How can Boxrec Rankings change to actually work?

Discussion in 'British Boxing Forum' started by Big Dunk, Mar 24, 2011.


  1. Big Dunk

    Big Dunk Rob Palmer Full Member

    13,522
    0
    Oct 25, 2010
    Pretty much everyone agreed boxrecs rankings are shocking. There only taken seriously as a refrence when look at an unknown opponent rankings people outside the top 100 etc.

    Examples of crazy ranks;

    Derek Chisora No.9 at Heavyweight
    Danny Green No.3 at Cruiserweight
    Lucian Bute No.1 at Super Middleweight
    Kelly Pavlik No.6 at Super Middleweight
    Daniel Geale No.3 at Middleweight
    Andy Lee No.5 at Middleweight
    Garth Wood No.8 at Middleweight
    Darren Barker No.9 at Middleweight
    Saul Alvarez No.6 at Light Middleweight
    Joan Guzman No.6 at Light Welterweight
    Ajose Olusegun No.11 at Light Welterweight
    Ricky Burns No.8 at Super Featherweight
    Guillermo Rigondeaux at No.11 Super Bantamweight



    How can they be improved to actually work?

    http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/BoxRec_Ratings_Description
     
  2. Grant1

    Grant1 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    11,823
    1
    Jun 13, 2007
    They can't be improved, a maths formula will never work.

    They need to rip them up and start again.
     
  3. DrMo

    DrMo Team GB Full Member

    22,198
    20
    Jan 29, 2011
    I dont understand the maths behind the formula but its places far too much emphasis on winning/losing. Winners get too large a boost & losers to great a deduction, Paul Williams is a good example. Other factors need to have a bigger impact.

    Any formula calculating rankings is never going to be perfect but Boxrec's isnt very good. The Duckworth-Lewis in cricket is a good example of how calculations can work in sport. Other sports like tennis & snooker seem to have much better systems than boxing.
     
  4. joegrundy

    joegrundy Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,821
    2
    Aug 3, 2009
    sorry this might be ignorant but can you find the boxrec formula on the internet?
     
  5. Big Dunk

    Big Dunk Rob Palmer Full Member

    13,522
    0
    Oct 25, 2010
    its on the link i posted.
     
  6. joegrundy

    joegrundy Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,821
    2
    Aug 3, 2009
    Sorry Rob, didnt see that...

    I have just looked and it looks quite complicated, in a lot of cases the ratings are quite good but sometimes as already said you get quite random high entries
     
  7. leo_messi

    leo_messi Guest

    The ones that stick out a mile are Lee at 5, Barker at 9 Bute at 1 and rigondeaux at 11

    I mean, before his last fight Lee was ranked number 15 or 16. One laboured win against Craig McEwan and now he's top 5!!!
     
  8. GazOC

    GazOC Guest Star for Team Taff Full Member

    61,460
    38
    Jan 7, 2005
    Thats the bottom line. A maths formula, no matter how involved, is the wrong tool for the job.
     
  9. joegrundy

    joegrundy Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,821
    2
    Aug 3, 2009
    The good thing about using a maths formula is it removes biased opinions, which as we all know mess up the 4 organisations
     
  10. conraddobler

    conraddobler Boxing Addict banned Full Member

    6,853
    148
    Mar 7, 2010

    that's a complicated question. Boxrec is based on assigning points for each win/loss. The number of points added (or subtracted) is dependent on the difference in the number of points the two fighters had before the fight.

    So if a fighter with a lot of points beats a fighter with very few points, the former doesn't gain anything. If the situation is reversed, the fighter scoring the upset gets a lot of points.

    The system can be unstable (see Garth Wood) because it can assign many points to a fighter who scored an unlikely upset.

    When Garth Wood beat Mundine he shot from 141 to 339, while Mundine feel from 341 to 205. So Wood essentially took Mundine's points. This is too drastic a reversal, obviously.
     
  11. GazOC

    GazOC Guest Star for Team Taff Full Member

    61,460
    38
    Jan 7, 2005
    Picking the names out of a hat removes biased opinions.
     
  12. Big Dunk

    Big Dunk Rob Palmer Full Member

    13,522
    0
    Oct 25, 2010
    But then how does Bute get to No.1 When he has been fighting much weaker opposition than Froch for example??
     
  13. Beeston Brawler

    Beeston Brawler Comical Ali-egedly Full Member

    46,399
    15
    Jan 9, 2008
    Because.....

    1. Froch lost to Kessler
    2. Froch has won three of his last four by decision, one split.
    3. Bute has won all his recent fights by stoppage

    The problem is that you can shut an opponent out, yet gain less points than another fighter would by losing 11 rounds and winning by stoppage with a second to go.
     
  14. conraddobler

    conraddobler Boxing Addict banned Full Member

    6,853
    148
    Mar 7, 2010

    Because he lost to Kessler and Kessler took all his points. Kessler had lost all his points to Ward, so the point disparity between Froch Kessler was large.

    Meanwhile Bute is accumulating a small number of points every time he wins.

    So the issue is that the scoring system is unstable when there are large points disparities and the underdog wins. This instability then propagates (Ward -> Kessler -> Froch).
     
  15. TFFP

    TFFP The Eskimo

    45,002
    3
    Nov 28, 2007
    They need to employ someone like me to do them (I'm available for £100k a year).