They are always going to be a bit off, all rankings are especially automated one, but I thought I'd perserve their current state of weirdness Highlights at heavyweight include James Toney ranking 10th, Glazkov ranking above Jersey Joe Walcott, Tony Bellew at 80th, and this sequence 27 Peter Maher 28 Sam Langford 29 Ingemar Johansson 30 David Haye* 31 Mike Weaver 32 Michael Dokes 33 Jimmy Bivins 34 Riddick Bowe 35 Tomasz Adamek 36 Marvin Hart 37 Jack Dempsey
Currently ranking ahead of Ted Kid Lewis (who used to site around the top of the British all time rankings) is G Lymer a batamweight with a single fight on the system, a dq win over Jobey Jordan. Jordan has two previous fights a win over George Moore, and then a loss.
Boxrec Ratings have ALWAYS been Up and/or Down, the scoring system seems to change every couple of years... there used to be a HUGE gap in scored numbers with some fighters at the Top verses other fighters at the Top. they could surely balance and come up with 'realistic' ratings. 1 point for every loss 2 points for the Draw 3 points for the Win 10 points for Tournament Eliminators 15 for National Titles 20 Points for Regional International Titles 20 for Alphabet Titles 30 Points for Lineal Titles Something like that, to that effect, surely that would score fighters respectfully for their trade and also not have ridiculous spreads between Top Men from Champions to Contenders to Fringe - Journeyman - Club Fighter to No Hopers even being scored for their efforts. it can't be that difficult to figure out some scoring method.
It wouldn't really count quality of opposition The way it works, simply, is you get points by winning and lose them from losing, the transfer depends on the nature of it and how many points each have before hand. I think the all time it somehow uses their rankings at different times.
Whatever mathematical system you use, you won't get accurate results as long as there is human error built into the system. If your system is based on wins and losses, but takes no account of robberies then the numbers are going to be significantly skewed. There is also the question of how quality a win was. If you're opponent is a prestigious lineal champion but he's old, shot, and can barely stand on an injured leg, then you shouldn't reap the same reward as beating him in his prime. I also think that maybe taking a portion of your opponent's points isn't the best way to go either, for the same reasons. It leads to cherry picking, and good past prime fighters will be worth more than at their peaks.
Good post. To me, a strictly mathematical formula is never going to be adequate in rating fighters. Too many variables and intangibles that have to be considered, as you've detailed in part.
