How can Boxrec Rankings change to actually work?

There is no proper way to do it, everyones version of rankings is wrong to someone. (in fact its a struggle to find 2 peeps with the same)

Boxrec do take it to the extremes though lol.

ps, there are 1 or 2 names in the op that arnt too out of place imo

 

We'll take a vote on that.


I will suggest that we agree to it, if only to shut him up.

 

tell me whats wrong with my rankings?

 

Lee was ranked at no.11 before McEwan fight and Mc was 21,it was a ko against Mc,you cant class fights as laboured when its a ko.

 

The Ring's ranking used to be excellent, but I feel that they have started to show more bias recently, or at least I think that I've started noticing it.

How do you compare boxrecs rankings to the WBC, WBA?

The WBC has Jonathon Banks and Bermaine Stiverne in their top 10 HWs, and Liakhovich at 14 despite having done nothing for 5 years. Boxrec has them at 29, 72 and 63 respectively, which makes way more sense. This kind of pattern continues in all the weight divisions.

I think the Boxrec P4P rankings are pretty poor at times, but the individual weight divisions seem to have better rankings than any of the sanctioning bodies.

 

The WBA has Mormeck above Adamek....

 

...compared to the sanctioning bodies?

 

Don't pay any attention to the individual rankings. They're more based on how many Inter-Continental-Bronze-ABC titles you paid them for than anything else.

 

I would say the absolute opposite of this, only a mathematical formula could be successful at ranking boxers. Otherwise it becomes subjective and therefore up for debate. We want definitve rankings not rankings which allow room for debate.

See a previous posters comment about Duckworth and Lewis, it can be done and it can be successful. The problem is how should it be done? It needs to take in things like the standard of the opponent, the manner of the defeat (not just KO, UD etc but more comprehensive things like number of knockdowns, total rounds won etc).

Maybe we could get some funding into a univeristy and some statistics student could do it as a dissertation?

 

Funny! Dirrell at No.2 seems to be ok with you

 

im just giving an example you moron.

 

Never say never I guess but at the moment a knowledgable boxing fan could put together a better set of rankings in a couple of days than the best formula yet developed.

A difference between Duckworth and Lewis and boxing rankings is that the former gives a result involving 2 teams, a boxing formula needs to give the relationship between 10-15 fighters.

 

Duckworth/Lewis can be insane too.

There's lots of ways that a team can score more runs, in fewer overs, losing fewer wickets....... and lose the game

 

Gaz, that's so dismissive it's untrue. Do you think the people behind BoxRec AREN'T boxing fans or something?

A HUGE amount of graft has gone into the system and the stats. If you haven't had a look, check out the link posted earlier. It's been refined several times over the years.

As I've said, if anyone can come up with something better (and I'm not saying they can't!), then let's have it!

It simply can't involve 'I've followed boxing for x years and watched y fights so my opinion is more informed'.

 

Whoa!!! You're putting words in mouth. I'm not saying the guys behind the Boxrec formula arn't knowledgeable boxing fans or that they havn't worked hard. I'm saying IMHO that they are barking up the wrong tree using a formula to rank fighters

I've given you "something better" to rank boxers, boxing fans/experts using their judgement.

I'm not saying anyones opinion is more informed that the guys who put the formula together. I'm sure if most of the those guys used their judgement and commonsense they could put together a better set of rankings than their formula can come up with as well.

If these guys know their stuff (and I'm sure they do) just let them put the rankings together themselves or at least manually "fine tune" the obvious anomalies the formula throws up?