Boxrec rankings are supposed to be purely formula driven but for some reason british boxers always appear to get ranked too high.
I'm not sure about that rooq but big winning records in average company tend to favoured too much over records with more losses in better company.
title fights also gain you extra points. in the us or mexico they dont have as many regional belts etc. so a guy like kell brook has has 10 12 rounders and the us fighter will still be on 10s, even if the level of oppo is the same or worse on brooks record.
in reality, i guess it doesn't matter. Shpuld be interesting to see if Waren trusts Mitchell again to pull out all the stops or if he will be sent as an away offering like jennings/lockett etc
If rankings are pointless, how do you suggest title shots are decided? I agree most of them are ****, but thats the downfall of not having a single set of rankings for each weight. The only reason Mitchel is now ranked so highly, is because he beat an over-rated Murray, who was ranked far too high. Mitchel now has to be there or there abouts because of beating Murray. The question should be, how did Murray get so high in the first place?
See my post above StW, Murray had the type of record, long, unbeaten (even if it is against less than top level opponents) that the Boxrec formula seems to "like".
Rankings of current active fighters should be based on recent activity, not early wins. Those early wins should of only propelled them through the lower rankings. Boxrec is bad enough, but the WBO had Murray at #3 I think. They certainly shouldnt be ranking on overall career.
Because it's a statistical website: they are using their assets; a massive database of boxing records.