the rankings are horrific and they have actually been fixed. If you wear a t shirt that says "i am boxrec no.1" like Bute and Huck. if you want goo british rankings go here http://www.theboxingsite.com/rankings/
How dissapointing. I thought I was going to get the British Forum's opinions on Sonic Youth's Eight album then. [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZYYSajs_qg[/ame] It's definitly in my top five of theirs. I like the idea of a maths based system like Boxrec. I enjoy it operating concomitant to an opinion based one such as the ESB ratings. That creates good debating points without which we'd have a bit less to talk about.
Exactly. Either you have a system based on subjectivity or you have a maths based one. BoxRec's is the latter. Bound to throw up anomalies but at least it has nothing to do with silly, know nothing pricks stamping their feet. http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/BoxRec_Ratings_Description Explanation above. Tell you what, why not have a look at the all-time P4P rankings and see what you think.
Oh really. I've only just looked at your link again, I presumed it was for the ESB ratings first time. Why have they stopped? Too much stick? Shame, I always found them interesting, whether or not I agreed with them.
Plainly wrong, as well as libellous. It's the other way round. They get to number one, then get the T shirt. Jesus.
I will wait for my letter. I agree with you have a systems based on subjectivity or you have a maths based one but the formulas boxrec use are clearly off and need to be amended. but in typical boxrec fashion they are to stubborn to change. these are major iregularities in your top 10's not just the rest of the rankings that show the system to be flawed. Marco Huck no.1 at cruiserweight Danny Green no.3 at Cruiserweight? Hopkins no.1 at light heavy? Dirrell no.2 at Super Moddle (Froch is 7 behind Pavlik) Williams no.1 Middleweight Manny Pacquiao no.1 at Light middle Kell Brook no.5 at welterweight Joan Guzman & Nate Campbell no.6 and no.7 at light welter Roberto Guererro no.2 at lightweight John murray no.6 at lightweight Mzonke Fan no.1 super featherweight Vic Darchinyan no.2 super bantamweight
Have a look at the link explaining the system and then feel free to suggest improvements to the formulae used. Do you think this has just been cobbled together? Clever people have spent a long time refining and refining...it's a developing process. You will ALWAYS get anomalies with any system - a maths based one, although bonkers at times, removes the subjectivity at least.
If you look at a fighter record and subtract the losses from the wins and rank them in descending order it removes the subjectivity too. Still bolloxs though.
As an aside, the most subjective issue in boxing is the P4P rankings. The fact you try to 'remove subjectivity' makes it quite laughable. This aint ground breaking stuff by any means, but in my opinion the Boxrec ranking are a bag of wank.
Well, that's fine. The P4P thing is just for discussion - the whole point about P4P is that's it's supposed to be subjective, of course.
Presumably you have a better system to rank the tens of thousands of professional boxers in the world then? No they're not perfect but they're far from terrible.
I gathered. Time for a review though I think. Mathematical forumulas will not work for something that is not an exact science.