The boxrec rankings are as biased as any other rankings?

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by China_hand_Joe, May 28, 2008.


  1. PugilisticPower

    PugilisticPower The Blonde Batman Full Member

    7,846
    35
    May 4, 2008
    No it isn't, because you get more points for a dominant performance, you don't get negative points for a win and by the time the other fighter has gone on a losing streak, you should have added further wins to your career.
     
  2. prideofvbeach

    prideofvbeach Top 10 Pound-For-Pound Full Member

    2,557
    0
    Sep 26, 2007
    Nothing wrong with Boxrec...except how high the rank Tye Fields. Otherwise, good job.
     
  3. cuchulain

    cuchulain Loyal Member Full Member

    36,370
    11,399
    Jan 6, 2007
    They use an algorithm and it doesn't reflect reality .

    In chess and in tennis, this kind of thing works reasonably well in developing rankings. In those activities, generally, if A can beat B, and B can beat C, then A can beat C.

    In boxing, that's often NOT the case.

    Hence, it's difficult to come up with a mathematically based raking system that looks sensible.

    For all its faults and subjectivity, the RING rankings are a bit more down to Earth.
     
  4. Brickhaus

    Brickhaus Packs the house Full Member

    22,296
    5
    Mar 14, 2007
    Dingdingding, we have a winner.

    Anyone who can't see this doesn't understand how computer rankings work. Boxrec's rankings are done similarly to RPI in American collegiate basketball. A chunk of the rating comes from the power of the fighter's record, a chunk comes from his opponent's records, and a chunk comes from his opponent's opponent's records, so a ranking can quite easily move without someone ever fighting. The biggest chunk comes from opponent's records, not the fighter's record itself.

    Boxrec's rankings are imperfect, but the're relatively useful for figuring out the relative strength of untested fighters, and they're a hell of a lot better than the ABC rankings. Sure, most knowledgeable individuals could probably put together better rankings, but their rankings do pretty accurately reflect results. They just don't seem to take things like lapse of time into account enough, or whether someone's level of competition is improving or getting worse.
     
  5. 1lehudson

    1lehudson Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,789
    2
    Jul 27, 2004
    Im not one that buys into that old after one fight or ruined....Sure fighters can have hangovers from a lost but if the fighter isnt already on the way down then they can bounce back from it. I think what happens in alot of cases is that WE the fans and the media tend to over rate fighters, so when they start to lose a couple of fights we look back to the first lost as being a fight that ruined him.


    As far as the Box rec thing goes...Well the BCS dont work either so why would this...