian are separated by only two points. That is basically a toss-up and not worth discussing." Again, a fighter who has fought at flyweight all the time, with almost only one third of the fights of number two ranked Kentikian, who has amazing 16 tkos, why on earth should she be ranked number 1. This is not at toss up at all! This is wrong.

You're basing your opinions on pure numbers. I could win 50 times and get 50 KOs against debuting fighters. Would you rank me #1 over fighters who have faced tough competition over and over?

"Also, the rating points are not division specific." What is that supposed to mean? We have seen a Manny Pacquiao tko Oscar de la Hoya! So why should Hernandez have more points than Menzer, just because she dropped down from light weight? Also a qustionable practise.

Posted: **31 Mar 2009, 16:47**

All boxers hold a point value, and their point values at the time of the bout are all that's important.

Heavier weight divisions almost always have increased competition. Therefore, when a boxer moves down in weight, their points usually increase as they are converted to the current division's points.

Earned points are not division specific. I could fight 50 times at Flyweight, but if a superb Bantamweight fighter comes down to Flyweight, they could be ranked higher before their first fight.

Posted: **31 Mar 2009, 18:49**

Even though you said that before, there is no logic in a practise like this...higher ranked because of coming down from a higher weight division, but never higher ranked than the number one of that division, especially under the circumstances I described in the posts before. Be it as it is, that doesn't explain the ranking in the flyweight division, where there is no coming down from higher weight divisions. "Just a toss up" won't suffice as explanation to me.

Posted: **31 Mar 2009, 20:26**

JCS, that is a ridiculous rating. He is right. They are not even close in accomplishments. Take it from someone who follows women's boxing, that rating is not defensible and it is exposing a flaw in your formula.

Posted: **31 Mar 2009, 21:33**

BobbyDobbs wrote:JCS, that is a ridiculous rating. He is right. They are not even close in accomplishments. Take it from someone who follows women's boxing, that rating is not defensible and it is exposing a flaw in your formula.

Its not my formula, I simply assisted for a year or two.. I'm just trying to explain the concept of it.

Its my opinion that some problems arise due to the 18 month sliding window in which a quality performance reduction is assessed. It is not a smooth decay.

Posted: **31 Mar 2009, 21:34**

sweet-s wrote: "Just a toss up" won't suffice as explanation to me.

It's going to have to. A difference of 2 points is less than a 1.5% difference in points.

I'm sure Computerrank can provide you with a detailed ledger.

Posted: **01 Apr 2009, 04:29**

Hi,

while we are on the topic of women's rankings. A small point about the the number of stars. The system works really well for the men's rankings, but due to the different point distribution of the women, the most you can generate is a two star fight. I think Kentikian vs Reid was a two star fight, maybe even a one star fight, whereas, subjectively, it was a 4 or 5 star fight for that division. I think, for now, the woman's division should have a different "star" ranking level for matchups.

cheers

conan

Posted: **01 Apr 2009, 05:10**

sweet-s wrote:Can anybody tell me why Simona Galassi (9-0, 2KO) ranks number 1 before Susi Kentikian (24-0, 16KO). For the featherweights it is even more mindboggling since Melissa Hernandez (9-1(1)-2, 2KO) ranks number one ahead of Ina Menzer (23-0, 9KO). These two rankings seem ridiculous to me. Looking forward to any replies. Peace.

I can provide the rating point developments of these boxers (based on a slightly newer test release - with some deviations).

As you can see in column OPP_0 - pre-bout rating of the opponents:

- Hernandez shows a terrific and constant opponent quality with an average of above 100 points, with a peak at 161 points
- Menzer wins, but the opponents quality is clearly lower with an average lower than 50, and with a peak at 67 points

Galassi and Kentikian are nearly even
- with Galassi's opponents peaking at 81 and 95 points
- while Kentikian's peak is at 70 points

Code: Select all

Hernandez

date      |division            |boxer               |opponent            |rs|dec|box_0>box_1|opp_0|opp_1|h_adv
----------|--------------------|--------------------|--------------------|--|---|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----
2005-10-26|Featherweight       |Hernandez           |Mao Mao             |W |UD |    0|    5|    1|    1|    0
2006-01-21|                    |Hernandez           |Johnson             |W |TKO|    3|    3|    0|    0|    0
2006-04-29|Super Featherweight |Hernandez           |Nunez               |W |UD |    3|    3|    0|    0|    0
2006-06-15|Featherweight       |Hernandez           |Jeffries            |D |PTS|    3|   36|  122|   89|    2
2006-06-30|Lightweight         |Hernandez           |Jackson             |W |UD |   31|   34|    5|    5|    0
2006-08-31|Super Featherweight |Hernandez           |Rogers              |W |TKO|   36|   36|    0|    0|    0
2006-11-04|Super Bantamweight  |Hernandez           |Brown               |W |UD |   36|   92|  106|   78|    0
2007-02-14|Lightweight         |Hernandez           |McCarter            |L |RTD|   75|   56|  133|  173|    0
2007-04-27|Lightweight         |Hernandez           |McCarter            |W |MD |   56|  115|  161|  109|    2
2008-02-07|Lightweight         |Hernandez           |Hallback            |D |PTS|  115|  123|  144|  136|    0
2008-06-07|Lightweight         |Hernandez           |Fiorentino          |W |TKO|  123|  215|  125|   83|    0
2008-09-05|Super Featherweight |Hernandez           |Nunez               |W |UD |  215|  248|  143|  119|    0

Menzer

date      |division            |boxer               |opponent            |rs|dec|box_0>box_1|opp_0|opp_1|h_adv
----------|--------------------|--------------------|--------------------|--|---|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----
2004-03-30|Super Featherweight |Menzer              |Erod                |W |TKO|    0|    0|    0|    0|    0
2004-05-29|Super Featherweight |Menzer              |Medelina            |W |TKO|    0|    0|    0|    0|    0
2004-06-22|Super Featherweight |Menzer              |Jachmanova          |W |PTS|    0|    3|    0|    0|    0
2004-09-21|Super Featherweight |Menzer              |Oleynik             |W |UD |    2|    2|    0|    0|    0
2005-02-15|Super Featherweight |Menzer              |Kulikova            |W |TKO|    2|    2|    0|    0|    1
2005-03-29|Super Featherweight |Menzer              |Oleynik             |W |PTS|    2|    8|    5|    4|    1
2005-04-19|Super Featherweight |Menzer              |Blahova             |W |UD |    8|   17|    4|    4|    1
2005-05-10|Super Featherweight |Menzer              |Urbaez Urena        |W |KO |   14|   66|   11|    8|    1
2005-07-09|Super Featherweight |Menzer              |Voitko              |W |TKO|   44|   44|    4|    4|    0
2005-09-10|Featherweight       |Menzer              |Muthoni             |W |UD |   44|   74|   14|   13|    0
2005-10-22|Featherweight       |Menzer              |Weickenmeier        |W |UD |   59|  119|   66|   47|    0
2005-12-03|Featherweight       |Menzer              |Gumliiska           |W |TKO|  119|  119|    3|    3|    1
2006-04-08|Featherweight       |Menzer              |Santana             |W |RTD|  119|  119|    9|    9|    1
2006-05-27|Featherweight       |Menzer              |Zarika              |W |UD |  119|  110|   14|   23|    1
2006-09-09|Featherweight       |Menzer              |Florez              |W |UD |  110|  110|    8|    8|    1
2006-12-02|Featherweight       |Menzer              |Chamblin            |W |TKO|  110|  110|   14|   14|    1
2007-04-28|Featherweight       |Menzer              |Miranda             |W |UD |   69|   81|    7|    7|    1
2007-07-28|Featherweight       |Menzer              |Rivas               |W |UD |   75|  115|   46|   36|    1
2007-11-17|Featherweight       |Menzer              |Serrano             |W |UD |  103|  131|   52|   44|    1
2008-03-08|Featherweight       |Menzer              |Tsagouris           |W |UD |  118|  138|   67|   61|    1
2008-05-31|Featherweight       |Menzer              |Reile               |W |TKO|  136|  154|   54|   45|    1
2008-11-22|Featherweight       |Menzer              |Salles              |W |UD |  145|  145|   25|   25|    1
2009-01-17|Featherweight       |Menzer              |Schouten            |W |UD |  145|  152|   63|   61|    1
2009-05-02|Featherweight       |Menzer              |Alcanter            |SC|NC |    0|    0|    0|    0|    0

Galassi

date      |division            |boxer               |opponent            |rs|dec|box_0>box_1|opp_0|opp_1|h_adv
----------|--------------------|--------------------|--------------------|--|---|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----
2006-10-08|Flyweight           |Galassi             |Pencakova           |W |TKO|    0|    0|    0|    0|    0
2006-11-14|Flyweight           |Galassi             |Taskova             |W |PTS|    0|   27|    2|    2|    0
2007-01-09|Flyweight           |Galassi             |Hokmi               |D |PTS|   16|   18|   22|   20|    0
2007-03-30|Flyweight           |Galassi             |Jachmanova          |W |TKO|   18|   28|    1|    1|    1
2007-05-11|Flyweight           |Galassi             |Voelker             |W |TKO|   28|   51|    0|    0|    1
2007-07-31|Flyweight           |Galassi             |Taskova             |NC|ND |    0|    0|    0|    0|    0
2007-11-16|Flyweight           |Galassi             |Leonardi            |W |PTS|   47|   49|   12|   12|    1
2007-12-28|Flyweight           |Galassi             |Lihet               |W |UD |   48|   75|   12|   12|    1
2008-03-29|Flyweight           |Galassi             |Bianchini           |W |UD |   62|  128|   81|   57|    1
2008-07-18|Flyweight           |Galassi             |Olszewski           |W |UD |  128|  179|   95|   72|    1
2008-10-24|Flyweight           |Galassi             |Bianchini           |W |UD |  179|  186|   62|   56|    1

Kentikian

date      |division            |boxer               |opponent            |rs|dec|box_0>box_1|opp_0|opp_1|h_adv
----------|--------------------|--------------------|--------------------|--|---|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----
2005-01-15|Flyweight           |Kentikian           |Boneva              |W |UD |    0|    0|    0|    0|    0
2005-02-26|Super Flyweight     |Kentikian           |Lohmaier            |W |KO |    0|   10|    0|    0|    0
2005-03-29|Flyweight           |Kentikian           |Hornakova           |W |TKO|    5|    5|    0|    0|    0
2005-05-07|Light Flyweight     |Kentikian           |Vlasenko            |W |TKO|    5|    5|    0|    0|    0
2005-06-04|Bantamweight        |Kentikian           |Atseva              |W |TKO|    5|    5|    0|    0|    0
2005-07-02|Flyweight           |Kentikian           |Pencakova           |W |TKO|    5|    5|    0|    0|    1
2005-09-17|Flyweight           |Kentikian           |Vesecka             |W |TKO|    5|   22|    0|    0|    0
2005-10-29|Flyweight           |Kentikian           |Taskova             |W |TKO|   14|   48|    3|    3|    0
2005-12-13|Light Flyweight     |Kentikian           |Krivoshapkina       |W |UD |   31|   31|    0|    0|    0
2006-01-14|Flyweight           |Kentikian           |Metodieva           |W |TKO|   29|   29|    0|    0|    1
2006-04-15|Flyweight           |Kentikian           |Zablotskaja         |W |TKO|   29|   29|    0|    0|    1
2006-07-25|Flyweight           |Kentikian           |Graf                |W |UD |   29|   39|    0|    0|    0
2006-09-09|Flyweight           |Kentikian           |Zurita              |W |TKO|   34|  105|   56|   35|    1
2006-11-21|Flyweight           |Kentikian           |Frenzel             |W |TKO|  105|  105|    1|    1|    0
2007-02-16|Flyweight           |Kentikian           |Alvarez             |W |TKO|  105|  105|    6|    6|    0
2007-03-30|Flyweight           |Kentikian           |Nunez               |W |TKO|  105|  105|   12|   12|    1
2007-05-25|Flyweight           |Kentikian           |Hokmi               |W |SD |  105|  101|   29|   38|    1
2007-09-07|Flyweight           |Kentikian           |Martin              |W |TKO|  101|  129|   42|   35|    1
2007-12-07|Flyweight           |Kentikian           |Hokmi               |W |UD |  121|  123|   56|   60|    1
2008-02-29|Flyweight           |Kentikian           |Goodson             |W |TKO|  122|  122|   13|   13|    1
2008-05-10|Flyweight           |Kentikian           |Ortega              |W |TKO|  122|  138|   43|   38|    1
2008-08-29|Flyweight           |Kentikian           |Shmoulefeld Finer   |W |UD |  130|  148|   53|   46|    1
2008-12-05|Flyweight           |Kentikian           |Toktaulova          |W |UD |  139|  150|   51|   45|    1
2009-03-20|Flyweight           |Kentikian           |Reid                |W |UD |  145|  168|   70|   58|    1

Posted: **01 Apr 2009, 05:16**

conan_the_cribber wrote:Hi,

while we are on the topic of women's rankings. A small point about the the number of stars. The system works really well for the men's rankings, but due to the different point distribution of the women, the most you can generate is a two star fight. I think Kentikian vs Reid was a two star fight, maybe even a one star fight, whereas, subjectively, it was a 4 or 5 star fight for that division. I think, for now, the woman's division should have a different "star" ranking level for matchups.

cheers

conan

You indeed will see 3-star bouts with womens at it's best (both boxers with at least 100 points). See Hernandez ...

This represents the currently missing competition level in women boxing and will only change, when more women will join.

Posted: **01 Apr 2009, 09:59**

computerrank wrote:
conan_the_cribber wrote:Hi,

while we are on the topic of women's rankings. A small point about the the number of stars. The system works really well for the men's rankings, but due to the different point distribution of the women, the most you can generate is a two star fight. I think Kentikian vs Reid was a two star fight, maybe even a one star fight, whereas, subjectively, it was a 4 or 5 star fight for that division. I think, for now, the woman's division should have a different "star" ranking level for matchups.

cheers

conan
You indeed will see 3-star bouts with womens at it's best (both boxers with at least 100 points). See Hernandez ...

This represents the currently missing competition level in women boxing and will only change, when more women will join.

Which will never happen. The star ratings will not reflect the true status of a bout. You should code it for now, and not for a mythical time when there will be the same number of women boxing as men.

Posted: **01 Apr 2009, 10:18**

Martin,

I see in the Hernandez examples, that her pre-fight rating did not increase when she moved down in decision. Why is this?

Posted: **01 Apr 2009, 10:42**

conan_the_cribber wrote:
computerrank wrote:
conan_the_cribber wrote:Hi,

while we are on the topic of women's rankings. A small point about the the number of stars. The system works really well for the men's rankings, but due to the different point distribution of the women, the most you can generate is a two star fight. I think Kentikian vs Reid was a two star fight, maybe even a one star fight, whereas, subjectively, it was a 4 or 5 star fight for that division. I think, for now, the woman's division should have a different "star" ranking level for matchups.

cheers

conan
You indeed will see 3-star bouts with womens at it's best (both boxers with at least 100 points). See Hernandez ...

This represents the currently missing competition level in women boxing and will only change, when more women will join.
Which will never happen. The star ratings will not reflect the true status of a bout. You should code it for now, and not for a mythical time when there will be the same number of women boxing as men.

Let me get this straight - it is the intention to notify, that currently (and maybe for ever) the level at women boxing is not at a 4-star or 5-star level.

The star system does not represent the relative importance of the bouts regarding the current division situation.

But it represents the absolute rating level achieved. And this depends somehow on the levels of having defeated an opponent, who defeated an opponent, who defeated an opponent, who ....

... and not getting to the top by defeating some low-level opponents.

Posted: **01 Apr 2009, 11:11**

JCS wrote:Martin,

I see in the Hernandez examples, that her pre-fight rating did not increase when she moved down in decision. Why is this?

Jason,

there are 2 additional parameters in place.

When a boxer steps up in divisions he leaves his old points in a parameter r_down.

When a boxer steps down in divisions he leaves his old division points in a parameter r_up.

Now in the noted situation Hernandez stepped down from lightweight to super featherweight, keeping her 215 lightweight points in super featherweight.

This comes from having left a r_down value of 92 on 2006-11-04.

If this parameter r_down is lower than the calculated increased new rating (inverse square of weight limit ratio), the new rating is limited to the rating at the division left.

Posted: **01 Apr 2009, 11:43**

I'm not sure if I like that Martin.

What if I left Flyweight with a rating of 100, then went to Bantamweight, where I increased my rating to 250.

At this point.. if I go back to Flyweight.. I'm limited to 250, but if I go down to Super Flyweight (in between).. my rating increases since I've never been there, right? So it stays the same if I go to where I've been, thanks to an old rating... but it increases at Super Flyweight just because I've never been to Super Flyweight.

I think points can be lost this way.... with many shifts to different divisions. I've tested something similar myself, and it was very complex. I had to compensate if a person went to a division "in between" like stated in my example above.

Posted: **01 Apr 2009, 12:05**

The bottom line is when you have a result that is contrary to common sense and is clearly wrong, you should work on revamping the system to reflect it. Kentikian is objectively the #1 fighter in that division. I doubt even that Gallassi would contest that.

Kentikian has accomplished more. Won more and beaten better fighters than Gallasi. Its really ridiculous when looked at with human eyes.

Posted: **01 Apr 2009, 17:09**

JCS wrote:I'm not sure if I like that Martin.

What if I left Flyweight with a rating of 100, then went to Bantamweight, where I increased my rating to 250.

At this point.. if I go back to Flyweight.. I'm limited to 250, but if I go down to Super Flyweight (in between).. my rating increases since I've never been there, right? So it stays the same if I go to where I've been, thanks to an old rating... but it increases at Super Flyweight just because I've never been to Super Flyweight.

I think points can be lost this way.... with many shifts to different divisions. I've tested something similar myself, and it was very complex. I had to compensate if a person went to a division "in between" like stated in my example above.

Jason,

I introduced these parameters in order to compensate for some strange effects around 2 years ago. I will review whether they are still useful, and maybe eliminate them to keep things as simple as possible.

Posted: **01 Apr 2009, 17:56**

computerrank wrote:
JCS wrote:I'm not sure if I like that Martin.

What if I left Flyweight with a rating of 100, then went to Bantamweight, where I increased my rating to 250.

At this point.. if I go back to Flyweight.. I'm limited to 250, but if I go down to Super Flyweight (in between).. my rating increases since I've never been there, right? So it stays the same if I go to where I've been, thanks to an old rating... but it increases at Super Flyweight just because I've never been to Super Flyweight.

I think points can be lost this way.... with many shifts to different divisions. I've tested something similar myself, and it was very complex. I had to compensate if a person went to a division "in between" like stated in my example above.
Jason,

I introduced these parameters in order to compensate for some strange effects around 2 years ago. I will review whether they are still useful, and maybe eliminate them to keep things as simple as possible.

I think being simple is key when it comes to division movement. I can definitely see some circumstances that are not properly accounted for.

Posted: **01 Apr 2009, 23:30**

BobbyDobbs wrote:The bottom line is when you have a result that is contrary to common sense and is clearly wrong, you should work on revamping the system to reflect it. Kentikian is objectively the #1 fighter in that division. I doubt even that Gallassi would contest that.

Kentikian has accomplished more. Won more and beaten better fighters than Gallasi. Its really ridiculous when looked at with human eyes.

Blame the judges who robbed Elena Reid twice against Regina Halmich.

Posted: **02 Apr 2009, 03:58**

computerrank wrote:
Let me get this straight - it is the intention to notify, that currently (and maybe for ever) the level at women boxing is not at a 4-star or 5-star level.

The star system does not represent the relative importance of the bouts regarding the current division situation.

But it represents the absolute rating level achieved. And this depends somehow on the levels of having defeated an opponent, who defeated an opponent, who defeated an opponent, who ....

... and not getting to the top by defeating some low-level opponents.

If that is the goal, then the algorithm supports it.

However, I think it kind of sucks, because I would never compare a five star Hatton Pacquaio fight to a five star Kentikan Galassi fight. Just the same as I would never the skill in a fivve star women's football match between USA and Norway to be as high as the skill in a five star men's match between Brazil and Germany. I know that already, even as a casual fan.

What I don't know as a casual fan, is that boxrec is lumping all men and women's matchups into one pool and ranking them accordingly. You do make your point there, that women's boxing is not asa deep as men's, but that's a pretty cheap point to make. Everyone in the world knows that the depth of women's golf, football, basketball, baseball, boxing, cycle road racing, and hell even chess and sumo is not as deep as mens.

Boxing is a man's sport, always will be, that doesn't mean, relative to the sporting depth, that there aren't five star match ups in women's boxing.

Posted: **02 Apr 2009, 05:13**

conan,

both perspectives are valid ...

Maybe the decision changes.

Posted: **02 Apr 2009, 16:46**

computerrank wrote:conan,

both perspectives are valid ...

Maybe the decision changes.

You're cool Martin. 8)

Prepared to argue, prepared to listen.

Posted: **06 Apr 2009, 18:14**

After first clicking onto this site I was shocked at the world P4P rankings. http://www.boxrec.com/index.php as of 06/04/09. (DD/MM/YY, for those who do it the American Way)

I thought to myself "Surely, Bernard Hopkins can't be at No1, after relatively recently being beaten by Calzaghe. I suppose that there is a kind of points system to this, as opposed to a human controlled, quality of opponents standard of judging things, along with technical skills. Of course, the former would be more logical as there are too many boxers on record for people to watch tapes of."

I then noticed that 4/6 of the top fighters were from the US. I thought to myself, "Hang on, I need to investigate this points system. Surely, many other current boxers have achieved more than some of the Americans that are in the top 6. Like Pacquiao, who is ranked 7 yet is a 4 weight world champion." So I read the FAQ. Now the FAQ was very vague, and was more concerned about sketchy records than how the points system works, in terms of figures and statistics - surely, the sites visitors should have access to see how the ratings are calculated, in specifics? Then it came clear. The reason that the FAQ was less about the detailed function, and more about women's/pre WWII boxing was because it has something to hide; How, exactly, it works. So I put two and two together, with there being 4 of the "Top 6" fighters American, and the cloud over how the calculator works, and finally, that the majority of the Editors are American, I concluded that: the calculator gives double points to the American boxers, in an attempt to maintain their monopoly on the fight-game.

B-Hop lost his 2nd to most recent fight, yet Pacquiao has just beaten a living legend, at his first time at that weight, and has not lost in recent times. Even though ODLH was drained, surely if it is a computer calculated programming mechanism, Pacquiao should still be rated as higher than B-Hop. This suggests then that the Americans are "Cooking the Books" by using Human Judgement when necessary, again, to maintain their monopoly. For example. The reasoning it seems in B-Hop being top and Pac 7th is that Judgement has been brought in, to save Hopkin's arse. He lost to Calzaghe, that would've made a serious impression on his record, I know, but surely, 1 fight later, how can he be back on top after beating Pavlik, when Pacquiao has beaten Morales, twice, Barrera, Marquez (who is funnily enough ranked higher than him) and ODLH, all in his past ten fights? Surely, swapping the numbers for human decision has happened here. "Oh, Pacman beat a drained DLH, he should only be at 7". "Oh, Hopkins won well, even though he was beat the fight before, the logical decision is to ping him back up to one"

This pathetic attempt at cheating Americans to the top is only making it worse for yourselves. With PBF gone and DLH old, lying, cheating, hiding and choice selection is the only way you can make yourselves seem top of boxing.

Thankyou for reading, please face up to the truth soon.

KOin5.

PS. I am British, not Filipino. No bias involved here. Not on my side anway...

Posted: **06 Apr 2009, 19:30**

You're an idiot.

Posted: **06 Apr 2009, 19:38**

KOin5, I'm also British. The P4P system is more beneficial to boxers who dominate a weight class than boxers who have moved through multiple weigh categories quickly. I very, very, very much doubt there is any American bias in the system. I don't even think the guy who is in charge of it is American, and the owner of Boxrec is English.

Posted: **09 Apr 2009, 06:24**

Ratings at the other of the scale.

I was wondering if there might be scope for improvements at the other end of the scale i.e. down amongst the tomatos.

Some thread showed the Zelenoff vs Hartley clip and so I went scanning for the ranks of these fighters. Both were quoted as unranked, which is understandable for Zelenoff, but questionable for Hartley. I mean, the guy has had 15 or so fights now and so that's quite a data set to rank him with.

Anyhow, I went to the ratings link and selected all the U.S Welters. Sure enough, all the welters are there, with their points total. Many have the same points total, and yet seem to be sorted in a reasonable order, so I guess there is an unpublished number helping this sorting.

Anyhow, amongst the curiosities that I saw.

Carrine Hammlet http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?hu ... &cat=boxer has a draw and a SD loss, so I'm surprised he landed on 0 points

William Deboe Thomas http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?hu ... &cat=boxer who has only fought twice, and lost both, ended up a) with a rank and b) with 3 pts. Probably the MD is valued higher than the SD, whereby, the SD was actually better becuase Hammlet won on one judges card, whereas Thomas did not.

Josh Durden http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?hu ... &cat=boxer is also on 0 pts, despite a run of 5 wins and 0 losses. Admittedly, he has fought the worst of the worst, but nevertheless, 5 wins and 4kos against this opposition would mean to me, that he is probably a tick better than the other 0pt fighters.

Rafael Estradahttp://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?hu ... &cat=boxer same goes for Rafael who has at least some wins (including a win against someone who won a fight) and a draw against Sook what's his name, who is obviously not complete dirt either.

Getting back to the original two fighters. Intuitively I’d say, that someone who beats someone , even if it is a debuting fighter, is generally better than them. I’d rank Hartley above Zelenoff. Naturally you shouldn’t be able to rocketing up the ladder by KOing a bunch of 0-0-0 or 0-1-0 fighters, but I’d still give you at least 1 pt for the win. And I’d probably rank someone higher, who has beaten 5 such debuting fighters as someone who has beaten just one.

Probably all this is reflected in a mystery hidden number somehow. Still I think some improvements are possible.

conan

BoxRec

Ratings - please read before commenting - Archived

Re: female flyweight and featherweight rankings

Re: female flyweight and featherweight rankings

Re: female flyweight and featherweight rankings

Re: female flyweight and featherweight rankings

Re: female flyweight and featherweight rankings

Re: female flyweight and featherweight rankings

Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings

Re: female flyweight and featherweight rankings

Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings

Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings

Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings

Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings

Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings

Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings

Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings

Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings

Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings

Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings

Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings

Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings

Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings

The Points Calculator... Hmmm

Re: The Points Calculator... Hmmm

Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings

Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings