How can Boxrec Rankings change to actually work?

Yes but how do you decide on the rankings of the fighters in the first place?

 

So how exactlly is Andre Dirrell No.2 in the division?
Even using their formula, I cannot see how they have achieved this.
He last fought a year ago and his only big win is Abraham.
Even more incredible is I think he was no.1 until Bute beat Magee last week.

 

That made me

Rob will do it for about 100k less than that.

 

You have to pay for quality.

 

There are bound to be anomalies with a system of this kind. The one thing you're guaranteed though is that every single fighter is treated in the exact same way.

The question is a good one though.

Can anyone on here come up with a better one?

If so, let's have it!

 

A panel of (supposed) boxing experts will beat a formula every time.

 

Aye...but the whole point of the BoxRec rankings is to remove any kind of subjectivity. The anomalies are the price you pay, I suppose. There are some sore thumbs sticking out but other than that, they're not as bad as painted.

 

I understand why they do for the all time lists because its a lot boxers to rank, has no "real life" application and theres no right or wrong as to whether Dwight Qawi was a better 175lber than Willie Pastrano so having a system to rank them all easily and under the same criteria has its merits.

I just don't think the same applies to current boxers, ranking a divisional top 10 on results is easy enough in terms of numbers of fighters and the comparability of their performances that you don't need to compromise and run everything though a formula.

IMHO!!

 

Haha I suppose that's true but do you get what I mean?

Difficult to think of a better system because if you use boxing 'experts' then bias will occur and the lists will still have the same problems

 

Yeah, I just think the lists thrown up by boxing people (the Ring, Robs rankings) are a hell of a lot better than Boxrecs.

The problem with experts ranking is bias which isn;t really a fault of the system, its a fault of the expert picked.

The problem with formula ranking, IMHO, is not the type of formula used its the fact that using a formula just isn't suited to the task.

 

I think their ratings in principal are ok within the "systems settings",
BUT there is Far Too Much disparity between the top guys and the next bunch, if you know what I mean.

There is obviously way too many points given to title fights, world champions and that sort of thing,,,

because in real life there more often than not, wasn't that much of a level distance between champion & contender!

 

Me, you, Flea Man, FLINT.

 

Easy!!!

I take it Enzo will have to be ranked #1 at light heavyweight?

 

Say you get your top 10 fighters in a division say SMW

In no particular order:

• Bute
• Ward
• Froch
• Sartison
• Steiglitz
• Kessler
• Abraham
• Pavlik
• Johnson
• Dirrell

Then pitted them against each other and predicting the outcome and score them - 3 points for a destruction, 2 points for a win, and a point each if you cannot split them.

Once you have totted up the points you would have a fair set of rankings

 

Don't get bogged down with the names they were random