Eastman ranked at 168?
Posted: 05 Oct 2004, 13:03
Have I missed something...why is Eastman ranked by BoxRec at super-middle?
Thanks. But you are going to cause yourselves an UNBELIEVABLE amount of bother with your rankings, both world and for individual countries, if you use what a fighter actually weighed in a non-title fight to base his division on.Freiheit wrote:Because he weighed 168lbs in his last fight
Yes, I suppose computerised rankings make things like this inevitable, as the human element is removed. No system is perfect.Freiheit wrote:I think this has something to do with the ABC criteria. Ie fightfax also ranks after weight in last fight. On boxrec you are allowed to be a bit overweight, ie the dlh/hopkins ranking. Its either that or a strict limit like fightfax, so if you weigh 160 1/4 you are a supermiddleweight.
For discussion of weight and boxrec ratings have a look at:bennie wrote:I believe fighters should be judged on what they weigh for their last three fights.
Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:Yes, I suppose computerised rankings make things like this inevitable, as the human element is removed. No system is perfect.Freiheit wrote:I think this has something to do with the ABC criteria. Ie fightfax also ranks after weight in last fight. On boxrec you are allowed to be a bit overweight, ie the dlh/hopkins ranking. Its either that or a strict limit like fightfax, so if you weigh 160 1/4 you are a supermiddleweight.
As we say in England, 'horses for courses'.