BoxRec

Pretty much the only non handpicked opponents for any fighter are mandatories or guys they are ordered to fight in eliminators, and you have to rate any handpicked guy on their merits anyway just like any opponent. Not really sure 'handpicked' is a factor when comparing AJ to Wilder of all people, king of the in house PBC circuit

As far as BoxRec goes, that draw with Fury mans a lot, though I know me and Ewey see eye to eye and still have Josh ahead of Wilder atm

joshj909 wrote: ↑13 Apr 2020, 07:42

Finkel wrote: ↑12 Apr 2020, 22:18

I just looked into this:

According to SportingIcons on YouTube the day after the Wilder Fury 2 fight looked like this:
1 Anthony Joshua (IBF-WBA-WBO-IBO)
2 Tyson Fury (WBC)
3 Oleksandr Usyk (Cruiser Undisputed)
4 Andy Ruiz Jr (Former IBF-WBA-WBO-IBO)
5 Deontay Wilder (Former WBC)

Now:
1. Tyson Fury (WBC)
2. Deontay Wilder (Former WBC)
3. Anthony Joshua (IBF-WBA-WBO-IBO)
4. Oleksandr Usyk (Cruiser Undisputed)
5. Alexander Povetkin (Formed WBA regular)

As just a snap shot in time, the previous rankings looked somewhat logical. The new rankings look like human bias was involved in tweaking the code to get a desired outcome

Completely agree. Usually, as far as I am aware, the ratings system was only amended to fix an obvious discrepancy where the cause was obvious such as a clearly terrible boxer ranked top 10 due to some flaw in their system. This, however, looks as if they have changed it because they believe that's how the top heavyweight rankings should be even though this is wrong when judged unanimously even if it is a controversial topic. This wasn't a unanimous flaw in the system. The consequence of this is that they have to apply this same system across the board and it has ruined the rankings in my view. You can't claim the system is objective when it is changed for subjective views.

A key example of this flaw. Have a look at Fury's points changes since Klitschko, then see Whyte's over the past few fights. Although beating higher ranked opponents, Whyte has dropped points. In absolutely nobodies eyes is Fury beating Seferi by retirement better than Whyte beating Rivas by decision. Yet Fury's points went up, Whyte's went down quite significantly.

EDIT: I'd also recommend for people to look at the change in Wlad's ratings throughout his career. Wow. Absolutely abysmal.

Ya the new system is weird with point progression. Somehow Fury had more right after beating Seferi after the layoff than he did right after beating Wlad!

Can't say that I ever thought the P4P lists had much meaning at all.
Doesn't matter if anybody agrees on it. It's decided in minds not the ring.
And none of the rankings are definitive. WBC WBA IBF Ring BoxingRec etc.
except for who is champ at a given moment.
And now that we have Super, Gold, Interim, ad nauseam even that is
way too watered down.
I kind of agree with Wilder, one belt, one name, one face. Not him but somebody.

Finkel wrote: ↑12 Apr 2020, 21:16

computerrank wrote: ↑12 Apr 2020, 09:15
Joshua didn't defeat Wilder and lost to Ruiz, or?

Strange response. Didn't really explain what the rankings are meant to show, but okay:

Who did Wilder defeat in your own top 20?
Ortiz (@10) X2

Who did Joshua defeat in your own top 20?
Povetkin (@5)
Ruiz (@6)
Whyte (@7)
Parker (@12)

Just to give you some context your own community at the end of last month voted on their top 15s.

It was pretty much a consensus top 3 of:
1 Tyson Fury
2 Anthony Joshua
3 Deontay Wilder

Please note: I am comparing your rankings to an average from the BoxRec community.
i.e. this is not a sole opinion

Of course no ranking system is going to please everyone. And I acknowledge it is a difficult task

BUT it does seem you have ended up with a list that doesn't reflect reality as most people see it

SO that was why I asked, what is the purpose of the Boxrec Rankings, what are you trying to show?

- Oh, dear, and where to begin after the new boxrec rankings rolled out to overwhelmingly thumbs down reviews.

When I first looked at boxrec rating criteria eons ago, I was struck by numerous non logical presumptions being calculated and then combined into some Rube Goldberg algorithm, but after many years it seemed the ratings settled in what can be seen to rival to Ring Ratings. Now in what can only be presumed as a quest for the Holy Grail of the latest geek fad of predicted results as I interpreted various Back to the Future discussions, the rankings look like a splatter painting.

As I've noted before, long before boxrec, baseball guru Bill James and his disciples were revising traditional baseball stats into algorithms in his search for the Holy Grail. Now an old man, he's been backing off those presumptions and can sometimes be quite short with the nonsensical nonesuch his followers come up with using those stats. WAR is the biggest majic unicorn since MLB now uses it in player stat profiles never minding that there's over 200 ways to calculate it.

I'm sad that I can no longer use boxrec rankings as starting point for any rankings discussions as this new model is all over the map. I asked recently why Manny lost points in the last system after busting up Thurman who was highly ranked in every rating and still undefeated champ, and then asked Why Mikey, after losing his ill advised weight jump vs Spence, dropped near out of sight in the ratings. Computerrank graciously got back to me, but it was in fantasy stat geekese that I didn't understand.

Here's an inexplicable new model headscratcher, and note that transparency has been lost now in that post fight recalculations aren't shown. Why was James Kirkland ranked well over Carlos Molina at the fight, yet Kirkland with more double the points "at fight"?

https://boxrec.com/en/event/634031/1649223

My presumptive predictability margin of error for the new boxrec model is sadly "Very High."

ewenhay wrote: ↑13 Apr 2020, 12:17 Wilder drew with Fury
Joshua lost to Ruiz

That's why Wilder will be ranked higher.

Plus every single one of Joshua's opponents have been handpicked, including the one he lost against.

The other guys fought each other when they didn't need to.

Does it matter much either way? Until Joshua fights Fury or Wilder it's a pretty pointless argument.

I'm going from memory here, but I believe Fury was ranked around 5~7 on boxrec when Wilder drew with him. This more accurately/fairly reflected Fury's condition/status during his comeback.

Since then Wilder went on to lose to Fury.

Joshua lost to Ruiz Jr., this reordered the rankings. So, Ruiz was ranked #3 and Joshua was ranked at #4.

Joshua then beat Ruiz Jr.



So giving such credit for Wilder's draw, is pretending that Fury was the favourite going into that fight, which he clearly wasn't.

As Thatcher points out the points system is scoring Fury higher during his comeback than when he actually beat Klitschko. It's a nonsense that is rewriting history to get a desired outcome.

I agree we don't know who the number 1 is. But we do know it's not Wilder.

I.e. it's either Joshua the guy with 4 belts and the best resume (made clear in a prior post and by countless others in the past) or its Fury the guy with one belt and the best win.

Hence ranking Wilder #2 is counter-intuitive and shows that the calculation is extremely flawed/biased
IF it is being used to rank fighters based on in ring achievements.

Again, that's why I ask what are the boxrec rankings designed to show?

Finkel wrote: ↑13 Apr 2020, 21:11

ewenhay wrote: ↑13 Apr 2020, 12:17 Wilder drew with Fury
Joshua lost to Ruiz

That's why Wilder will be ranked higher.

Plus every single one of Joshua's opponents have been handpicked, including the one he lost against.

The other guys fought each other when they didn't need to.

Does it matter much either way? Until Joshua fights Fury or Wilder it's a pretty pointless argument.

I'm going from memory here, but I believe Fury was ranked around 5~7 on boxrec when Wilder drew with him. This more accurately/fairly reflected Fury's condition/status during his comeback.

Since then Wilder went on to lose to Fury.

Joshua lost to Ruiz Jr., this reordered the rankings. So, Ruiz was ranked #3 and Joshua was ranked at #4.

Joshua then beat Ruiz Jr.



So giving such credit for Wilder's draw, is pretending that Fury was the favourite going into that fight, which he clearly wasn't.

As Thatcher points out the points system is scoring Fury higher during his comeback than when he actually beat Klitschko. It's a nonsense that is rewriting history to get a desired outcome.

I agree we don't know who the number 1 is. But we do know it's not Wilder.

I.e. it's either Joshua the guy with 4 belts and the best resume (made clear in a prior post and by countless others in the past) or its Fury the guy with one belt and the best win.

Hence ranking Wilder #2 is counter-intuitive and shows that the calculation is extremely flawed/biased
IF it is being used to rank fighters based on in ring achievements.

Again, that's why I ask what are the boxrec rankings designed to show?

Yeah all fair points but it doesn't really matter if Wilder and Joshua are ranked higher than each other really..... Until they face each other or Joshua faces Fury. It's all semantics really until then.

Personally as Maggie says I think Joshua should be ranked higher than Wilder but can also see how others might have it the other way round.

As long as they are ranked behind Fury that's the important thing

ewenhay wrote: ↑14 Apr 2020, 08:37

Finkel wrote: ↑13 Apr 2020, 21:11

I'm going from memory here, but I believe Fury was ranked around 5~7 on boxrec when Wilder drew with him. This more accurately/fairly reflected Fury's condition/status during his comeback.

Since then Wilder went on to lose to Fury.

Joshua lost to Ruiz Jr., this reordered the rankings. So, Ruiz was ranked #3 and Joshua was ranked at #4.

Joshua then beat Ruiz Jr.



So giving such credit for Wilder's draw, is pretending that Fury was the favourite going into that fight, which he clearly wasn't.

As Thatcher points out the points system is scoring Fury higher during his comeback than when he actually beat Klitschko. It's a nonsense that is rewriting history to get a desired outcome.

I agree we don't know who the number 1 is. But we do know it's not Wilder.

I.e. it's either Joshua the guy with 4 belts and the best resume (made clear in a prior post and by countless others in the past) or its Fury the guy with one belt and the best win.

Hence ranking Wilder #2 is counter-intuitive and shows that the calculation is extremely flawed/biased
IF it is being used to rank fighters based on in ring achievements.

Again, that's why I ask what are the boxrec rankings designed to show?

Yeah all fair points but it doesn't really matter if Wilder and Joshua are ranked higher than each other really..... Until they face each other or Joshua faces Fury. It's all semantics really until then.

Personally as Maggie says I think Joshua should be ranked higher than Wilder but can also see how others might have it the other way round.

As long as they are ranked behind Fury that's the important thing

So after discussions on the ratings board, it seems they have moved from a ranking system based somewhat closely on resume, to one based on who would win in a hypothetical head to head. Personally I don't think the formula they are using is appropriate for boxing, but that's their final decision.

However whilst this is something I wasn't initially going to mention, it feels heavily like Boxrec is showing favouritism toward the American market with this change in how it calculates its rankings.

Look at the change in the rankings of the UK fighters compared to the US fighters. Purely on nationality

Previously it was
1. UK
2. UK
3. Ukraine
4. USA
5. USA
6. UK
7. Russia
8. Cuba
9. Bulgaria
10. UK

Now
1. UK
2. USA
3. UK
4. Ukraine
5. Russia
6. USA
7. UK
8. USA
9. UK
10. Cuba

Red = fighters based in the USA
Blue = fighters based in the UK

One of my issues with boxrecs rankings was it generally favoured fighters in the American circuit who were racking up wins against journeymen. They always seemed to rate fighters like Gerald Washington a little too highly. But no system is perfect.

But this change has gone even further to show favouritism toward the USA market.

Well looking there, it seems that Fury and Povetkin both got substantial improvements in this system, so it follows that Wilder and Hunter would since they drew with them. Not sure it's some systematically pro USA thing

Japanese tend to have been the most overrated by BoxRec imo, at least before. Something about the ratings led to them getting too many points for their domestic Japanese level fights. You'd get Japanese guys up at 160 and 168 getting it too, I think the guy Murata debuted against was ranked top 20 at the time. at least under the old rankings, but in reality he was nowhere near that