BoxRec

Yes we've been discussing how that nonsense comes into being.

The reasoning behind BoxRec rankings has always been horribly flawed. In my opinion, NO WAY does Bellew even come close to topping Ortiz, Parker, Adamek, Helenius, ( a "yet to be seen in shape" Tyson Fury ), Joe Joyce or Daniel Dubois.

How does beating a "hardly ever fights", suspected damaged ( physically and mentally ), loud-mouthed David Haye gain you any credits on their points scale!?!?

Now that I have scanned the current list of top heavyweights, I've come to realize.... That after the top 7 or 8, the heavyweight division is very weak. These days, they just don't fight often enough to gain experience, and stay in the eyes of most run of the mill boxing fans.

HeavyHitters wrote: ↑10 May 2018, 10:53 The reasoning behind BoxRec rankings has always been horribly flawed. In my opinion, NO WAY does Bellew even come close to topping Ortiz, Parker, Adamek, Helenius, ( a "yet to be seen in shape" Tyson Fury ), Joe Joyce or Daniel Dubois.

How does beating a "hardly ever fights", suspected damaged ( physically and mentally ), loud-mouthed David Haye gain you any credits on their points scale!?!?

Now that I have scanned the current list of top heavyweights, I've come to realize.... That after the top 7 or 8, the heavyweight division is very weak. These days, they just don't fight often enough to gain experience, and stay in the eyes of most run of the mill boxing fans.

The scientific method of revealing truth by facts is often tedious and boring.

Opinion and hot air are endlessly fascinating.

Without data (technology) we couldn't have these debates. Without opinions, we wouldn't want to.

Thomastearns wrote: ↑10 May 2018, 11:24 The scientific method of revealing truth by facts is often tedious and boring.

Opinion and hot air are endlessly fascinating.

Without data (technology) we couldn't have these debates. Without opinions, we wouldn't want to.

LMAO!!! You're not wrong. I've said before that the calculations are ok to use, just add a quick review by eye or exception report to ensure nothing wonky goes on.

HeavyHitters wrote: ↑10 May 2018, 10:53 The reasoning behind BoxRec rankings has always been horribly flawed. In my opinion, NO WAY does Bellew even come close to topping Ortiz, Parker, Adamek, Helenius, ( a "yet to be seen in shape" Tyson Fury ), Joe Joyce or Daniel Dubois.

How does beating a "hardly ever fights", suspected damaged ( physically and mentally ), loud-mouthed David Haye gain you any credits on their points scale!?!?

Now that I have scanned the current list of top heavyweights, I've come to realize.... That after the top 7 or 8, the heavyweight division is very weak. These days, they just don't fight often enough to gain experience, and stay in the eyes of most run of the mill boxing fans.

Of course you're right, but the point is any ratings, however knowledgeable the author, are imperfect because they reflect the human subjectivity of the author / ratings panel.

The obvious remedy is to create a formula which is not dependent on humans and works using a system of mathematical principles but this introduces a different set of flaws. The problem in this case specifically, is the computer sees for example that Bellew has twice beaten a former world champion at two weights. It isn't going to recognize that Haye is now running on empty, and the achievement is not as impressive as that might appear.

You can try to repair such anomalous results using human intervention but in doing that you are re-introducing the human subjectivity and bias that the system was designed to circumvent. In short you get the worst of both worlds.

The solution is to accept that the system is a useful tool and comprehensive guide and accept that there will be flaws which as a knowledgeable boxing afficionado, you will recognize and disregard., without getting annoyed or upset about..

HeavyHitters wrote: ↑10 May 2018, 10:53 The reasoning behind BoxRec rankings has always been horribly flawed. In my opinion, NO WAY does Bellew even come close to topping Ortiz, Parker, Adamek, Helenius, ( a "yet to be seen in shape" Tyson Fury ), Joe Joyce or Daniel Dubois.

How does beating a "hardly ever fights", suspected damaged ( physically and mentally ), loud-mouthed David Haye gain you any credits on their points scale!?!?

Now that I have scanned the current list of top heavyweights, I've come to realize.... That after the top 7 or 8, the heavyweight division is very weak. These days, they just don't fight often enough to gain experience, and stay in the eyes of most run of the mill boxing fans.

You think Bellew couldn't beat Helenius, Adamek, or Dubois? You're probably not aware of this, but you're actually worse at ranking boxers than the computerized formula is.

Lackeos wrote: ↑12 May 2018, 19:32

HeavyHitters wrote: ↑10 May 2018, 10:53 The reasoning behind BoxRec rankings has always been horribly flawed. In my opinion, NO WAY does Bellew even come close to topping Ortiz, Parker, Adamek, Helenius, ( a "yet to be seen in shape" Tyson Fury ), Joe Joyce or Daniel Dubois.

How does beating a "hardly ever fights", suspected damaged ( physically and mentally ), loud-mouthed David Haye gain you any credits on their points scale!?!?

Now that I have scanned the current list of top heavyweights, I've come to realize.... That after the top 7 or 8, the heavyweight division is very weak. These days, they just don't fight often enough to gain experience, and stay in the eyes of most run of the mill boxing fans.

You think Bellew couldn't beat Helenius, Adamek, or Dubois? You're probably not aware of this, but you're actually worse at ranking boxers than the computerized formula is.

I wouldn't bet a penny on Bellew v. prime helenius, Adamek, nor Dubois at this current level.