http://boxrec.com/ratings.php?***=M&division=Light+Heavyweight&pageID=1 was looking at the light heavy division...heres the top 11 1-bhop 2-stevenson 3-bute 4-kovalev 5-bellew 6-chavez jr 7-dawson 8-pascal 9-fonfara 10-alvarez 11-braehmer i dont see the rankings like this at all..i see it more like this 1-bhop 2-stevenson 3-kovalev 4-pascal 5-bute 6-dawson 7-fonfara 8-alvarez 9-chavez jr 10-braehmer 11-bellew how do you guys see this list? agree with boxrec? dissagree?...whats your list look like?
Yeah, Boxrec rankings are just based off of who-beat-who kind of algorithm. So sometimes better fighters who haven't fought anyone big yet will be ranked much lower.
Boxrec heavyweight has Povetkin ranked at 5... With Fury, Adamek and Pulev ranked at 4, 3 and 2. pretty rediculous
I don't really understand boxrec's points system anyway, but it REALLY doesn't make sense once you talk about ranking fighters who only just moved up in weight. That said, Chavez Jr. 100% doesn't belong in the Top Twenty at 175, not with his only fight to date above 160 being the robbery vs Vera. At least Bute has the win over Grachev at 175 to his credit, but surely that shouldn't get him in the Top Ten at that weight. Of note, I see boxrec finally dropped Shumenov out of their 175 rankings due to inactivity (his last fight was June 2012), although he now currently does have a fight scheduled for next month.
As I've posted elsewhere I think subjective media rankings are problematic and not a solution for illegitimate championships and rankings, and boxing needs a fair, quantifiable ranking system. However the boxrec rankings aren't close to fair for a number of reasons... 1) The purpose of rankings is to show who deserves to fight for the division's single championship. Boxrec not recognising a legitimate championship kind of defeats the purpose of their rankings. 2) Relatedly, it's not fair that fighters maintain their points at a new division as it underrates proven success in the division. It's ridiculous that Chavez is ranked at light heavy after fighting a middleweight in his only fight at light heavy. Fighters should be separately ranked at every division they fight in based on their accomplishments strictly in that division, and should have to start from scratch when they move to a new division. 3) The boxrec ranking's criteria aren't reflective of actual success. They give extra weight to KOs and 'clear decisions', for example, while a win should be considered a win. While the boxrec rankings are commendable for not overweighting the most recent fight as so many subjective rankings do, it also doesn't make sense that fights from ten years ago are included towards a fighter's current ranking. 4) Boxrec's system is obfuscated by its complex formula. Rankings need to be clear and easy to understand. You can look at a sports league's standings and know how each team needs to do to reach a certain position or to make the playoffs, and an objective ranking system should be about as simple. The boxrec rankings seem to be just a stats-nerds hobby, and don't seem to even want their rankings to be taken seriously across the sport. Despite the inadequacy of boxrec's effort, fair, objective rankings I think are essential for boxing reform. So I've begun a rankings project to show how this can be done. Rankings are based simply on level of opposition and success in the most recent three years. I do need to note that the rankings should not be taken as authoritative in the early stages, but could take a full three years to flesh out, though will make more sense when all fighters have at least two fights. I'll add that with this system an inactive fighter would naturally slide down the rankings, but wouldn't be removed for a full two years. This means a fighter isn't handed a higher ranking, but would only move above a less active fighter when his accomplishments are greater. Take a look, and if you think objective rankings are worthwhile leave any constructive criticism you have. If you support the project as it stands, we're still looking for more help maintaining the rankings. I'm hoping this can be shared between 17 people, with one person managing each division. http://www.worldboxingrankings.proboards.com/
Good idea but the difficulty seems to be that a boxer can beat a guy above him but not actually leapfrog him because both get points
boxrec has Arreola above Stiverne, who he lost to so you see why you can't take their ranking seriously
