Q:P4P the worst ranking system? A:The P4P ranking system!

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by chriswrench, May 14, 2009.


  1. chriswrench

    chriswrench Active Member Full Member

    1,387
    1
    Apr 30, 2008
    Although all the P4P title ramblings were beginning to grind my gears in the run up to Hatton v Pacquiao and even more so since Mayweather has got himself back into the gym, I was amused and disgusted to read the latest list compiled by boxrec.com.

    Although many people (myself included) scoffed at the claims that the may 2nd "superfight" was for the imaginary title, I am sure they would be as surprised as this fight fan to see that Hatton has now been placed at number 33. The number itself does not disturb me, the names listed above him may just raise a few eye brows. here are a few:

    #4. Chad Dawson. Single weight world champion. Fighting the likes of Tarver.
    #9. Vitali Klitscho. Did anybody watch his 2 recent performances?
    #13. Wladamir Klitscho. Should be above his brother for longevity if anything.
    #16. Felix Sturm. needs to prove himself massively.
    #19. Carl froch. One high profile win does not make a P4P fighter.
    #21. Antonio Margarito. Shouldn't be listed anymore.
    #31. ANTHONY MUNDINE. Needs no explanation.

    There are a few more too. I'm not sayin that currently he is top 10 material but he is certainly more proven than the majority of names above him. Neither am I sayin that he deserves to be above the likes of Chad or Wlad but I think their positioning is unrealistic much like the rest of the list. They even have Cotto at number 28. I know both he and Hatton have been beaten recently but their level of competition is certainly higher in my opinion than the wlads, chads and butes of this world.

    Before i'm tore a new one. This is not a pro Hatton, nut hugging article. I was just surprised at how much he had fallen on the list and I'm merely using that as an example. Your thoughts please gents (Hatton or any other ranking fighter).

    Thanks.
    Wrench.
     
  2. djm

    djm Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,208
    2
    Dec 17, 2006
    Boxrec has a computer-based ranking system that is notoriously poor. Ignore them. Anybody with any sense does.
     
  3. FromWithin

    FromWithin Living for the city Full Member

    2,538
    0
    Feb 22, 2008
    BOXREC was never the reference for this kind of ranking.
     
  4. Vantage_West

    Vantage_West ヒップホップ·プロデューサー Full Member

    20,834
    608
    Jul 11, 2006
    it is getting better. the longer the time the longer the cracks smooth out.
     
  5. ishy

    ishy Loyal Member Full Member

    44,755
    7
    Mar 9, 2008
    It's boxrec for ****s sake. No one pays any attention to their rankings.
     
  6. Trenaman

    Trenaman Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,614
    0
    Feb 7, 2006

    yet everyone looks at it!
     
  7. Nestea

    Nestea Thirst Remover Full Member

    7,336
    0
    Feb 25, 2008
    Boxrec is only good to look for the boxer's previous wins. That's it.
     
  8. Marnoff

    Marnoff Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    25,227
    27
    Feb 14, 2006
    Yep.
     
  9. chriswrench

    chriswrench Active Member Full Member

    1,387
    1
    Apr 30, 2008
    Listen guys. I'm fully aware that all P4P lists are subjective and the list on Boxrec is computer generated. The point I was making was that I didn't realise just how bad it was. I came accross the list when i was looking to see where my mate was in the light heavy brit rankings. P4P was the default option so thought it was worth a quick look. I know they used to have the top 10 on the home page.

    #1 has to be Pacquiao at the moment. who can argu with that. What separates him from the likes of PBF is how quickly he has gone through the divisions. Not only thasty but going up to welter first and then back down. fairly astonishing what he has acheived.
     
  10. doubleplaidinum

    doubleplaidinum Maravilla Full Member

    8,397
    0
    Mar 31, 2008