Do you respect BOXREC's ranking system?

Its alright sometimes....


Other times they suck

 

In short, no, not at all

 

Absolut american cok suk:
Hoe porter and garcia can be above usyk, beterbiev, briedis or bivol is beyond me.

and how ggg and spence are above loma is a whole nother mystery that needs to be solved.

 

you can solve the mystery by researching how point system is calculated.

 

It's automated...

 

Yes and no. Most of the time it's not too bad and actually serves as a decent guide to how a division should be ranked. You can't trust the WBA, WBO, IBF, or WBC because they don't rank each other's champions. Boxrec at least ranks all of the champions from each sanctioning body. But just like the sanctioning companies, boxrec ratings can be manipulated. A guy with one good win will shoot ahead of everyone else, even if that win was a robbery, or a dominant champ with one loss will drop off a cliff. You can cherry pick your way up the ranks, but that's true of most systems and you get more points beating an old lion than a young one in his prime.

However, the best way to see the disconnect between their point awarding system and reality is to look at their pound for pound list. Guys in some divisions, usually the lower ones are getting massively shortchanged. If you are a little guy and deserve to be top ten pound for pound it might put you in the top forty. Or sometimes a fighter will move up into a higher weight class and be ranked ahead of champions there because of what he's perceived to have done at the lower weights.

The main problem with boxrec's ratings is that rate you on what you've done up to that point. Guys who will go on to do great things are short changed and guys who did great but are finished at the top level are overrated. There should be an adjustment based on what the boxer you beat goes on to do to establish just how good the victory was. If they retire directly after, or go 0-5, then that should negatively effect the win's value. If right after that they crush a bunch of champions and begin a major reign in the sport, then the point value should be a little higher, no? So take Salido's victory over Lomachenko or Mayweather's over Canelo. Those victories have improved over time. But Mayweather's victories over the likes of Guerero or Ortiz have been on the wane.

There was a period after he beat Wlad when Tyson Fury was listed as the pound for pound greatest fighter on the planet. Take that for what it's worth.

 

Large picture; they kind of suck.

However, they are more correct than wrong.

No different than any other person or org's rankings. You agree some, you disagree some.

The point system values what most people describe as "P4P criteria" incredibly, so a longtime titlist who ends up losing then moving up a division and being inactive will still retain enough points to be ranked above guys they clearly aren't.

 

Their algorithms are all jacked up and need to be refined. They get it right the majority of the time, but there are always howlers and anomalous rankings, so there perhaps needs to be some form of peer review to ensure quality and consistency. Automation alone doesn't cut it.

 

It is same for everybody. Deal with it!

 

No.
Having an automated system is preferable of course, as it eliminates bias. But you do need a high quality algoritm to make it work, as boxing has a lot of nuances that are hard to program.
So they constantly have to revise their rating system, because it's 10.point must system level flawed. Never forget the Fury P4P#1 thing when he upset old Wlad for example.

 

Not when Chris Eubank Jr is rated 18th P4P on Boxrec...

 

He got that ranking off the back of beating a shot to bits DeGale, who had already lost to Truax

 

Embarrassing