Boxrec All Time Rankings WTF?

I only use boxrec for records, as the rankings are a joke.

 

The rankings aren't man made.

 

I'm not sure how they do it.

I wouldn't have Riddick Bowe above Dempsey or J Joe Walcott, that's for sure.

 

Sounds as bad as Bert Sugar's heavyweight list. He's got Charles at #6 or #7 and Lewis around 20#.

 

Can someone post a link for these ratings please. Can only find forums talking about them?

 

It's just a computer system they use. It's not really to be taken seriously, although they are interesting because you can find people you've never heard of before and their record when you click on them.

 

I cut and pasted the following over from: http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.php/BoxRec_Ratings_Description

Introduction

Boxing Record Archive (BoxRec.com) provides "Active" (called "Current" under previous versions of BoxRec, before Version 3 was launched in July 2007) and "All-Time" (called "All" in Version 3) boxer ratings, as calculated daily by its computer. The "Active" ratings include only boxers who have had a bout within the past 365 days, or have a bout scheduled. (After a year of not fighting, a boxer is automatically designated "inactive" by the BoxRec computer. A boxer is also designated "inactive" or "complete" if s/he has announced his/her retirement, even if that boxer may have had a bout within the past 365 days.) Every active boxer in the database is rated--even those with an 0-1 record. The "All-Time" ratings include both "active" and "inactive" (retired) boxers.

The "Active" and "All-Time" ratings are wholly dependent upon the bouts contained in the BoxRec server database. The BoxRec computer re-calculates the ratings at approximately 9:35 GMT every day. As the computer refreshes its calculations, a boxer may earn or lose ratings points with every bout he has fought since the last calculation--provided, of course, that a BoxRec Editor has entered that bout into the database before the recalculation. A boxer may also earn or lose points if bouts are added to any of his opponents' records, or to their opponents' records--even if the boxer himself has not had a fight since the last BoxRec computer calculation. The ratings are not influenced by BoxRec's subjective views or by anyone else's opinions.

There admittedly are inaccuracies and anomalies, especially in the All-Time ratings, because of incomplete records in the BoxRec database. Although a boxer’s own record may be complete, his opponents’ records may not be complete. Pre-World War II boxers in particular are at somewhat of a disadvantage, vis-à-vis modern boxers. Their opponents’ records often are quite incomplete--because of the scarcity of source material or Editors' time--while the records of opponents of more current boxers often are quite complete. So, for example, while the records of Mike Tyson’s opponents may be quite complete--thereby earning Tyson a certain number of points and giving him a high ranking among the All-Time Heavyweights--the records of Young Stribling’s opponents may be extremely lacking, thereby giving Stribling fewer points and a much-lower All-Time rating. In fact, it may appear to the casual BoxRec visitor that Stribling had fought many boxers making their professional debuts or having only a handful of career bouts. In fact, the truth is that not all of his opponents’ bouts have been found or entered yet. But as the BoxRec Editors continue to research older resources and enter “new” historical bouts into the database, the rating of an old-time boxer like Stribling will gradually move up or down, even if his own record is complete--if bouts are added to his opponents’ records, or to his opponents' opponents' records, and so forth. So the ratings are continually improving as new bouts are entered into the database. (Presently, some 2,000 current and old-time bouts are entered each week by the BoxRec Editors.)

Further, because of the very few women presently boxing professionally, with some weight divisions having only a handful of active female boxers, a woman with an 0-1 record will appear “world ranked” by BoxRec. This is simply an anomaly due to the few female entries in the database.
Ratings structure

All these ratings evaluate every day all bouts in the database in chronological sequence. A higher rated boxer should be expected to defeat a lower rated boxer with increasing probability by increasing rating difference.
Current ("Active") rating

1. Every boxer gets a first rating of 0 before his first bout.
2. After every bout, the ratings of the two boxers involved are changed depending on the bout's official result (KO, TKO, RTD, UD, PTS, NWS, MD, SD, DQ, TD, DRAW).
3. The value of a result varies between v=1 and v=0.
4. The clear decision factor varies between cd=1 and cd=0.
5. The winner cannot lose points for KO, TKO, RTD, DQ, TD and decisions on points with cd=1
6. KO, TKO, RTD are rewarded with full value v=1, cd=1.
7. NWS is rewarded with full value v=1 for 12 rounds boxed and more and a lower value related to the number of rounds boxed. Clear decision factor cd=1.
8. UD, PTS are rewarded with full value v=1 for 12 rounds boxed and more and a lower value related to the number of rounds boxed, clear decision factor cd=1. This is valid, if the score cards are not available.
9. DRAW is rewarded with full value v=1 for 12 rounds boxed and more and a lower value related to the number of rounds boxed. Clear decision factor cd=0.
10. MD, SD, DQ, TD are rewarded with full value v=1 for 12 rounds boxed and more and a lower value related to the number of rounds boxed. Clear decision factor cd=0.5. This is valid, if the score cards are not available.
11. If the score cards are available, the value rewarded is in relation to the rounds boxed, with full value v=1 for 12 rounds boxed and more. The clear decision factor is in proportion to rounds boxed and the mean score difference per judge. cd=1 for mean score difference divided by a sixth of rounds boxed greater or equal 1.
12. All bouts are regarded to have the same weight independent of titles.
13. The winner gets a certain part of the opponent's points and a certain part of the rating difference to the opponent's rating.
14. The winner gets at maximum 50 additional points, if his opponent's rating is higher than or equal to a quarter of his own rating. The 50 additional points are reduced by half the rating difference between the winner and the loser. The maximum of 50 points is only awarded, if the defeated opponent has 5 wins at minimum. In other cases the amount is reduced in relation to the number of wins.
15. For a DRAW the rating of the higher rated boxer is reduced by some part of the point difference; the rating of the lower rated boxer is enhanced by the same amount of points.
16. The full relative point win is 34.5%.
17. The part for reduction of ratings difference is at maximum between 11.5% for full value and 34.5 % for a draw. It is reduced in relation to the value rewarded v.
18. The ratings are decreased for moving up to higher weight divisions by the square of the reciprocal ratio of the weights limits of the divisions - and they are increased by the same factor for moving down the divisions.
19. The ratings are equalized between divisions in relation to average points of the boxers ranked #8, #9, #10, #11 and #12 in a division.
20. The rating of a boxer is reduced by 0% to 50%, if he didn't box an opponent with a rating of at least 50% to 0% of his own rating points within 18 months.
21. The rating of a boxer is reduced by 50% for every time period of inactivity of 18 months.


Formula

If a boxer with a rating of r_a before the fight defeats a boxer b with a rating of r_b before the fight with result of value v and clear decision factor cl the new ratings r_a_new and r_b_new after a fight are:

* r_a_new = r_a + 0.345*v*cd*r_b + (0.345/(1+2*cd))*v*(r_b - r_a)
* r_b_new = r_b - 0.345*v*cd*r_b - (0.345/(1+2*cd))*v*(r_b - r_a)

Examples

Boxer a KO boxer b, a has 1000 points, b has 500 points. v=1, cd=1

* r_a_new = 1000 + 0.345*1*500 + (0.345/(1+2*1))*1*(500 - 1000) + 0 = 1115
* r_b_new = 500 - 115 = 385

Boxer a UD 6 boxer b, scores 59:55 58:56 58:56, a has 1000 points, b has 500 points.

* A 6 rounder is rewarded with value 6/12, v=0.5
* UD is rewarded with cd=1 at maximum
* mean score difference per judge is (4+2+2)/3 = 2.667, which is rewarded in relation to half the rounds boxed with cd= 2.667/3 = 0.89 at maximum
* so cd=0.89

* r_a_new = 1000 + 0.345*0.5*0.89*500 + (0.345/(1+2*0.89))*0.5*(500 - 1000) + 0 = 1046
* r_b_new = 500 - 46 = 454

Boxer a SD 4 boxer b, scores 39:37 39:37 37:39, a has 1000 points, b has 500 points

* A 4 rounder is rewarded with 4/12, v=0.333
* SD is rewarded with cd=0.5 at maximum
* mean score difference per judge is (2+2-2)/3 = 0.667, which is rewarded in relation to half the rounds boxed 0.667/2 at maximum\
* so cd=0.333

* r_a_new = 1000 + 0.345*0.333*0.333*500 + (0.345/(1+2*0.333))*0.333*(500 - 1000) + 0 = 956
* r_b_new = 500 + 44 = 544

All Time Ratings

The All Time Rating for a boxer is the sum of annual rank points he gets for his annual ratings:

1. the annual rating ar is the rating at the end of every year the boxer was active
2. annual rank points = 10 * (ar/500)**2
3. annual rank points are limited to 200 points per year

 

............Hence the problem. This kind of thing can't be boiled down to mere formulas. They are making the mistake of thinking that boxing's story can be as effectively told in raw numbers with the same assurance as baseball can.

When I look at **** like this, it makes me think it's as accurate and presented with as much thought as it would be if they placed a bunch of names in a hat, shook it up, and picked a name out. No other credence should be given to it.

 

I agree. I was just addressing tommy the hat's post.

 

.............Understood; I was just shaking my head at the Boxrec numbheads there a bit.

 

There's also some weird ratings for boxers that jumped divisions.

Ezzard Charles isn't rated at LHW, only at HW, but Michael Spinks is rated at LHW. Both were heavyweight champions.

Holyfield isn't rated at CW, even though many (most?) have him #1 at the weight. Same with Haye.

Duran is rated at lightweight but Leonard isn't rated at welter.

It seems like BoxRec rates some guys at their highest division (Holyfield being the best example, it's impossible to name 20 cruisers better than him, even with BoxRec's points system), whereas some guys get listed at a lower divison, like Duran.

 

Cheers mate.