I consider Pernell Whitaker to be the second best lightwight of all time after Duran, however, scanning boxrec I see that he isnt even listed in their all time lightweight rankings. Instead they have him placed 6th in all time welterweight rankings. Can anybody help me in explaining how boxrec decide which weights to place a boxer in? Alternatively, can someone explain what I've missed in Sweet Pea's career that means he'll be remembered more for his forray into 147 than his career at 135? Thanks
You have to take Boxrec's top 100 with a grain of salt they are actualy a joke. Check out there top 100 heavyweights and you may just **** your pants.
I know the rankings are a little nuts based on this computer system thing they do. But they usually tend to have the same names that I have in my top 5's in their top 20s. But as I say, Sweet Pea isnt even ranked in LW!? How can that be... even with their computer rankings?
I hear nothing but **** things when discussing boxrec so I never go into it. Whitaker is one of the top 2 televised LWTs ever next to Duran, he was a good WWT but not up there with the very best like the 2 sugar`s etc.
agree. Never pay attention to there rankings. If you want to see about an upcoming fight that is different. But as far as rankings go:-( The sad thing is, Sweet Pea is not its worst victim. For fun go look up other greats of the 90's and see where they are placeatsch
They probably didn't include him at LW because they included him at WW. Boxrec has done this to several fighters. If I remember correctly, either Charles or Moore is only ranked at heavy (and obviously not that highly there) when both of them are TOP-TIER LHW... Charles arguably #1. Boxrec's rankings aren't terribly bad when fighters stay in one division, but it gets screwy when they started jumping around.
Did some searching. Charles is not ranked at all at LHW. Holyfield does not appear on their CW list. Virgil Hill is #1 on their all-time cruiser list.
Never really liked Whitaker to be honest.But he is certainly a great fighter,i just find his fights tedious.Cant take his record away but i would not have paid to watch him.
I think boxrec rates people where they retired at.. The only rankings of theres that make a decent amount of sense are the current weight division rankings though.. And they dont always make the most either.
The topic of BoxRec's rankings keeps coming up. BoxRec's rankings are based on an algorithm (mathematical formula) that calculates the quality of each win based on the resume of the beaten fighter, the duration of the fight, the margin of victory and several other variables. The info is just fed into a computer and rankings are spewed out the other end. It doesn't consider other intangibles, or special circumstances. Therefore, it's not really meant to be like RING's list, or your list, however you compile it. The algorithmic approach works very well for chess rankings, reasonably well for Tennis, but quite poorly for boxing. In chess and in tennis, this kind of thing works better because generally, if A can beat B, and B can beat C, then A can beat C. In boxing, that's often NOT the case. It should be treated in that light. Not Sweetpea's fault !