BoxRec

Updated for August.

www.premierboxingorganisation.com/heavyweight-200

Chisora is way too low.

Horse wrote:Chisora is way too low.

Yeah I sort of agree. He has just not beaten anyone in the top 100 for 42 months, some okay losses but the system finds it hard to find a higher level he can win at.

Lennox wrote:

Horse wrote:Chisora is way too low.

Yeah I sort of agree. He has just not beaten anyone in the top 100 for 42 months, some okay losses but the system finds it hard to find a higher level he can win at.

But look at some of the people above him.

Haye?
Malik Scott?
Charles Martin?

Andy Ruiz Jr is too low too.

BitPlayer wrote:

Lennox wrote:

Horse wrote:Chisora is way too low.

Yeah I sort of agree. He has just not beaten anyone in the top 100 for 42 months, some okay losses but the system finds it hard to find a higher level he can win at.

But look at some of the people above him.

Haye?
Malik Scott?
Charles Martin?

Andy Ruiz Jr is too low too.

Haye, Scott and Martin have beaten top 100 opponents recently though. The system measures quality wins. Its objective so there will always be things you see better with the eye.

Andy Ruiz is a fighter that has only beaten one top 50 opponent, he lost to Parker who maybe does not so good to the eye now.

No system will lodge all 100 fighters in the same way each person sees it.

Lennox..

When you refer to "Top 50" and "Top 100".. I assume this is your own Top 50/100/etc? I just don't see how you can keep using your own system's output as fuel for your arguments that everything is on the "up and up"...

Thank God, I've been waiting for your shitty rankings with baded breath.

JCS wrote:Lennox..

When you refer to "Top 50" and "Top 100".. I assume this is your own Top 50/100/etc? I just don't see how you can keep using your own system's output as fuel for your arguments that everything is on the "up and up"...

Yes obviously. The ratings are created from lineage from 1991. It is almost impossible that we have missed a fighter who should have been highly ranked. Fighters can make the top 100 without beating somebody in the top 100 but they are not going to ascend very high. Somelike like Ali Raymi got into the top 50 from memory with absolutely no lineage but Minimumweight has a lot less competitors than say Welterweight where he would not have had enough points to make top 100.

You have to be quite a good fighter to make the top 100.

A top 50 fighter is probably ranked in one of the ABCs top 15 and close to a world title fight.

What our rankings can't show is anything subjective, so you will see some fighters in decline too high and others perhaps too low, but as it is on results when they fight it is corrected. You can make a case that Chris Eubanks win over number 2 ranked AA was inflated.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Thank God, I've been waiting for your shitty rankings with baded breath.

Enjoy.

Lennox wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Thank God, I've been waiting for your shitty rankings with baded breath.

Enjoy.

LOL, I never click them, but that was a good reply.

WHy do you even bother with these laughable rankings? At the very least, the BoxRec ratings have a very nice database attached to their dogshit rakings. Your rankings are horrible and useless. Well... I guess they do provide me with a good laugh at least.

Mexi-Box wrote:WHy do you even bother with these laughable rankings? At the very least, the BoxRec ratings have a very nice database attached to their dogshit rakings. Your rankings are horrible and useless. Well... I guess they do provide me with a good laugh at least.

It is my job, I made a living out of providing these services to Television companies and boxing managers, who don't think the way do. If they supply you with amusement then fine. You may recall you argued once about how bad the ratings were at light heavyweight as we ranked Shabransky so low....looked what happened. Dennis Shimmel kept telling me how great his son was despite him not fighting a top 100 opponent, look what happened when he fought someone in the top 100. Thousands of times boxers that get world title fights lose with no real hope and in 95% you can it is going to happen statisically because they fight such poor opposition.

No set of ratings are going to be perfect to another's eye, the same as any league table, but these are the best ratings out there and to many they are THE BIBLE.

Lennox wrote:

Mexi-Box wrote:WHy do you even bother with these laughable rankings? At the very least, the BoxRec ratings have a very nice database attached to their dogshit rakings. Your rankings are horrible and useless. Well... I guess they do provide me with a good laugh at least.

It is my job, I made a living out of providing these services to Television companies and boxing managers, who don't think the way do. If they supply you with amusement then fine. You may recall you argued once about how bad the ratings were at light heavyweight as we ranked Shabransky so low....looked what happened. Dennis Shimmel kept telling me how great his son was despite him not fighting a top 100 opponent, look what happened when he fought someone in the top 100. Thousands of times boxers that get world title fights lose with no real hope and in 95% you can it is going to happen statisically because they fight such poor opposition.

No set of ratings are going to be perfect to another's eye, the same as any league table, but these are the best ratings out there and to many they are THE BIBLE.

Shabranskyy had one of the best resumes of the prospects against Gonzalez who arguably beat Jean Pascal. There was nothing wrong at the time with ranking him high, and Shabranskyy's sole loss is to Barrera who is still a top fighter as of now.

Rankings capture who is the best at the time, and yes, there is a right way to do them. Any computer generate method will always be laughable and wrong.

Shabransky is just not good enough to be real top 10, he was not at the time he was ranked 22 and now hes ranked 34. He was well outclassed. The signs were there having only beaten two top 100 opponents, perhaps we will see again when he fights another top 50 fighter.

Obviously not your bible but others don't think the same, lots like to believe facts and no fiction, though I agree a set of ratings does not tell all and there are unproven fighters and declining fighters.

If you can show me better ratings then do so.

Lennox wrote:Shabransky is just not good enough to be real top 10, he was not at the time he was ranked 22 and now hes ranked 34. He was well outclassed. The signs were there having only beaten two top 100 opponents, perhaps we will see again when he fights another top 50 fighter.

Obviously not your bible but others don't think the same, lots like to believe facts and no fiction, though I agree a set of ratings does not tell all and there are unproven fighters and declining fighters.

If you can show me better ratings then do so.

BoxRec has better rankings, the TBRB, CHB rankings, and BoxRec forum dude has better rankings. Yours is like dead last; although, you are brushing up with BoxRec.

Lennox wrote:

JCS wrote:Lennox..

When you refer to "Top 50" and "Top 100".. I assume this is your own Top 50/100/etc? I just don't see how you can keep using your own system's output as fuel for your arguments that everything is on the "up and up"...

Yes obviously. The ratings are created from lineage from 1991. It is almost impossible that we have missed a fighter who should have been highly ranked. Fighters can make the top 100 without beating somebody in the top 100 but they are not going to ascend very high. Somelike like Ali Raymi got into the top 50 from memory with absolutely no lineage but Minimumweight has a lot less competitors than say Welterweight where he would not have had enough points to make top 100.

You have to be quite a good fighter to make the top 100.

A top 50 fighter is probably ranked in one of the ABCs top 15 and close to a world title fight.

What our rankings can't show is anything subjective, so you will see some fighters in decline too high and others perhaps too low, but as it is on results when they fight it is corrected. You can make a case that Chris Eubanks win over number 2 ranked AA was inflated.

What advantage does that have over boxrec that goes back to the earlist records though?

I get the argument about Chisora, but then why is Takam so high? When is the last decent win of his?

Szpika? He hasn't won at all in 2 years.

Also at Cruiserweight where is Makabu?

Also Stevenson ranked above Ward?

BitPlayer wrote:

Lennox wrote:

JCS wrote:Lennox..

When you refer to "Top 50" and "Top 100".. I assume this is your own Top 50/100/etc? I just don't see how you can keep using your own system's output as fuel for your arguments that everything is on the "up and up"...

Yes obviously. The ratings are created from lineage from 1991. It is almost impossible that we have missed a fighter who should have been highly ranked. Fighters can make the top 100 without beating somebody in the top 100 but they are not going to ascend very high. Somelike like Ali Raymi got into the top 50 from memory with absolutely no lineage but Minimumweight has a lot less competitors than say Welterweight where he would not have had enough points to make top 100.

You have to be quite a good fighter to make the top 100.

A top 50 fighter is probably ranked in one of the ABCs top 15 and close to a world title fight.

What our rankings can't show is anything subjective, so you will see some fighters in decline too high and others perhaps too low, but as it is on results when they fight it is corrected. You can make a case that Chris Eubanks win over number 2 ranked AA was inflated.

What advantage does that have over boxrec that goes back to the earlist records though?

The PBO rankings are based on lineage so if A has beaten B and B has beaten C and C has beaten D etc...it shows everyone in line. The Boxrec formula is different. Ali Raymi went to number 1 in Boxrec but only 46 in PBO and that's because he fought no measurable fighters (in fact he probably did not even exist). The ranking of the fighters is on measureable results, that does not make them perfect to everyone's eye but they are based on achievement. Surely it is hard to argue that if a fighter has beaten somebody they should be ranked above that fighter (at least for a reasonable period of time). The PBO places those boxers in that order. The problems that occur are that fighters get old, move divisions and fighters handle that differently there are bad judges. We have factors for those situations but its not a one size fits all. The underlying problem with boxing is that most fighters avoid anyone that is good and the percentage of 50-50 contests is quite small. If you would have used our system when it was the IWBR and started with £100, and bet on draws when two fighters are ranked within 5 ranks outside of the top 20 then betting £100 each time you would have over £1,200,000 based on getting 50-1 SP when the actual performance odds were 9-1. The rankings are very accurate but you also need to factor declining fighters and hot prospects.

Lennox wrote:Ali Raymi went to number 1 in Boxrec but only 46 in PBO and that's because he fought no measurable fighters (in fact he probably did not even exist).

I had a look at his points at various times, and this claim seems really dubious, have you got any proof?

BitPlayer wrote:

Lennox wrote:Ali Raymi went to number 1 in Boxrec but only 46 in PBO and that's because he fought no measurable fighters (in fact he probably did not even exist).

I had a look at his points at various times, and this claim seems really dubious, have you got any proof?

Don't think Raymi ever made it to #1 at BoxRec... I seem to remember him topping out at borderline Top 10.. maybe #9. Though if someone suggests he made it to #7 or 8, I won't argue.

I know Martin has made some changes since then... and some of those changes seemed to be aimed toward this exact issue.

BitPlayer wrote:I get the argument about Chisora, but then why is Takam so high? When is the last decent win of his?

Szpika? He hasn't won at all in 2 years.

Takam beat the number 55 fighter recently but he is N11 non compliant so will have point reductions until he moves outside of the top 10. Szpilka has point reductions at the moment and this will continue as he looks like to go three years without beating a ranked fighter, so its happening with those fighters too.

BitPlayer wrote:

Lennox wrote:Ali Raymi went to number 1 in Boxrec but only 46 in PBO and that's because he fought no measurable fighters (in fact he probably did not even exist).

I had a look at his points at various times, and this claim seems really dubious, have you got any proof?

No proof but perhaps it was IBO number 1 because they take the 5 champions out.

JCS wrote:

BitPlayer wrote:

Lennox wrote:Ali Raymi went to number 1 in Boxrec but only 46 in PBO and that's because he fought no measurable fighters (in fact he probably did not even exist).

I had a look at his points at various times, and this claim seems really dubious, have you got any proof?

Don't think Raymi ever made it to #1 at BoxRec... I seem to remember him topping out at borderline Top 10.. maybe #9. Though if someone suggests he made it to #7 or 8, I won't argue.

I know Martin has made some changes since then... and some of those changes seemed to be aimed toward this exact issue.

Yes we made some changes over the same issue, the fact someone could get to 46. I think now he could only get to 70 but if he fought lots of times in a month it would still pickle it.

BitPlayer wrote:Also at Cruiserweight where is Makabu?

Also Stevenson ranked above Ward?

I got Makabu inactive last fight 5/16 but I seem to remember he did fight so will check.
Yes Stevenson is still linear and whilst he's not fought Ward or Kovalev he is still fighter reasonable quality to maintain it. Subjectively I agree Ward is better but all three are pretty close.