BoxRec

Hello Rance's barthelemy.

ggg i consider still at the tippety top and rightfully so he should be.

beat the 'face of boxing' twice. back to back.

Look up.

adislav123 wrote: ↑28 Jun 2021, 17:08 ggg i consider still at the tippety top and rightfully so he should be.

beat the 'face of boxing' twice. back to back.

Well his resume is the best, but while that is historically correct, 2021 GGG has been on the slide for 3+ years.

gregregegg wrote: ↑28 Jun 2021, 15:28 I swear boxrec rankings about 3 years ago were excellent. It was when they were really rating quality over quantity.

They've never been good. Not even for 1 day.

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑28 Jun 2021, 14:20

gilgamesh wrote: ↑28 Jun 2021, 14:12

computerrank wrote: ↑28 Jun 2021, 13:00 You know, that exactly such issues and possible solutions are discussed in the ratings thread. You know from the ratings thread, that there is an actually considered rating option, where Crawford would be #2 in his division. And you know that with the same option Davis would be only close above Josh Taylor.

In spite of that you play the big man here. Your are a troll,, what a pathetic character, I now learned. Nobody to take seriously, sorry.

If solutions are discussed nothing is ever put into action apparently because they've sucked since always, and still do. Davis isn't Top 5 at 140. Barely Top 5 at Lightweight either.

140 has the clearest #1 in the entire sport!

No doubt. Josh Taylor's place at the top is Undisputed. In every way.

I love GGG, but even with the robbery in the first fight no way is his resume better than canelos.

We already got a thread for this, and we already acknowledged it's f*cking stupid. Merging this.

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑28 Jun 2021, 17:45 I love GGG, but even with the robbery in the first fight no way is his resume better than canelos.

Can't argue with that.

Well just goes to show boxrec alghorhthim not that great and the future for AI is probably the same...

The only thing that Boxrec's rankings are even remotely good for is kinda giving you a vague idea of where the guys below the Top 30 or so stand.

computerrank wrote: ↑28 Jun 2021, 13:00

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑28 Jun 2021, 12:05 It's obviously an anomaly, but we need to remember the BoxRec points system is based on a flawed mathematical calculation.

Josh Taylor’s victories over Jose Carlos Ramirez and Regis Prograis would have gained the Scot a lot of rankings points, but his other victories weren't particularly remarkable.

Also, Gervonta Davis has competed in more bouts, fought more world champions, engaged in more world title fights and achieved success in more weight classes.

The American has also faced more guys with 10+ BoxRec points than Taylor has.

For the record, I’m not suggesting that Gervonta Davis is a better fighter than Josh Taylor, but I can understand the reason why he’s accumulated more BoxRec rating points.

Look at Terence Crawford's ratings, he's fought nobody of any note within the last four years, but yet he's still rated highly by BoxRec.

It just goes to show that it's impossible to use a formula to accurately gauge ratings.

You know, that exactly such issues and possible solutions are discussed in the ratings thread. You know from the ratings thread, that there is an actually considered rating option, where Crawford would be #2 in his division. And you know that with the same option Davis would be only close above Josh Taylor.

In spite of that you play the big man here. Your are a troll, what a pathetic character, I now learned. Nobody to take seriously, sorry.

I think it is fair to say as a resource (historical record of fight results) BoxRec is invaluable to the sport. But the elephant in the room needs addressing - that of your rankings. People respect your rankings. The hard word you've all put in has earnt you that respect.

However, the rankings are likely to influence people's views of fighters and in part affect the financial bottom line of the professional fighters that the sport is built upon. So they need to be gotten right. It's not exactly fair on Josh Taylor to have Tank Davis (a fighter who already has massive financial and media backing) be ranked above him at 140...

Perhaps you could form a round table and get some views on what people expect from a computerized ranking system attached to an organization called "BoxRec - Boxings Official Record Keeper"

From previous conversations, I believe you are trying to create a predictive system based on who would win in a head-to-head in any hypothetical match-up, with rankings reflecting that. For me personally I had always expected your rankings to reflect who deserves to be number 1, based on who they have beaten in that specific weight class. Either way, currently it seems you are giving way too much credit for moving through the weights, whilst not giving enough recognition to weight classes existing for a reason. P4P should be separated out from the weight class rankings. Now you could still have a lower weight class champion moving up (and potentially be recognised as a top 10 fighter), but until that fighter demonstrates differently, no ranking should install them above an undisputed champion in the weight class.

Personally I would leave P4P to the magazines, but ultimately that's for you guys to decide. Again it might be worth while organizing a round table, and researching what people expect from your rankings. Heck it would probably be worth your time to survey the boxers themselves rather than the fans.

Currently, this is an overbearing issue affecting validity, authenticity and ultimately legitimacy. Again, I don't have the answers, but I think a solution exists, so I would like to say Good Luck and thanks for all the continued hard work.

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑28 Jun 2021, 15:17

ironbeard wrote: ↑28 Jun 2021, 14:49 Mathematical hocus pocus cannot be defended here. Tank topping ANY 140 ranking can only be considered evidence that the system is pitifully flawed.

he would be #1 at 154 too

i do like boxrec rankings in general, but obviously the system produces some anamolies. maybe tanks ranking situation can be educational and lead to some good tweaks

Well said Maggie. Producing the perfect algorithm is an unattainable goal but credit to BoxRec for persevering with this insanely difficult task. I find the rankings very interesting and useful but I don't take them as being the last word and when confronted with a particularly jarring anomaly I am reminded that such things are inevitable.

The only thing is by making small well considered tweaks the rankings should gradually improve over time but sadly I have to confess I am not convinced it is getting better, in fact recent changes may well have been a backward step.

According to BoxRec’s ratings, the third best currently active pound-for-pound fighter on the planet has only won two fights, against opponents with a total combined record of three wins and twelve losses!

In case you doubt me, click on the hyperlinks and/or the image (to see a bigger version):

Active fighters pound-for-pound ratings
David Mercado

He recently had 5009 points By far the best ever

computerrank wrote: ↑28 Jun 2021, 13:00

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑28 Jun 2021, 12:05 It's obviously an anomaly, but we need to remember the BoxRec points system is based on a flawed mathematical calculation.

Josh Taylor’s victories over Jose Carlos Ramirez and Regis Prograis would have gained the Scot a lot of rankings points, but his other victories weren't particularly remarkable.

Also, Gervonta Davis has competed in more bouts, fought more world champions, engaged in more world title fights and achieved success in more weight classes.

The American has also faced more guys with 10+ BoxRec points than Taylor has.

For the record, I’m not suggesting that Gervonta Davis is a better fighter than Josh Taylor, but I can understand the reason why he’s accumulated more BoxRec rating points.

Look at Terence Crawford's ratings, he's fought nobody of any note within the last four years, but yet he's still rated highly by BoxRec.

It just goes to show that it's impossible to use a formula to accurately gauge ratings.

You know, that exactly such issues and possible solutions are discussed in the ratings thread. You know from the ratings thread, that there is an actually considered rating option, where Crawford would be #2 in his division. And you know that with the same option Davis would be only close above Josh Taylor.

In spite of that you play the big man here. Your are a troll,, what a pathetic character, I now learned. Nobody to take seriously, sorry.

Enlightened-One, sorry for my post. I confused another poster and you.

who did you think it was matey

computerrank wrote: ↑29 Jun 2021, 05:15

computerrank wrote: ↑28 Jun 2021, 13:00

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑28 Jun 2021, 12:05 It's obviously an anomaly, but we need to remember the BoxRec points system is based on a flawed mathematical calculation.

Josh Taylor’s victories over Jose Carlos Ramirez and Regis Prograis would have gained the Scot a lot of rankings points, but his other victories weren't particularly remarkable.

Also, Gervonta Davis has competed in more bouts, fought more world champions, engaged in more world title fights and achieved success in more weight classes.

The American has also faced more guys with 10+ BoxRec points than Taylor has.

For the record, I’m not suggesting that Gervonta Davis is a better fighter than Josh Taylor, but I can understand the reason why he’s accumulated more BoxRec rating points.

Look at Terence Crawford's ratings, he's fought nobody of any note within the last four years, but yet he's still rated highly by BoxRec.

It just goes to show that it's impossible to use a formula to accurately gauge ratings.

You know, that exactly such issues and possible solutions are discussed in the ratings thread. You know from the ratings thread, that there is an actually considered rating option, where Crawford would be #2 in his division. And you know that with the same option Davis would be only close above Josh Taylor.

In spite of that you play the big man here. Your are a troll,, what a pathetic character, I now learned. Nobody to take seriously, sorry.

Enlightened-One, sorry for my post. I confused another poster and you.

No worries. No harm done.

He's #21 in the pound for pound list too! Behind Shawn Porter

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑29 Jun 2021, 03:56 According to BoxRec’s ratings, the third best currently active pound-for-pound fighter on the planet has only won two fights, against opponents with a total combined record of three wins and twelve losses!

In case you doubt me, click on the hyperlinks and/or the image (to see a bigger version):

Active fighters pound-for-pound ratings
David Mercado

Just to clarify David Mercado has earned all the praise that he recieves the hard way and nothing has been given to him. David is a fine example for others proving that dedication and an impeccable work ethic really do produce results.

H8Usernames wrote: ↑29 Jun 2021, 08:02

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑29 Jun 2021, 03:56 According to BoxRec’s ratings, the third best currently active pound-for-pound fighter on the planet has only won two fights, against opponents with a total combined record of three wins and twelve losses!

In case you doubt me, click on the hyperlinks and/or the image (to see a bigger version):

Active fighters pound-for-pound ratings
David Mercado

Just to clarify David Mercado has earned all the praise that he recieves the hard way and nothing has been given to him. David is a fine example for others proving that dedication and an impeccable work ethic really do produce results.

It appears that computerrank has just resolved the error and corrected Mercado's rating.