Wanna see something funny?

Canelo as #1 isn't that crazy. His only loss is to Floyd, who is an all-time great. Then he's beaten multiple world champs but in his fight with GGG he got extremely luck with the draw. Fixed it for you.

Canelo as #1 isn't that crazy. His only loss is to Floyd, who is an all-time great. Then he's beaten multiple world champs and got robbed against GGG. This post highlights one way in which computors are better than humans at ranking fighters. Computors don't do rankings based on shit like, "I hate that guy's fans" or "this guy is from the same country as me"

Its unbiased tho... Horn is the Welterweight King Baby!

Fair play. I do tend to get into 500pts/200pts/100pts classes at what I consider the world class level, but yea its an interesting & helpful tool there is no doubt about that as it seems we both see it. Always interesting to see who & why one got where they got to. If a guy is up in the rankings with a bunch of "live body" W's & just had that one big win that was a split decision or controversial decision I think taking that into account with where does this particular guy realllllllly stand based on the luck of that close fight that coulda went the other way & there history at the live body level. So sometimes you gotta do more than look at the numbers you gotta break them down a lil more logically cuz boxing has some margin of error in these decisions so watching close/competitive fights vs the guys a boxer just runs through can be a telling thing to notice in these stats. Seconded - I mean you can take it as far as you choose - each record tells it's own story and you can dig as deep as you like. For me Boxrec is a really good starting point... if you got time it can lead you onto watching fight after fight, fighter after fighter, if you ain't you can just use it as a rough overview. Like I say, don't have the time so much these days but back when I picked up boxing again hardcore in 2012 I'd fill whole nights with that ish...

Not funny at all, thought everyone knew boxrec was a computerized system

This. This is pretty much my entire thought process with Boxrec & how one should view Boxrec as a boxing fan. There is a lot of compelling breakdowns of ones resume over the years as judged at that exact moment in time, but lets not act like this sh^t is bibical or dog it too hard either okay lol. Sometimes the most interesting things is just looking at a guys Boxrec number over the years & see his high water marks & to see where he's at. I even break mfers down into classes based on points that work in most divisions (not the smaller ones so much), 100pts+ = world class boxer, 50pts+ = fringe contender/prospect/high level journeyman, 25pts+ = notable fighter or aka "Live Body" status for guys on the comeup typically & under 25pts = BS opponent if you are in one of the higher two classes & these level guys are all pretty much the bulk of a division & guys who'll largely never go anywhere in the sport 98% of the time & account for most wins most boxers have. I try to almost never use it beyond pure entertainment purposes, as OP obviously has done, in the P4P arena. P4P is hard enough when you got 1000 "experts" trying to figure it out with when they've seen 4 fights or less of half the field sometimes it seems. The bolded is very much what I do too - specially if I don't have time to do full research on fighters or opponents (which is most of the time these days). Just gives you a general idea of where a guys' at, what sort of challenge he offers, etc. Cept I tend to make the split 200/100/50... just a slightly different take on it.

Boxrec keep their own ratings, including a P4P list that goes beyond the top ten. So I took a look. It has me in tears laughing. http://boxrec.com/en/ratings?r%5Bcountry%5D=&r%5Bdivision%5D=&r%5Bsex%5D=M&r%5Bstance%5D=&r%5Bstatus%5D=a&r_go= Includes such gems as: 1. Canelo rated as the P4P No. 1 2. Jeff Horn in the top ten 3. Chris Eubank Jr. rated above Roman Gonzalez 4. Abner Mares rated ahead of Jorge Linares and more besides. It's what you get when you use a computerised system based on algorithms which are unable to adjust to circumstances - however well intentioned and well thought out (and they have put considerable effort into trying to get it right - you can look at the algorithms they use and understand what they're trying to achieve) you end up with a pile of BS. On the other hand it is free from the kinda biases which are unavoidable in subjective human lists. Boxrec is a fantastic resource but it should be used with an awareness of it's limitations.