Hail the new king, Tank Davis. Boxrec #1 at 140

[DaNeutral.]

I don't mind the math that Boxrec use for rankings or their P4P list but it doesn't really tell a full or realistic story.

When you got an undefeated undisputed fighter at the weight who has just beaten another champion and then there is tank one fight at the weight against a 2nd tier fighter its really quite obvious which one of the two deserves to sit on top of the divisions rankings.

And its no good saying Taylor is a bum and Tank crushes him cuz Tanks management have come out and told us directly they have no intention of proving it.

[Ray*]

No one takes Boxrec ratings seriously. No matter what they try to tell you.

[Amir Imam]

The whole package if you were watching. Ratings are mostly eye test and resume with eye test overriding most criteria. You see what you see in the ring. I've always despised Boxrec for everything except fighter stats, but if you are a number guy, they actually use math.

I agree with them in this case. Taylor looks primitive compared to Davis, skillwise.

Ding Ding Ding

Most rankings are based off emotions and opinions BoxRec uses numbers which is what I like. A lot of fighters use BoxRec also.

[Amir Imam]

How do you become #1 while beating a guy not even in their own top 10?

Barrios was ranked 7?

[JOITATS]

boxingrec is a complete JOKE
it's not based on an algorithm, it's based on personal bias

everything under featherweight has -1 less star than it should.
on the other hand, many americans have +1 more stars than they should.

[Citizen Koba]

Barrios was ranked 7?

I'm not 100% but it looks like Boxrec had him #11 per Wayback. Looks like they dropped him from 11 to 14 with the loss if you look at the little up/down arrows next to the ratings..

https://web.archive.org/web/20210627...20Welterweight

Ring had him at #7 though and TBRB had him #9

[Citizen Koba]

boxingrec is a complete JOKE
it's not based on an algorithm, it's based on personal bias

everything under featherweight has -1 less star than it should.
on the other hand, many americans have +1 more stars than they should.

It is 100% based on an alogrithm but you musn't make the mistake of assuming that all algoirthms produce useful or representative results or that it's not possible for bias to be built in. However I wouldn't even claim bias was deliberately designed in in - in fact Boxrec claim the criteria they use is predictivity - how successful the rankings would be a predicting a Winner (ie how likely the higher ranked fighter is to beat a lower ranked fighter), but if you follow the discussion thread on Boxrec you'll see their whole methodolgy comes in for considerable criticism. For instance Tank would actually be ranked above everyone at 154 by Boxrec if he chose to fight at that division but I can't imagine anyone, even BiG - Tanks biggest fan - claiming that Tank would be favoured against Jermell

Way I use Boxrec is just as a resource for dating and comparing resumes and stuff... only time I ever really use their rankings is for a really general rough n ready to give me a superficial idea of the level of opponents I don't know much about. You can't use em for precise rankings but you can sorta say than anyone ranked (under the current system) below 10 or so is either unproven or a maybe a regional level guy, up to 40 or so maybe low national level and maybe over a 100 you're starting getting to world level guys and genuine contenders, though even that depends on what weightclass you're looking at.

So in short, Boxrec has it's uses - and it's undoubtedly an essential resource for any boxing fan - but as a ranking sytem it does indeed suck ****.

[STREET CLEANER]

Josh Taylor is #1 at JrWW regardless what Boxrec says. Boxrec uses some pot system that is not always to most reliable.

[_Rexy_]

Wow, that sounds really wrong.

Yup. Same reason that Zurdo and Jesse Hart are top 10 at LHW. (I think Hart is something ****** like 5 when he's 1-1 in the division)

[JOITATS]

It is 100% based on an alogrithm but you musn't make the mistake of assuming that all algoirthms produce useful or representative results or that it's not possible for bias to be built in. However I wouldn't even claim bias was deliberately designed in in - in fact Boxrec claim the criteria they use is predictivity - how successful the rankings would be a predicting a Winner (ie how likely the higher ranked fighter is to beat a lower ranked fighter), but if you follow the discussion thread on Boxrec you'll see their whole methodolgy comes in for considerable criticism. For instance Tank would actually be ranked above everyone at 154 by Boxrec if he chose to fight at that division but I can't imagine anyone, even BiG - Tanks biggest fan - claiming that Tank would be favoured against Jermell

Way I use Boxrec is just as a resource for dating and comparing resumes and stuff... only time I ever really use their rankings is for a really general rough n ready to give me a superficial idea of the level of opponents I don't know much about. You can't use em for precise rankings but you can sorta say than anyone ranked (under the current system) below 10 or so is either unproven or a maybe a regional level guy, up to 40 or so maybe low national level and maybe over a 100 you're starting getting to world level guys and genuine contenders, though even that depends on what weightclass you're looking at.

So in short, Boxrec has it's uses - and it's undoubtedly an essential resource for any boxing fan - but as a ranking sytem it does indeed suck ****.

fine, then it's a ridiculously biased 'algorithm'. an algorithm that is manipulated by human opinion.

the 'star' system they have makes no logical sense
the bottom line is stars are subjective.
there has to be a person who sets the star standard for each wgt class.

there's no other explanation for why the lower wgt classes are rated much lower than the higher.