Why aren't PBC fanboys dumping all over Charlo vs Hogan?

How are you complaining about a fight between two champions? Hogan should’ve been a champ after he clearly took Mungia to school but Golden Fishnets promotions saved him and even the Mexicans was booing the decision! Golovkin only wants the Canelo lottery ticket an thought Dervyachenko would be sweet for It and ended up getting his àśśkicked and robbed Dervyachenko and refused to give him a rematch! Charlo vs Hogan is a good Fight but I am disappointed how everyone is ducking Andrade! That’s who you should ashamed of, how Canelo, Ggg, Charlo, Saunders and Jacobs refuses to fight Andrade! A victory over Hogan is a better win than a robbery over Dervyachenko!

lol no offense dude but clearly you just read hype and dont watch fights. no wonder you dont like boxrec. it cuts through all the hype and exposes guys for who they really are. None taken...I don't really watch most lower level fights, just not something I want to do with my time...like if you were fighting I wouldn't tune in, jk ;)...also as I've said many times, I do like boxrec lol...but their ratings are woefully bad on some fighters...to try and explain away those bad ratings as legit is a bad look my friend...boxrec obviously misses on some things with their formula...it's OK and really just smart to admit that man. https://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=830873 Be sure to add your input please ^

I never watched either fight lol no offense dude but clearly you just read hype and dont watch fights. no wonder you dont like boxrec. it cuts through all the hype and exposes guys for who they really are.

There is no secret sauce. I posted the formula for you. There's no opinion involved. Sadam Ali acquired a lot of points when he retired Miguel Cotto. In his next fight, he was knocked out by Munguia. Munguia acquired a lot of points with that win. Boxrec is all about who you beat and who they beat. His next four defenses were against 1 loss or undefeated fighters. Meanwhile, Charlo's last three fights were against a 3 loss fighter, a 2 loss fighter and a 4 loss fighter, and the fight against the 2 loss fighter . . . Charlo lost. Boxrec has no way to recognize hype. Has no way to recognize network marketing or popularity. Fighters happen, the results are put into the computer. It is hard to believe you aren't understanding this lol...maybe you are trolling, idk...but how good Ali's win over Cotto is, is an opinion...how good Munguia's win over Ali is, is an opinion...acting is if those are easily quantifiable is odd. Also if you don't understand that a record can have 0 to do really with how good a guy is, I don't know what to tell ya...I never watched either fight but most people would say that Charlo did about as well vs Harrison as Munguia did vs Hogan...so again defending Munguia based on that performance and denigrating Charlo on his is just strange...and most people would say Harrison is better than Hogan anyway. And again apart from those fights, Charlo has clearly a much better resume at 154 than Munguia...there is really no debate to be had about that...someone arguing the other side just has no credibility there imo.

No...it makes 0 sense...Charlo has a much better resume at 154 than Mungia lol...again boxrec is an opinion, often times more or less getting it right...but touting Mungia as number 1 at 154 because his opponents have a better W/L % (according to you, I have no idea if that is even true) is infantile level logic man. Be better bro. If you don't understand that boxrec's secret sauce is not factual but instead their opinion, I don't know what to tell ya man. There is no secret sauce. I posted the formula for you. There's no opinion involved. Sadam Ali acquired a lot of points when he retired Miguel Cotto. In his next fight, he was knocked out by Munguia. Munguia acquired a lot of points with that win. Boxrec is all about who you beat and who they beat. His next four defenses were against 1 loss or undefeated fighters. Meanwhile, Charlo's last three fights were against a 3 loss fighter, a 2 loss fighter and a 4 loss fighter, and the fight against the 2 loss fighter . . . Charlo lost. Boxrec has no way to recognize hype. Has no way to recognize network marketing or popularity. Fighters happen, the results are put into the computer.

Boxrec ratings can't account for hypotheticals. No consideration for what might happen or what would happen. Only what has happened. Charlo just lost. At 154. If you have him rated #1 at 154, you're doing it wrong. If there was an 8 man tournament tomorrow, Charlo might win the damn thing. I'm not disagreeing with you that if given the chance, he could prove to be the best superwelter. I'm just saying based on what has actually happened, it makes sense that the computerized ratings would have Munguia above charlo. No...it makes 0 sense...Charlo has a much better resume at 154 than Mungia lol...again boxrec is an opinion, often times more or less getting it right...but touting Mungia as number 1 at 154 because his opponents have a better W/L % (according to you, I have no idea if that is even true) is infantile level logic man. Be better bro. If you don't understand that boxrec's secret sauce is not factual but instead their opinion, I don't know what to tell ya man.

They were outraged over GGG vs. Rolls and Vanes. They constantly shyt all over Crawford and his resume, insist Loma only fights smaller opponents and bums. Where is the outrage over a guy coming off a loss at 154, moving up in weight with only 7 KOs to his record? One thing I'll tell ya... GGG, Crawford, Loma etc.. are all WAY better fighters than the Charlo bros. These guy's are B listers fighting C listers. The other guys are A listers. That's why there isn't outrage. Charlo fights are the undercard.

Charlo could still be the best at 154 even with that loss...he could beat everyone else hypothetically, and Harrison could lose to some other top guys...which would basically make Charlo number Boxrec ratings can't account for hypotheticals. No consideration for what might happen or what would happen. Only what has happened. Charlo just lost. At 154. If you have him rated #1 at 154, you're doing it wrong. If there was an 8 man tournament tomorrow, Charlo might win the damn thing. I'm not disagreeing with you that if given the chance, he could prove to be the best superwelter. I'm just saying based on what has actually happened, it makes sense that the computerized ratings would have Munguia above charlo.

I didn't say who proved more, I said what's been proven. What's been proven is that Charlo isn't the best at 154 because he just lost fair and square at 154. Munguia's opposition has had better records than Charlo's opposition and Munguia actually won his fights. Dude imho you are kind of embarrassing yourself here...and I've seen other posts of yours and you're usually a good poster. Trying to defend those terrible ratings from boxrec just makes you look bad imo...also, I would point out that Charlo could still be the best at 154 even with that loss...he could beat everyone else hypothetically, and Harrison could lose to some other top guys...which would basically make Charlo number 1...so poor point there. But yeah honestly you seem really intent to try and twist around the facts in order to support your narrative, and I don't really have time to debate about that. I've made my points a few times on here lol...they all still stand...boxrec is a good resource but is woefully off on some ratings...I think they were woefully off on Rolls, I may be wrong though...they are clearly woefully off on many others though. You seem insistent on propping up boxrec's ratings at every turn because it seems you really want the Rolls' ranking to be correct so you can slight GGG...just kind of immature behavior imo and I think part of having a good debate is admitting when you are wrong, as you are here about boxrec and some of its ratings. In any event I hope you have a great night my friend!

anyone who says that Mungia has proven more at 154 than Jermell Charlo...I do not agree I didn't say who proved more, I said what's been proven. What's been proven is that Charlo isn't the best at 154 because he just lost fair and square at 154. Munguia's opposition has had better records than Charlo's opposition and Munguia actually won his fights.

Is that supposed to be an insult? He seemed bored, I drew a logical conclusion.

Charlo isn't as aggressive clamouring to fight with the top MWs. Yes, he talks about it, but he never asked his team to try to make and negotiate these fights. He just seems....content, and that worries me. Now that derevyanchenko is with PBC, I truly hope that fight gets made. It's the best fight to make for MW in that side of the "street". Derevyanchenko has expressed interest to fight charlo in a recent interview, so let's hear from charlo if he is willing. Yeah I feel similarly...good post...would love to see him vs SD but that one makes too much sense in some ways I think

Boxrec shows what's been proven. You and I can use the eye test and say that we think someone would beat someone else if given the chance, but Boxrec is pretty dead on about what's been proven so far, except when a bogus decision screws up the ratings. You object to Danny Garcia being rated higher than Tyson Fury pound for pound, but Tyson lost a lot of points from being inactive for so long and hasn't beaten a decent fighter since coming back. He got a draw with Wilder and other than that has fought absolute nobodies. Fury has fought like two top fighters in his career, Danny has fought a dozen. Danny has a lot of big wins. Those points add up. On the bold...anyone who says that Mungia has proven more at 154 than Jermell Charlo...I do not agree, no one does lol...I don't see how a sane person could agree tbh...this is just one example of where I think boxrec is way off...Mungia is 1 at 154 and Charlo is 9...and Charlo clearly has the better resume at 154...that is as clear as day really...there is nothing proven about what boxrec does, it is their opinion, disguised in a formula, imho. The Fury and Garcia stuff you mentioned...I have no real opinion about Fury...but yeah he obviously has done more than Danny...and my point was that he is number 5 at HW...and Danny is 14 overall...it's absurd...I do not agree that Danny has really faced many better fighters than Fury, and Fury has obviously done much better in his fights than Danny has anyway. I do not agree that Danny has faced a dozen top fighters to Fury's two lol...I do not agree that Danny has 'a lot' of big wins lol...sorry I just can't believe anyone is really bigging up Danny Garcia as a top pfp fighter...and again a lot of your criteria here is opinion based, not fact...just as a lot of what boxrec is putting out is their opinion. They have Caleb Plant at 9 at SMW...they have Mungia 1 at 154...they have Charlo 9 at 154...I don't even need to say anything else really...those ratings alone tell me that boxrec, while a great resource, is really way off on some ratings. If GGG went up to 168 then by your logic him fighting Fielding or Ryder or Chudinov is a better or much better fight than him fighting Benevidez or Plant...that's crazy...GGG being number 4 pfp is a little crazy too imo after his last performance...but that is nothing compared to those other ratings lol. But since GGG is number 4 there I expect you to hype that up for him when people bring him up ;)

Charlo isn't as aggressive clamouring to fight with the top MWs. Yes, he talks about it, but he never asked his team to try to make and negotiate these fights. He just seems....content, and that worries me. Now that derevyanchenko is with PBC, I truly hope that fight gets made. It's the best fight to make for MW in that side of the "street". Derevyanchenko has expressed interest to fight charlo in a recent interview, so let's hear from charlo if he is willing.

do you agree effusively with every ranking on boxrec's site? I don't...there are some I think they get wrong Boxrec shows what's been proven. You and I can use the eye test and say that we think someone would beat someone else if given the chance, but Boxrec is pretty dead on about what's been proven so far, except when a bogus decision screws up the ratings. You object to Danny Garcia being rated higher than Tyson Fury pound for pound, but Tyson lost a lot of points from being inactive for so long and hasn't beaten a decent fighter since coming back. He got a draw with Wilder and other than that has fought absolute nobodies. Fury has fought like two top fighters in his career, Danny has fought a dozen. Danny has a lot of big wins. Those points add up.

Points are redistributed by every bout. No points come in or get out of the system by this basic rating process But points get out of the system by career end, by point reductions due to inactivity or missing opponent quality So additional points must be fed into the system - 0.01 points, when a boxer wins a bout - 0.1 points, when a boxer defeats an opponent, who already won a bout within 18 months - 1 point, when a boxer defeats an opponent, who already won a bout against a winning opponent within 18 months - when defeating an opponent within the top 15 percent of all active boxers, who already defeated an opponent within the top 15 percent of all active boxers (top 15 percent limit 2019: men = 4.89 points, women = 1.87 points) -- 8 points at least -- as much points as the defeated opponent had before the bout -- 40 points at most -- with weight = 1, when the opponent had no loss after his top win, with weight = 1/2 after 1 loss, with weight = 1/4 after 2 losses etc -- with weight = 1 within 18 months after the opponents top bout, with weight = 1/2 thereafter and decreasing by a factor of 1/2 per another 18 months - all with weight = cd * v; cd = clear decision factor and v = bout value Every boxer gets a first rating of 0 before his first bout. After every bout, the ratings of the two boxers involved are changed depending on the bout's official result (KO, TKO, RTD, UD, PTS, NWS, MD, SD, DQ, TD, DRAW). The value of a result varies between v=1 and v=0. The clear decision factor varies between cd=1 and cd=0. The winner cannot lose points for KO, TKO, RTD, DQ, TD and decisions on points with cd=1 KO, TKO, RTD are rewarded with full value v=1, cd=1. NWS is rewarded with full value v=1 for 12 rounds boxed and more and a lower value related to the number of rounds boxed. Clear decision factor cd=1. UD, PTS, DQ, TD are rewarded with full value v=1 for 12 rounds boxed and more and a lower value related to the number of rounds boxed, clear decision factor cd=1. If the score cards are available, it may be less. MD, SD are rewarded with full value v=1 for 12 rounds boxed and more and a lower value related to the number of rounds boxed. Clear decision factor is limited to cd=0.5. If the score cards are available cd may be less. DRAW is rewarded with full value v=1 for 12 rounds boxed and more and a lower value related to the number of rounds boxed. Clear decision factor cd=0. If the score cards are available, the value rewarded is in direct proportion to the rounds boxed, with full value v=1 for 12 rounds boxed and more. The clear decision factor is in proportion to rounds boxed and the mean score difference per judge. cd=1 for a mean score difference per judge of 50% of the rounds boxed. All bouts are regarded to have the same weight independent of titles. The winner gets a certain part of the opponent's points and a certain part of the rating difference to the opponent's rating. For a DRAW the rating of the higher rated boxer is reduced by some part of the point difference; the rating of the lower rated boxer is enhanced by the same amount of points. The full relative point reward is 33%. It is in direct proportion to the pre-bout rating of the defeated opponent. The rating of a boxer is reduced, if he didn't box an opponent with a rating of at least 50% of his own rating points within 18 months. The rating of a boxer is reduced by up to 50% in proportion to the difference of 2 times the rating points of his best opponent in this time period minus his own rating The reduction is in proportion to the time the requirement was missed. The rating of a boxer is reduced by 50% for every time period of inactivity of 18 months - and to even less in proportion to a longer time period of inactivity The pre-bout rating of a successfully debuting boxer is set to 25% of his opponents pre-bout rating. The rating points are in relation to a weight division. The rating points are converted with the cube of the upper weight limit ratio of the old and new weight division. The winner is always rated higher than the loser. the minimum margin is: mean pre-bout ratings of both r_m = (r_a + r_b)/2; r_new_winner = r_m + earn_f*v*cd/4; r_new_loser= r_m - earn_f*v*cd/4 Formula If a boxer with a rating of r_a before the fight defeats a boxer b with a rating of r_b before the fight with result of value v, clear decision factor cd, the new regular ratings r_a_new and r_b_new after a fight are: earn = 1/3 * v * (r_b*cd + (r_b-r_a)/(1+2*cd)); r_a_new = r_a + earn_a r_b_new = r_b - earn_b The winner gets additional points. Rating reduction caused by missing opponent quality: career_top_rating = highest career rating adapted to bout division days = days between bout with best opponent before and bout with best opponent after reduction r_red-career_top_rating/10 = (r_old-career_top_rating/10) * (1 - 0.5*(1 - 2*best_opp/r_old))**(days/(365.24*1.5)) Examples Boxer a UD 6 boxer b, scores 59:55 58:56 58:56, a has 10 points, b has 5 points, opponent with a prior win, but not within the top 15 percent of all active boxers A 6 rounder is rewarded with value 6/12, v=0.5 UD is rewarded with cd=1 at maximum mean score difference per judge is (4+2+2)/3 = 2.667, which is rewarded in direct proportion to half the rounds boxed with cd= 2.667/3 = 0.89 at maximum so cd=0.89 earn= 1/3 * 0.5 * (5*0.89 + (5-10)/(1+2*0.89)) = 0.63 r_a_new = 10 + 0.63 = 10.63 r_b_new = 5 - 0.63 = 4.37 Winner additionally gets 0.01 points + 0.1 points for opponent with win and weight = cd*v = 0.89*0.5= 0.445 additional points = 0.11*0.445 = 0.05 points r_a_new = 10.63 + 0.05 = 10.68 Boxer a SD 8 boxer b, scores 77:75 77:75 75:77, a has 100 points, b has 50 points, opponent within the top 15 percent of all active boxers and with an own win against such a top 15 percent boxer 23 months ago and 1 following loss A 8 rounder is rewarded with 8/12, v=0.667 SD is rewarded with cd=0.5 at maximum mean score difference per judge is (2+2-2)/3 = 0.667, which is rewarded in direct proportion to half the rounds boxed 0.667/4 at maximum so cd=0.167 earn= 1/3 * 0.667 * (50*0.167 + (50-100)/(1+2*0.167)) = -6.48 r_a_new = 100 - 6.48 = 93.52 r_b_new = 50 + 6.48 = 56.48 Winner additionally gets 0.01 points + 0.1 points for opponent with win + 1 point for opponent with a win against a winner + 40 points for opponent with top 15 percent win with weight=1/2 for 1 following loss and weight=0.41 for top win before 22 months and overall weight = cd*v = 0.5*0.67= 0.333 additional points = (1.11 + 40*0.5*0.41)*0.333 = 3.10 points r_a_new = 93.52 + 3.10 = 96.62 Thanks man but it was more of a rhetorical question and I am not going to read all of that. To put it another way...do you agree effusively with every ranking on boxrec's site? I don't...there are some I think they get wrong...and I'm sure if you're honest you will admit the same...we may differ on which ones are wrong but will probably agree that we feel some are off.

Who does the boxrec rankings and how is the formula calculated? Points are redistributed by every bout. No points come in or get out of the system by this basic rating process But points get out of the system by career end, by point reductions due to inactivity or missing opponent quality So additional points must be fed into the system - 0.01 points, when a boxer wins a bout - 0.1 points, when a boxer defeats an opponent, who already won a bout within 18 months - 1 point, when a boxer defeats an opponent, who already won a bout against a winning opponent within 18 months - when defeating an opponent within the top 15 percent of all active boxers, who already defeated an opponent within the top 15 percent of all active boxers (top 15 percent limit 2019: men = 4.89 points, women = 1.87 points) -- 8 points at least -- as much points as the defeated opponent had before the bout -- 40 points at most -- with weight = 1, when the opponent had no loss after his top win, with weight = 1/2 after 1 loss, with weight = 1/4 after 2 losses etc -- with weight = 1 within 18 months after the opponents top bout, with weight = 1/2 thereafter and decreasing by a factor of 1/2 per another 18 months - all with weight = cd * v; cd = clear decision factor and v = bout value Every boxer gets a first rating of 0 before his first bout. After every bout, the ratings of the two boxers involved are changed depending on the bout's official result (KO, TKO, RTD, UD, PTS, NWS, MD, SD, DQ, TD, DRAW). The value of a result varies between v=1 and v=0. The clear decision factor varies between cd=1 and cd=0. The winner cannot lose points for KO, TKO, RTD, DQ, TD and decisions on points with cd=1 KO, TKO, RTD are rewarded with full value v=1, cd=1. NWS is rewarded with full value v=1 for 12 rounds boxed and more and a lower value related to the number of rounds boxed. Clear decision factor cd=1. UD, PTS, DQ, TD are rewarded with full value v=1 for 12 rounds boxed and more and a lower value related to the number of rounds boxed, clear decision factor cd=1. If the score cards are available, it may be less. MD, SD are rewarded with full value v=1 for 12 rounds boxed and more and a lower value related to the number of rounds boxed. Clear decision factor is limited to cd=0.5. If the score cards are available cd may be less. DRAW is rewarded with full value v=1 for 12 rounds boxed and more and a lower value related to the number of rounds boxed. Clear decision factor cd=0. If the score cards are available, the value rewarded is in direct proportion to the rounds boxed, with full value v=1 for 12 rounds boxed and more. The clear decision factor is in proportion to rounds boxed and the mean score difference per judge. cd=1 for a mean score difference per judge of 50% of the rounds boxed. All bouts are regarded to have the same weight independent of titles. The winner gets a certain part of the opponent's points and a certain part of the rating difference to the opponent's rating. For a DRAW the rating of the higher rated boxer is reduced by some part of the point difference; the rating of the lower rated boxer is enhanced by the same amount of points. The full relative point reward is 33%. It is in direct proportion to the pre-bout rating of the defeated opponent. The rating of a boxer is reduced, if he didn't box an opponent with a rating of at least 50% of his own rating points within 18 months. The rating of a boxer is reduced by up to 50% in proportion to the difference of 2 times the rating points of his best opponent in this time period minus his own rating The reduction is in proportion to the time the requirement was missed. The rating of a boxer is reduced by 50% for every time period of inactivity of 18 months - and to even less in proportion to a longer time period of inactivity The pre-bout rating of a successfully debuting boxer is set to 25% of his opponents pre-bout rating. The rating points are in relation to a weight division. The rating points are converted with the cube of the upper weight limit ratio of the old and new weight division. The winner is always rated higher than the loser. the minimum margin is: mean pre-bout ratings of both r_m = (r_a + r_b)/2; r_new_winner = r_m + earn_f*v*cd/4; r_new_loser= r_m - earn_f*v*cd/4 Formula If a boxer with a rating of r_a before the fight defeats a boxer b with a rating of r_b before the fight with result of value v, clear decision factor cd, the new regular ratings r_a_new and r_b_new after a fight are: earn = 1/3 * v * (r_b*cd + (r_b-r_a)/(1+2*cd)); r_a_new = r_a + earn_a r_b_new = r_b - earn_b The winner gets additional points. Rating reduction caused by missing opponent quality: career_top_rating = highest career rating adapted to bout division days = days between bout with best opponent before and bout with best opponent after reduction r_red-career_top_rating/10 = (r_old-career_top_rating/10) * (1 - 0.5*(1 - 2*best_opp/r_old))**(days/(365.24*1.5)) Examples Boxer a UD 6 boxer b, scores 59:55 58:56 58:56, a has 10 points, b has 5 points, opponent with a prior win, but not within the top 15 percent of all active boxers A 6 rounder is rewarded with value 6/12, v=0.5 UD is rewarded with cd=1 at maximum mean score difference per judge is (4+2+2)/3 = 2.667, which is rewarded in direct proportion to half the rounds boxed with cd= 2.667/3 = 0.89 at maximum so cd=0.89 earn= 1/3 * 0.5 * (5*0.89 + (5-10)/(1+2*0.89)) = 0.63 r_a_new = 10 + 0.63 = 10.63 r_b_new = 5 - 0.63 = 4.37 Winner additionally gets 0.01 points + 0.1 points for opponent with win and weight = cd*v = 0.89*0.5= 0.445 additional points = 0.11*0.445 = 0.05 points r_a_new = 10.63 + 0.05 = 10.68 Boxer a SD 8 boxer b, scores 77:75 77:75 75:77, a has 100 points, b has 50 points, opponent within the top 15 percent of all active boxers and with an own win against such a top 15 percent boxer 23 months ago and 1 following loss A 8 rounder is rewarded with 8/12, v=0.667 SD is rewarded with cd=0.5 at maximum mean score difference per judge is (2+2-2)/3 = 0.667, which is rewarded in direct proportion to half the rounds boxed 0.667/4 at maximum so cd=0.167 earn= 1/3 * 0.667 * (50*0.167 + (50-100)/(1+2*0.167)) = -6.48 r_a_new = 100 - 6.48 = 93.52 r_b_new = 50 + 6.48 = 56.48 Winner additionally gets 0.01 points + 0.1 points for opponent with win + 1 point for opponent with a win against a winner + 40 points for opponent with top 15 percent win with weight=1/2 for 1 following loss and weight=0.41 for top win before 22 months and overall weight = cd*v = 0.5*0.67= 0.333 additional points = (1.11 + 40*0.5*0.41)*0.333 = 3.10 points r_a_new = 93.52 + 3.10 = 96.62

They don't hear you though. And they act as though Hogan can't hold his own against Charlo, when in fact, he held his own against a huge 154 lber in Mungia. People are also acting like it's Charlo's fault that Hogan only has 7 ko wins out of 31 fights. Lol I mean as I pointed out...boxrec has terrible rankings all over the place lol...and that's not really to sh.it on them...overall they are a good site and have good ratings. But yeah sometimes they get it woefully wrong...that is obvious really...way more wrong than listing Steve Rolls at 80 or whatever...I think from my little research he is around 20 or so at MW...but who knows. We do know that right now especially Mungia has no business being number 1 at 154...and Jermell Charlo ranked 9 at 154...laughable. Those 2 rankings alone are enough evidence to show to taking boxrec rankings as gospel is foolish really...we should form our own opinions about boxers and not really try and cherry pick stuff that isn't true just because it may suit our preferred narrative.

It's all computerized and the formula is made public. Boxrec ratings are based simply on who you fight, if you win, who they fought, if they won, etc. It's a point system and there can't be any bias or corruption because it's all just based on tracking who fought who. You can move a fighter through sanctioning body ratings easily without ever having to fight any decent fighters, but Boxrec ignores all titles and there's no way to game the system in Boxrec the way you can in the sanctioning bodies. Don King can get Trevor Bryan a shot at the interim WBA world heavyweight championship with his most recent wins being over opponents with 2-24 and 2-20 records. But in Boxrec, he's not even in the top 100. Boxrec cuts through all the bull****. Yes, there are weird situations sometimes when a fighter wins a bogus decision and it messes up the Boxrec points, but other than that, Boxrec is pretty straight forward. Who does the boxrec rankings and how is the formula calculated? My point there is to say that assuming the site/rankings are without bias at all is naive imho...just look at some trends of who is ranked where for evidence of where the bias may be. Also we agree that boxrec, just like most other ranking organizations imo, gets it right most of the time...those examples I pointed out which you apparently excuse away ;) do help to illustrate my point that touting the boxrec rankings 100% is silly...no offense sincerely. I think it is perfectly fine to point to a ranking (in any organization etc) and say 'here, they have so-and-so ranked number 3, that's where I think they should be too, this backs me up'...but to tout a ranking like Mungia's just because boxrec says so...I mean I am judging all these fighters based on what I see from them, and I think I(and many others on here etc) have just as good of a feel for who should be ranked where. I don't really take my cues from another man/entity...I form my own thoughts and if someone/something agrees with me, then that's cool...but just to blindly look towards a random website for rankings for every fighter, I mean yeah I just don't really follow that. Again I do like boxrec though and feel they generally get it right with their ratings from what I can tell...but what has Jamie Mungia done to get ranked number 1 at 154...and why is Jermell Charlo ranked number 9 at 154??...those are way more absurd imo than Rolls being ranked 80 at MW. Rolls it is possible is around that number...I don't think he is...as I said from what I've seen from him he is around top 20 or so, but there isn't much to go on for fighters 10-100 so who knows...but Mungia is no way number 1 at 154..and Charlo is no way only number 9 at 154. Those two ratings alone are enough to tell me that boxrec is not to be taken as gospel, and instead we should form our own opinions and not look to any other entity/person for our views.

Fanboys of promoters or networks are losers.