Boxrec's P4P list is really bad!!

Yep, I'd have Hatton above Packiow too.

 

terrible list

its missing arreola

 

This list is better than Ring Magazine's list

 

It's done by a computers based on a point system so dont be too harsh, it does have it merrits such as it doesnt take personal bias or media influence into account.

Tbh p4p lists are a bit subject.

IMO as long as you've got Calzaghe, Marquez, Hopkins and Pac at the top in whatever order you'll be ok.

For me their the only 4 elite fighters boxing currently, and by that I mean they could be successfull in any era.

 

This topic keeps coming up.

BoxRec's rankings are based on an algorithm (mathematical formula) that calculates the quality of each win based on the resume of the beaten fighter, the duration of the fight, the margin of victory and several other variables. The info is just fed into a computer and rankings are spewed out the other end.

It doesn't consider other intangibles, or special circumstances. Therefore, it's not really meant to be like RING's list, or your list, however you compile it.

The algorithmic approach works very well for chess rankings, reasonably well for Tennis, but quite poorly for boxing.

It should be treated in that light.

 

Shocking.

Thats a disgrace to have Pacman so low.

 

Their weight class rankings tend to be much better than their P4P rankings. It's all based on formulas anyway, and it's just hard to formulate a way to compare between weight classes. In the P4P formula, it obviously doesn't account for whether the person is the bigger or smaller fighter, just that they fought.

 

I like the BoxRec rankings because they are not biased in any way, simply they reflect the quality of a boxer based on wins and ranking of opposition. But really I mostly look at it for the rankings within a weight class which tend to be more accurate.

These rankings would work out better if boxers would all match up against each other as they do in Tennis and College Football.

What's interesting about the BoxRec rankings is that each weight division is normalized not only relative to other divisions but also by those fighters occupying the 21-40 ranks... meaning the scores do take into account the strength/depth of a division.

 

I think its really accurate ... it don't count hype or nut hugging but reality, for example PAC wins over faded Morales and Barrera count less than recent wins of Calzaghe or Hopkins

 

Boxrec IS NOT a good RANKINGS site...its computerised

 

yeah that sucks

 

Even the worst posters in this forum couldn't be able to make a P4P list worse than this one

 

:nut