Can anyone explain the star ratings that appear next to fight entries? I don’t seem to be able to enter a rating myself and then I see things like a three out of five star rating for a fight as great as Saad-Lopez 2, one of the very best fights on film. Any thoughts?
I know for current fights the amount of stars mean the importance or significance of the fight at the time. I believe the stars for past fights mean the same thing. That being said, with Boxrec I am never 100% sure.
The stars aren't referring to the quality of the fight itself, it's referring to the quality of the opponents in the fight. If 2 elite fighters fight then it's 5 stars, if randoms fight it's usually 1 or 2.
It's all nonsensical and arbitrary. Older fighters are at a distinct advantage in some regard. People know how their careers ended up. For example, they list Larry Holmes vs. Mike Weaver as three stars - Weaver was beyond a nobody when he fought Holmes. He was so unknown, no television would air it except for HBO, which was new at the time. It turned out to be a great fight. Weaver later won a heavyweight title. At the time, he was a journeyman. But Holmes against the #1 contender Shavers for the title next time out is listed as two stars, and take it from someone who was around then, that fight was MUCH huger going in. Holmes and Shavers, regardless of their first fight, were considered the two best heavyweights when fought their return (after Shavers wiped out Norton). Same with the Holmes-Witherspoon fight. Witherspoon was new on the scene. He was supposed to be an easy Holmes win. They have that one listed as three stars, same as the Cooney fight, which was a MONSTER fight. Just huge. And they're all over the board today. They have the Derek Chisora-Kubrat Pulev rematch listed as four stars. FOUR stars! Zhang-Joyce was three stars. Wilder winning the WBC title from Stiverne was TWO stars. People go on and on about their "algorithm." You can tell it was a site founded by Brits. They're just a bunch of clowns rating fights and fighters like everyone else. Who thinks the Holmes-Weaver, Holmes-Shavers 2, Holmes-Witherspoon, Holmes-Cooney heavyweight title fights were less significant fights than Derek Chisora-Kubrat Pulev 2? Only Brit Chisora fans do.
I long gave up trying to understand the logic or algorithm behind those BoxRec stars. Just one example: The Fight Of The Century is rated 4 stars. 4 stars. 4 freakin' stars. The Fight Of The Century, 4 stars. Whether we look at the importance of the fight at the time or the quality of the fighters, it's just ridiculous. If the FOTC is not 5 stars, then what is?
Four stars ... Same as Chisora-Pulev 2. Ali-Frazier 1 for the World Title. Biggest fight of the 20th Century. And Kubrat Pulev vs. Derek Chisora 2. Same thing, I guess. The Chisora fans working on that site are the worst.
Boxrec is a total shitshow now. They removed birth and death dates, on mobile you have to drill way down to find information like weights or even just the wiki, and it constantly asks you to verify that you are a human and when you do it kicks you back to the home page no matter what you are doing.
they keep tweaking it until they get the listings & standings where they want them, English centric. the site is Great for the Data, but policed & pomp'd in typical "we will not be told" British Arrogance. and I am British... up until a few years or so back, it was fairly balanced, to a degree, anyway, it is also current & recent years favoured, it has to be to bring the Money in and Hype up the B.S, for an otherwise dying and often subpar sport!
