BOXREC CREDIBILITY?

Their ratings are based on an algorithm. There isn’t any human bias there.

They often rate undisputed champions at one weight class highly when they move up a division. That explains the Callum Smith rating at LHW.

Rating Callum Smith at number 7 p4p has to be based on the points he gained at SMW. It is a farce but there isn’t human bias there .

 

Which division was he undisputed or even unified champ in?

Unless we are counting secondary titles?

This is one of the strangest boxrec ratings issues ever. Someone with about his record (a few decent wins and a loss to a champ) fights every weekend. I saw the LHW ranking and I assumed it was because SMW as a division had gotten inflated somehow but the P4P thing is crazy.

 

Like @destruction mentioned, it's just a very flawed algorithm that constantly gets corrected to be more realistic, but it seems every correction creates another flaw.
Still, there probably is some UK biased manipulation in there, if you look at the rankings.
We know they sometimes correct manually, like when Fury shot all the way to #1 p4p after his upset win over old Wlad back in 2015, which they swiftly corrected.
But now seeing someone like Whyte (#15 P4P) over the likes of Monster Inoue, Lomachenko, Roman Gonzalez, Nonito Donaire, Gervonta Davis and Dmitry Bivol, puts a bad taste in my mouth.
If something like the WBSS was so important that Callum Smith shot up the rankings, then why didn't Inoue (the most impressive of the winners, in a stronger division) ever made it into the top10?
Who did Whyte beat to make it into the top15? Old shot Povetkin in 2 attempts? Or maybe the headbutt gift win over Parker?

It really looks like there's some Brit bias going on, despite being an algorithm. Maybe manually, maybe having an higher multiplier build in? But that doesn't explain the one real top10 Brit, TTT, only being ranked #9.

 

boxrec is only good for seeing boxers records, and for fans scores to see who actually won a big fight. Not for rankings.

 

BS, when Tank is ranked higher than any champions at 135 or 140.

Also there is no way Ugas or Valdez deserve to be in P4P list

 

Ugas and Valdez I kind of get, for an algorithm anyway. How do you tell the algorithm that Pac looks kind of shot so we should discount the win?

The Smith and Whyte things are wild though, as is their bias for HWs in the P4P list. What's the point of P4P if you prefer HWs? They could win straight up.and already get the most hype and money.

 

Winning the WBSS was given a lot of points and heavily weighted for Callum Smith. I cannot think of anyone at that point could claim to be above him at SMW, so that is what I meant by "undisputed". No one worth their salt at SMW at the time other than James DeGale didnt enter it from the beginning and that was because he was injured. So the comment about the number 1 at a weight class, moving up and then being rated highly at the next class up does apply. Callum was clear number 1 at SMW after winning the WBSS.

That doesnt mean that I agree with how highly rated that he is. There is clearly an issue with how highly rated he is. Something is up with how the algorithm has rated him.

You can see how basic he is and that he isn't elite P4P, and how his success at SMW was due to the physical advantages he had due to so effectively boiling down to making the smallest weight class possible.

 

I concur absolutely and it certainly is my go to place to view records.

Ratings of boxers will always have a bias, just look at when folk who are accepted as knowledgeable about our sport and its history, when asked to name/rate the top ten best ever in a division, differing views in order of best is common place.

 

His win over Groves got him a lot of points, then the 'win' over John Ryder even more. Groves wins over Chudinov, DeGale and Eubank Jr got him so many points with Chudinov win over Felix Sturm, Eubank wins over Abraham and top 20-30 rated boxers(gets lots of points) and DeGale going on to have a solid career.

There should be more of a point deduction when moving up in weight.

 

Yeah, it's so biased in favour of British fighters that it ranks Tank above Josh Taylor at 140.

 

I only check boxing records the ratings don't mean anything to me.

 

Human or non-human intelligence thats deafening.

 

It gets pretty bad, especially since it doesn't care about any circumstances.