BoxRec bias towards UK fighters

[komasi75]

How do you rank Fielding so high at 168 after getting KO'd in 3 rounds, yet Plant just defeated a tough champ to only rise to 13?. Your no. 1 (Smith) only has one notable win (Groves). Groves himself has been stopped twice and lost 4 times?

You have Kell Brook, who has done nothing at 154 sitting at 4??...higher then both Harrison and Charlo??. Not to mention Mungia at 154 has jumped to no.1?? 2 weeks ago Hurd (the recognised no. 1 fighter at 154) was your no. 1...what happened in the interim that warranted the change?? How you update rankings when none of the mentioned fighters had fought??

You have Crolla (who has 6 defeats!?!) at 4?? Easter Jr has only lost once to a top5 p4p fighter in Garcia, but can only manage 9 yet he beat a guy who is sitting at 6!?!? (Commey).

I love your website and the info it provides, but your ranking system is seriously skewed towards UK/Euro fighters, which I find frustrating, as in most cases when exposed to a quality fighter, they fall short. Don't get me wrong they are a lot of great UK fighters who deserve their rankings (Joshua, Fury, Whyte, Saunders, Frampton, Taylor, Warrington, Burnett), but the rest of the fighters seems to rocket up the rankings with regional wins and drop 2 or 3 places with a defeat.

[dagilechia]

How do you rank Fielding so high at 168 after getting KO'd in 3 rounds, yet Plant just defeated a tough champ to only rise to 13?. Your no. 1 (Smith) only has one notable win (Groves). Groves himself has been stopped twice and lost 4 times?

You have Kell Brook, who has done nothing at 154 sitting at 4??...higher then both Harrison and Charlo??. Not to mention Mungia at 154 has jumped to no.1?? 2 weeks ago Hurd (the recognised no. 1 fighter at 154) was your no. 1...what happened in the interim that warranted the change?? How you update rankings when none of the mentioned fighters had fought??

You have Crolla (who has 6 defeats!?!) at 4?? Easter Jr has only lost once to a top5 p4p fighter in Garcia, but can only manage 9 yet he beat a guy who is sitting at 6!?!? (Commey).

I love your website and the info it provides, but your ranking system is seriously skewed towards UK/Euro fighters, which I find frustrating, as in most cases when exposed to a quality fighter, they fall short. Don't get me wrong they are a lot of great UK fighters who deserve their rankings (Joshua, Fury, Whyte, Saunders, Frampton, Taylor, Warrington, Burnett), but the rest of the fighters seems to rocket up the rankings with regional wins and drop 2 or 3 places with a defeat.

it's just maths, no bias there. you registered here almost 9 years ago and you still don't know how boxrec ranking works?

[jamamb]

so wuts the story koma my bruh, u think a brit bias has been intentionally worked into the formulas or something, how wud that even work

[oogiebe]

=if(country="UK", goto"biased",else(goto"everyone_else"))

[jamamb]

[Evander]

British boxers should get higher rakings we practically invented the sport and deserve to be rewarded.
Historically Frank Bruno's hand speed inspired many future champions and David Price's chin is revered all around the world.

[Lackeos]

This thread is total sh*t.
-There is absolutely nothing in the formula that cares whether a fighter is British. You have to be an idiot to think that there is.
-Is doesn't matter how many losses Crolla has. It's not unprecedented for great fighters to have numerous losses. Sam Langford had 43 losses, and he's way better than some undefeated bottomfeeder. With ELO-style ratings, it's all about momentum. You could have 20 losses, then get a big win against a high-ranking opponent, and suddenly you now have a high ranking.
-It doesn't matter that Easter previously beat Commey. Breidis Prescott beat Amir Khan, but that doesn't entitle him to occupy a higher ranking than Khan forever. Actually, since Khan is British, you probably think that every non-British fighter should be ranked above him, so I doubt you're persuaded by this argument. Okay, I'll put it in terms you'll understand. American boxer Bernard Hopkins lost to Clinton Mitchell. That doesn't mean Mitchell should be ranked above Hopkins forever.
-"Your no. 1 (Smith) only has one notable win (Groves)". So who's supposed to be ranked above Smith? Is it Groves himself (who Smith beat)? Is it Chris Eubank Jr (who Groves beat)? Is it Rocky Fielding (f*ck that. You don't even think he should be above the #13 guy)? Is it Ramirez (doesn't even really have 1 scalp as good as Groves)? Should it be Jesse Hart (Ramirez already beat him twice)? Don't tell me you're dumb enough to think that Caleb Planet should be #1.
-"2 weeks ago Hurd (the recognised no. 1 fighter at 154) was your no. 1...what happened in the interim that warranted the change?? How you update rankings when none of the mentioned fighters had fought??" They actually adjusted the formula recently, and it has predictably resulted in some fighters changing positions. Some people would have noticed by the fact that ratings dropped by like two-thirds. Saul Alvarez's rating is only 323; it used to be like 1000+.

Honestly, I could go on. There's a ton of subtle idiocy in the original post and not nearly enough time to address it all.

[Enlightened-One]

BoxRec bias towards UK fighters

I bet you’re feeling a tad foolish about creating this thread, aren’t you?

You are basically saying that you don’t know what you’re talking about, but you are going to complain about it anyway.