thing i do not get about the boxrec rankings
Posted: 13 Feb 2016, 06:51
how can wilder be at 21 p4p? this seems
around 100 places too high for me ...
around 100 places too high for me ...
BoxRec
thing i do not get about the boxrec rankings
Page 1 of 2
Re: thing i do not get about the boxrec rankings
Posted: 13 Feb 2016, 07:07
prob a glitch!!
Re: thing i do not get about the boxrec rankings
Posted: 13 Feb 2016, 07:55
... personal p4p lists have NEVER made much sense to me, except that they sometimes offer a basis for interesting discussions...computerised p4p rankings system is inherently incapable of putting such lists together IMO...
Re: thing i do not get about the boxrec rankings
Posted: 13 Feb 2016, 10:06
Boxrec only ranks all boxers in a common list with their individual weight division rating.greg wrote:... personal p4p lists have NEVER made much sense to me, except that they sometimes offer a basis for interesting discussions...computerised p4p rankings system is inherently incapable of putting such lists together IMO...
It would be possible to use other criteria, which ... ?
Re: thing i do not get about the boxrec rankings
Posted: 13 Feb 2016, 11:06
..Martin, it was NOT an attempt to critisize boxrec rankings (I actually like and follow them), rather an opinion that it's (next to) impossible to put together a reasonable P4P list (especially if it includes 20000+ boxers) that would keep most of fans satisfied for the simple reason that there will be too many (subjective) factors to be able to find a common denominator...computerrank wrote:Boxrec only ranks all boxers in a common list with their individual weight division rating.greg wrote:... personal p4p lists have NEVER made much sense to me, except that they sometimes offer a basis for interesting discussions...computerised p4p rankings system is inherently incapable of putting such lists together IMO...
It would be possible to use other criteria, which ... ?
Re: thing i do not get about the boxrec rankings
Posted: 13 Feb 2016, 12:07
man wrote:how can wilder be at 21 p4p? this seems
around 100 places too high for me ...
Fact he's undefeated and has a great KO ratio. 21 seems a bit high though.
boxrec ratings I think is based on what you've done, not how good you are.
Last I checked Floyd Patterson was ranked something like 7th in the All Time Heavyweight Ratings.
On ability: that's way too high. On performance, it makes more sense as he beat HW contenders over a 3 decade period.
Re: thing i do not get about the boxrec rankings
Posted: 13 Feb 2016, 12:41
Boxrec is a great site but the rankings are shite. If you want to follow rankings follow these www.premierboxingorganisation.com/heavyweight-200greg wrote:..Martin, it was NOT an attempt to critisize boxrec rankings (I actually like and follow them), rather an opinion that it's (next to) impossible to put together a reasonable P4P list (especially if it includes 20000+ boxers) that would keep most of fans satisfied for the simple reason that there will be too many (subjective) factors to be able to find a common denominator...computerrank wrote:Boxrec only ranks all boxers in a common list with their individual weight division rating.greg wrote:... personal p4p lists have NEVER made much sense to me, except that they sometimes offer a basis for interesting discussions...computerised p4p rankings system is inherently incapable of putting such lists together IMO...
It would be possible to use other criteria, which ... ?
Re: thing i do not get about the boxrec rankings
Posted: 13 Feb 2016, 13:06
It's easy to confuse rankings with ability.
It's rational, at least arguable, to rank Stiverne, Jennings, or Takam above Joshua because the first 3 have "been around" and fought and often beat superior opposition compared to Joshua, at this point in time.
But I would favor Joshua over those 3 easily in a fight.
In a nutshell, ranking and ability are 2 different lists.
It's rational, at least arguable, to rank Stiverne, Jennings, or Takam above Joshua because the first 3 have "been around" and fought and often beat superior opposition compared to Joshua, at this point in time.
But I would favor Joshua over those 3 easily in a fight.
In a nutshell, ranking and ability are 2 different lists.
Re: thing i do not get about the boxrec rankings
Posted: 13 Feb 2016, 14:00
Eddie Chambers ranked 17 spots behind a guy he shut out, David Haye and Robert Helenius ranked behind guys like Dominic Breazeale and Christian Hammer, Malik Scott and Dereck Chisora in the top 15, Bermane Stiverne and Carlos Takam as the 5th and 6th best Heavies in the world...Lennox wrote:Boxrec is a great site but the rankings are shite. If you want to follow rankings follow these http://www.premierboxingorganisation.co ... weight-200greg wrote:..Martin, it was NOT an attempt to critisize boxrec rankings (I actually like and follow them), rather an opinion that it's (next to) impossible to put together a reasonable P4P list (especially if it includes 20000+ boxers) that would keep most of fans satisfied for the simple reason that there will be too many (subjective) factors to be able to find a common denominator...computerrank wrote:
Boxrec only ranks all boxers in a common list with their individual weight division rating.
It would be possible to use other criteria, which ... ?
Those rankings go to absolute crap after the first four.
Re: thing i do not get about the boxrec rankings
Posted: 13 Feb 2016, 14:05
i usually respect the ratings, including p4p.
but wilder is famous for his no-name-record.
if i recall correctly he had one fight with a top
ten heavy. how can such record put him that
high up in any ranking?
but wilder is famous for his no-name-record.
if i recall correctly he had one fight with a top
ten heavy. how can such record put him that
high up in any ranking?
Re: thing i do not get about the boxrec rankings
Posted: 13 Feb 2016, 14:07
Just another list.
GingerHead number 1 P4P? Not in my opinion. But that is the point, everyone has an opinion, right?
GingerHead number 1 P4P? Not in my opinion. But that is the point, everyone has an opinion, right?
Re: thing i do not get about the boxrec rankings
Posted: 13 Feb 2016, 20:04
The rating points tend to migrate upwards and pool in the heavyweight division, as I've explained many times. This is why there are 5 heavyweights in the top 27 p4p on boxrec. Deontay beat a guy who is currently the #18 heavyweight on boxrec, but at the time had a 475 rating. A 475 rating would be good for the #34 p4p slot, and a win against such a rating gave Wilder almost a 200 point rating boost. Wilder gained another almost 100 points from making title defenses against 3 no-hopers.
Re: thing i do not get about the boxrec rankings
Posted: 13 Feb 2016, 21:51
Fury is #2 I think thats like 4000 places too highman wrote:how can wilder be at 21 p4p? this seems
around 100 places too high for me ...
Re: thing i do not get about the boxrec rankings
Posted: 13 Feb 2016, 21:56
I don't really get why anyone eve bothers to ask questions about why the Boxrec rankings make no sense. That's almost always the case. They're run by a computer program I guess that only seems to see results, and has no ability to factor in other intangibles.
Re: thing i do not get about the boxrec rankings
Posted: 13 Feb 2016, 22:44
As there is no universally accepted method of assessment, P4P rankings are completely subjective.man wrote:how can wilder be at 21 p4p? this seems
around 100 places too high for me ...
All just matter of opinion and opinions vary from one person to the next
Re: thing i do not get about the boxrec rankings
Posted: 14 Feb 2016, 07:44
What about a p4p ranking like this from Boxrec?
Evaluates the sum of 1/2 of the individual rating and the difference of the individual rating to the mean of the top 5 in the particular division
Evaluates the sum of 1/2 of the individual rating and the difference of the individual rating to the mean of the top 5 in the particular division
Code: Select all
+----------+---------------+---------------------+---------+---------+----------+
| rank_new | last_name | division | p4p_new | p4p_old | rank_old |
+----------+---------------+---------------------+---------+---------+----------+
| 1 | Alvarez | Middleweight | 1136 | 1256 | 1 |
| 4 | Fury | Heavyweight | 812 | 1056 | 2 |
| 2 | Kovalev | Light Heavyweight | 880 | 1046 | 3 |
| 3 | Golovkin | Middleweight | 816 | 1042 | 4 |
| 5 | Klitschko | Heavyweight | 665 | 958 | 5 |
| 8 | Pacquiao | Welterweight | 545 | 906 | 6 |
| 12 | Brook | Welterweight | 470 | 857 | 7 |
| 14 | Thurman | Welterweight | 433 | 832 | 8 |
| 7 | Lara | Light Middleweight | 623 | 782 | 9 |
| 19 | Bradley Jr | Welterweight | 355 | 780 | 10 |
| 6 | Crawford | Light Welterweight | 624 | 774 | 11 |
| 11 | Stevenson | Light Heavyweight | 473 | 774 | 12 |
| 29 | Khan | Welterweight | 231 | 697 | 13 |
| 34 | Porter | Welterweight | 225 | 693 | 14 |
| 26 | Povetkin | Heavyweight | 264 | 691 | 15 |
| 40 | Garcia | Welterweight | 192 | 671 | 16 |
| 13 | Postol | Light Welterweight | 461 | 666 | 17 |
| 9 | Frampton | Super Bantamweight | 492 | 649 | 18 |
| 32 | Jacobs | Middleweight | 227 | 649 | 19 |
| 15 | Cotto | Light Middleweight | 409 | 639 | 20 |
| 49 | Wilder | Heavyweight | 153 | 617 | 21 |
| 42 | Ward | Light Heavyweight | 186 | 583 | 22 |
| 16 | Uchiyama | Super Featherweight | 384 | 572 | 23 |
| 17 | Rigondeaux | Super Bantamweight | 367 | 566 | 24 |
| 10 | Gonzalez | Flyweight | 476 | 559 | 25 |
| 83 | Pulev | Heavyweight | 34 | 537 | 26 |
| 18 | Abraham | Super Middleweight | 367 | 526 | 27 |
| 64 | Fonfara | Light Heavyweight | 99 | 525 | 28 |
| 24 | Vargas | Super Featherweight | 299 | 516 | 29 |
| 71 | Alvarez | Light Heavyweight | 81 | 513 | 30 |
| 23 | Drozd | Cruiserweight | 315 | 505 | 31 |
| 22 | Santa Cruz | Featherweight | 319 | 497 | 32 |
| 30 | Quigg | Super Bantamweight | 228 | 474 | 33 |
| 28 | Fortuna | Super Featherweight | 231 | 470 | 34 |
| 21 | Estrada | Flyweight | 335 | 465 | 35 |
| 38 | Donaire | Super Bantamweight | 212 | 463 | 36 |
| 25 | DeGale | Super Middleweight | 273 | 463 | 37 |
| 36 | Walters | Super Featherweight | 215 | 459 | 38 |
| 27 | Lebedev | Cruiserweight | 244 | 458 | 39 |
| 20 | Inoue | Super Flyweight | 342 | 449 | 40 |
| 58 | Charlo | Light Middleweight | 122 | 447 | 41 |
| 56 | Broner | Light Welterweight | 127 | 443 | 42 |
| 61 | Charlo | Light Middleweight | 113 | 442 | 43 |
| 37 | Glowacki | Cruiserweight | 215 | 439 | 44 |
| 31 | Selby | Featherweight | 227 | 437 | 45 |
| 33 | Cuellar | Featherweight | 226 | 436 | 46 |
| 63 | Andrade | Light Middleweight | 104 | 435 | 47 |
| 62 | Troyanovsky | Light Welterweight | 105 | 429 | 48 |
| 46 | Makabu | Cruiserweight | 175 | 412 | 49 |
| 41 | Smith | Super Middleweight | 191 | 408 | 50 |
| 45 | Russell Jr | Featherweight | 178 | 403 | 51 |
| 48 | Briedis | Cruiserweight | 157 | 400 | 52 |
| 87 | Martirosyan | Light Middleweight | 20 | 379 | 53 |
| 86 | Provodnikov | Light Welterweight | 26 | 376 | 54 |
| 55 | Dirrell | Super Middleweight | 129 | 367 | 55 |
| 59 | Vetyeka | Featherweight | 117 | 363 | 56 |
| 65 | Usyk | Cruiserweight | 97 | 360 | 57 |
| 80 | Pedraza | Super Featherweight | 55 | 353 | 58 |
| 76 | Afolabi | Cruiserweight | 76 | 346 | 59 |
| 43 | Cuadras | Super Flyweight | 185 | 344 | 60 |
| 66 | Jack | Super Middleweight | 92 | 342 | 61 |
| 35 | Yamanaka | Bantamweight | 216 | 342 | 62 |
| 70 | Chudinov | Super Middleweight | 84 | 337 | 63 |
| 75 | Lomachenko | Featherweight | 78 | 337 | 64 |
| 54 | Ioka | Flyweight | 138 | 334 | 65 |
| 77 | Murray | Super Middleweight | 75 | 331 | 66 |
| 79 | Sonjica | Featherweight | 57 | 323 | 67 |
| 44 | McDonnell | Bantamweight | 182 | 320 | 68 |
| 39 | Nietes | Light Flyweight | 210 | 315 | 69 |
| 53 | Tete | Super Flyweight | 139 | 313 | 70 |
| 85 | Bellew | Cruiserweight | 26 | 313 | 71 |
| 47 | Haskins | Bantamweight | 169 | 311 | 72 |
| 82 | Sturm | Super Middleweight | 37 | 306 | 73 |
| 94 | Durodola | Cruiserweight | 12 | 303 | 74 |
| 99 | McKenzie | Cruiserweight | 0 | 296 | 75 |
| 93 | Mares | Featherweight | 12 | 293 | 76 |
| 96 | Groves | Super Middleweight | 8 | 286 | 77 |
| 97 | Ramirez | Super Middleweight | 6 | 285 | 78 |
| 57 | Tapales | Bantamweight | 123 | 280 | 79 |
| 72 | Concepcion | Super Flyweight | 81 | 275 | 80 |
| 73 | Arroyo | Super Flyweight | 80 | 274 | 81 |
| 74 | Sor Rungvisai | Super Flyweight | 78 | 273 | 82 |
| 51 | Kimura | Light Flyweight | 146 | 272 | 83 |
| 52 | Guevara | Light Flyweight | 142 | 270 | 84 |
| 89 | Ruenroeng | Flyweight | 15 | 251 | 85 |
| 84 | Narvaez | Super Flyweight | 28 | 240 | 86 |
| 67 | Yaegashi | Light Flyweight | 88 | 234 | 87 |
| 81 | Sor Singyu | Bantamweight | 52 | 233 | 88 |
| 92 | Kono | Super Flyweight | 13 | 229 | 89 |
| 50 | Menayothin | Minimumweight | 153 | 224 | 90 |
| 78 | Loreto | Light Flyweight | 69 | 221 | 91 |
| 88 | Moreno | Bantamweight | 16 | 209 | 92 |
| 90 | Sityatha | Bantamweight | 15 | 208 | 93 |
| 60 | Budler | Minimumweight | 116 | 200 | 94 |
| 100 | Solis | Bantamweight | 0 | 198 | 95 |
| 68 | Juarez | Minimumweight | 88 | 181 | 96 |
| 69 | CP Freshmart | Minimumweight | 86 | 179 | 97 |
| 91 | Tanaka | Minimumweight | 14 | 131 | 98 |
| 95 | Argumedo | Minimumweight | 10 | 129 | 99 |
| 98 | Takayama | Minimumweight | 1 | 123 | 100 |
+----------+---------------+---------------------+---------+---------+----------+
Re: thing i do not get about the boxrec rankings
Posted: 14 Feb 2016, 12:10
They are an attempt at objective rankings. once you start factoring in any intangibles, you might as well just do away with all the numbers.The Revival wrote:I don't really get why anyone eve bothers to ask questions about why the Boxrec rankings make no sense. That's almost always the case. They're run by a computer program I guess that only seems to see results, and has no ability to factor in other intangibles.
Re: thing i do not get about the boxrec rankings
Posted: 14 Feb 2016, 12:51
You have to view intangibles. Equally as important as how many wins does he got is "Who is he beating", "How is he looking in those fights" things like that.squiggy wrote:They are an attempt at objective rankings. once you start factoring in any intangibles, you might as well just do away with all the numbers.The Revival wrote:I don't really get why anyone eve bothers to ask questions about why the Boxrec rankings make no sense. That's almost always the case. They're run by a computer program I guess that only seems to see results, and has no ability to factor in other intangibles.
Just the amount of wins and numbers alone don't always tell the story. That's why Deontay Wilder's record a helluva lot less impressive when you take a closer look at it, or when you watch him getting outboxed by Szpilka for several rounds before he's able to land the bomb and end the fight.
Re: thing i do not get about the boxrec rankings
Posted: 14 Feb 2016, 14:29
The problem with those boxers, Chambers, Haye and Helenius is their inactivity and their poor recent opposition. Haye is probably a lot better than his position but after 3 years off and 90 seconds, how high can you put him. The system penalises fighters who engage in non compliant fights ie fight poor opposition continually. It is all on a bar system. Scott beat a decent fighter in Tony Thompson, Chisora beat Scott they are in everyones top 15. Stiverne and Takam are very good heavyweights they have beaten measured fighters. No system will be as good as a really good subjective top 10 but this system is better from 11-100, it is virtually impossible for anyone to list a subjective 100 in every division because they can't know that many fighters and the top 10s reasonably align with other subjective lists.punchoutsb wrote:Eddie Chambers ranked 17 spots behind a guy he shut out, David Haye and Robert Helenius ranked behind guys like Dominic Breazeale and Christian Hammer, Malik Scott and Dereck Chisora in the top 15, Bermane Stiverne and Carlos Takam as the 5th and 6th best Heavies in the world...Lennox wrote:Boxrec is a great site but the rankings are shite. If you want to follow rankings follow these http://www.premierboxingorganisation.co ... weight-200greg wrote: ..Martin, it was NOT an attempt to critisize boxrec rankings (I actually like and follow them), rather an opinion that it's (next to) impossible to put together a reasonable P4P list (especially if it includes 20000+ boxers) that would keep most of fans satisfied for the simple reason that there will be too many (subjective) factors to be able to find a common denominator...
Those rankings go to absolute crap after the first four.
Re: thing i do not get about the boxrec rankings
Posted: 14 Feb 2016, 14:59
Which good heavyweight thrust Takam to 6th in the world? Sprott? Grant? Thompson? How about Stiverne? Come from behind win against ancient Ray Austin? Arreola? Squeaking by Derric Rossy?Lennox wrote:The problem with those boxers, Chambers, Haye and Helenius is their inactivity and their poor recent opposition. Haye is probably a lot better than his position but after 3 years off and 90 seconds, how high can you put him. The system penalises fighters who engage in non compliant fights ie fight poor opposition continually. It is all on a bar system. Scott beat a decent fighter in Tony Thompson, Chisora beat Scott they are in everyones top 15. Stiverne and Takam are very good heavyweights they have beaten measured fighters. No system will be as good as a really good subjective top 10 but this system is better from 11-100, it is virtually impossible for anyone to list a subjective 100 in every division because they can't know that many fighters and the top 10s reasonably align with other subjective lists.punchoutsb wrote:Eddie Chambers ranked 17 spots behind a guy he shut out, David Haye and Robert Helenius ranked behind guys like Dominic Breazeale and Christian Hammer, Malik Scott and Dereck Chisora in the top 15, Bermane Stiverne and Carlos Takam as the 5th and 6th best Heavies in the world...Lennox wrote:Boxrec is a great site but the rankings are shite. If you want to follow rankings follow these http://www.premierboxingorganisation.co ... weight-200
Those rankings go to absolute crap after the first four.
I will agree that ranking a top 100 is very difficult, but computerized rankings are never the answer. Boxing is an eye test, not a stat line.
Re: thing i do not get about the boxrec rankings
Posted: 14 Feb 2016, 15:33
The whole Pound-for-pound thing was something dreamed up by a bored sportswriter to fill his column way back when. It is totally meaningless. As for the Boxrec rankings, their usefullness diminishes the farther down the list you go. Random case in point: Sergey Kuzmin with a 5-0 record is ranked No.53 while Oscar Rivas at 18-0 is ranked No.70.
I think the ranking system in Paul Norman's Title Bout Championship Boxing computer sim does just as well as Boxrec.
I think the ranking system in Paul Norman's Title Bout Championship Boxing computer sim does just as well as Boxrec.
Re: thing i do not get about the boxrec rankings
Posted: 14 Feb 2016, 15:47
makes sense to me.computerrank wrote:What about a p4p ranking like this from Boxrec?
Evaluates the sum of 1/2 of the individual rating and the difference of the individual rating to the mean of the top 5 in the particular division
i usually like the ratings of boxrec very much.
my perception of wilder's record was that he
fought extremely weak opposition. but maybe
the numbers indicate it was not as weak overall
as i thought.
Re: thing i do not get about the boxrec rankings
Posted: 14 Feb 2016, 16:53
Takam beating Tony Thompson elevated him and Stiverne beating Arreola. It might not be much but unfortunately most fighters avoid others. It is a case of in the land of the bind the one eyed man is king sometimes. These ratings are about results what happened, but yes if a fighter chooses to never fight anyone ranked and stay unbeaten then you never quite know how good he is. Stats are right 95% of the time but yes the 5% flaws can be spotted with the eye.punchoutsb wrote:Which good heavyweight thrust Takam to 6th in the world? Sprott? Grant? Thompson? How about Stiverne? Come from behind win against ancient Ray Austin? Arreola? Squeaking by Derric Rossy?Lennox wrote:The problem with those boxers, Chambers, Haye and Helenius is their inactivity and their poor recent opposition. Haye is probably a lot better than his position but after 3 years off and 90 seconds, how high can you put him. The system penalises fighters who engage in non compliant fights ie fight poor opposition continually. It is all on a bar system. Scott beat a decent fighter in Tony Thompson, Chisora beat Scott they are in everyones top 15. Stiverne and Takam are very good heavyweights they have beaten measured fighters. No system will be as good as a really good subjective top 10 but this system is better from 11-100, it is virtually impossible for anyone to list a subjective 100 in every division because they can't know that many fighters and the top 10s reasonably align with other subjective lists.punchoutsb wrote:
Eddie Chambers ranked 17 spots behind a guy he shut out, David Haye and Robert Helenius ranked behind guys like Dominic Breazeale and Christian Hammer, Malik Scott and Dereck Chisora in the top 15, Bermane Stiverne and Carlos Takam as the 5th and 6th best Heavies in the world...
Those rankings go to absolute crap after the first four.
I will agree that ranking a top 100 is very difficult, but computerized rankings are never the answer. Boxing is an eye test, not a stat line.
Re: thing i do not get about the boxrec rankings
Posted: 14 Feb 2016, 20:50
Thompson is an old has been and Arreola is a never was.Lennox wrote:Takam beating Tony Thompson elevated him and Stiverne beating Arreola. It might not be much but unfortunately most fighters avoid others. It is a case of in the land of the bind the one eyed man is king sometimes. These ratings are about results what happened, but yes if a fighter chooses to never fight anyone ranked and stay unbeaten then you never quite know how good he is. Stats are right 95% of the time but yes the 5% flaws can be spotted with the eye.
The problem with stats in sports is that they often do not indicate anything outside of the highest level. Take Takams win over Thompson as a fine example. Yes, Tony has a name. He's also 44 years old, and was the heaviest weight of his career for that fight. If that pops Takam that high, something is wrong, especially considering he was knocked cold in his next fight.
Re: thing i do not get about the boxrec rankings
Posted: 15 Feb 2016, 03:22
Takam got credit for his draw as well but the problem is that there is a failure of fighters to fight other good fighters, so the fighters that do beat top 20 fighters get rewarded. If you study what is produced it is all the same pattern in every division, perhaps with the exception of straw-weight as there are not many fighters.
Tony Thompson has a pretty good resume over the last few years and one of the few that is willing to fight.
Tony Thompson has a pretty good resume over the last few years and one of the few that is willing to fight.