When did Wlad get his #5 P4P ranking?

[Alx.]

well deserved tbh, he's a bit boring but he's also the best in the division

[hweightblogger]

Boxrecs rankings are a joke

They are not.

They are designed to keep Ali at #1.

Hence they are so messed up.

The formula to calculate a toplist is actually pretty simple and straightforward:

Dominance*QualityOfOpposition

where QualityOfOpposition is also calculated by THEIR dominance*QualityOfOpposition.

I did that 3 levels deep (= hundred thousands of fights) and my toplists feature no nonsense like Boxrec.

That formula is simple but you need millions of calculations and a huge database, which I have, see screenshots at http://www.heavyweightblog.com/about

Check all my posts, I feature a lot of statistics that haven't ever been featured before.

[hweightblogger]

Ali is a p4p all time ***** coward. Never would have been p4p number 1 and its not arguable.

Ali cannot be #1, because Jesus is #1.
Appolo Creed is #2 and Ali is #3.

After all Ali fought Greek gods like Ken Norton.
And alien robots like The FRAZIAH! ("We must bob...We must weave... We love no Ali!").

Ali descended for a few years from Mount Olympus, was banned by Zeus for 3 years but then re-emerged as the greatest god to ever box and to point out humanity's erroneous ways.

Ali holds the very well deserved #3 spot.

[Elotero]

Wlad has earned his ranking
But Donaire being overrated really if concussing 2 top 15 P4P guys when he fought them equals being overrated well then i guess

Beating 2 top 15s does not make you #2.

[crold1]

Not a joke exactly - their rankings are a lot better than any of the alphabet rankings, although admittedly that isn't saying much. But they are seriously flawed, and that's because rankings are not an exact science and it is impossible for computerised rankings to properly evaluate the quality of a win, especially in the context of P4P rankings or all time rankings, where you are not comparing like with like and there is simply no way to objectively measure how good a given win was.

I remember Cliff Rold (my favourite boxingscene writer), when he first began his "Measured against all time" series, used to use a mathematical algorithm to rank the fighters in a given division; and while he was doing so, some of his rankings were just ridiculous. Eventually he stopped doing that because he got too many complaints about how silly some of the rankings were, and in his later articles, he used his algorithm only to determine who should get into the all time top 20 - but then ranked those top 20 fighters subjectively. From then on he got a lot of praise for the quality of his lists.

There are just too many unmeasurable factors to take into account when ranking people for a machine to do the job well.

But despite that, boxrec's rankings are still the only reasonably credible rankings that deal with more than just the top 10 in each division, so if you want a reasonably credible ranking for any fighter outside the top 10, boxrec is the only show in town. And they are a lot better than a joke, albeit they are not nearly as good as The Ring's or boxingscene's or espn's rankings for the most part.

You're confusing things just a wee bit. The Measured articles never had (and won't in the future) anything to do with the math thing (though that might not have been what you were getting at on second read). I used formulas to baseline the divisional ratings (which are all subjective now); on the series of articles focused on the top 20's in Jr. classes (where overall results indeed ranged from solid at 130, 40, 22, and 08 IMO to ridiculous at 168 and 200 though I think #1 was strong in all nine classes) with only the mildest subjectives; and as a stratifier for the Original eight (though ultimately I subjectively rated the fighters from there).

I like to tinker with things. I knew some of the results in the Jr. classes were funky BUT felt an obligation to follow through on the experiment. And, ultimately, it was fun and sparked plenty of convo so sweet. I didn't stop. I finished that series with that formula. The downside is some thinking that everything I do is based on the same calculation despite my efforts to provide fine print.

As to Wlad, I barely have him in my top ten P4P out of respect for his run. If everyone in boxing were the same size, he's probably not top ten and top five is OVERLY generous from Ring.

Eventually, before a Top 100 All time series, I'll re-rate the nine Jr. classes the way the other eight were.

Thanks for the ups all around.

[Dave Rado]

You're confusing things just a wee bit. The Measured articles never had (and won't in the future) anything to do with the math thing (though that might not have been what you were getting at on second read).

Yes it was the "top 20 of all time" series I was meaning, I just misremembered their titles - sorry about that.

As to Wlad, I barely have him in my top ten P4P out of respect for his run. If everyone in boxing were the same size, he's probably not top ten and top five is OVERLY generous from Ring.

I too think #5 a bit generous, although top 10 is fair IMO, depending how he does against Haye. A really dominant win against Haye would make his Ring ranking look a lot less over-generous, although I'd still have him a bit lower than #5 even then. (A loss would remove him from the P4P rankings, probably for ever.) But the real story with his current #5 Ring ranking is that those who have accused The Ring of being institutionally biased against Wlad are looking ridiculous now, IMO, given that Wlad has the highest P4P Ring ranking of any Heavyweight since Tyson, higher than Lewis or Holyfield ever achieved.

Eventually, before a Top 100 All time series, I'll re-rate the nine Jr. classes the way the other eight were.

I look forward to seeing them.

[Joe2608]

I'm not a fan of putting Heavies in the P4P list and they generally don't get in there. I thought the whole point of it was to show how the lighter guys would measure up P4P.

[Dave Rado]

I'm not a fan of putting Heavies in the P4P list and they generally don't get in there. I thought the whole point of it was to show how the lighter guys would measure up P4P.

No, the whole point of it is to rate fighters based on their quality as a fighter, and the quality of their resume, regardless of weight. The idea is that the ratings panel imagines who the top fighters would be in an imaginary world in which everyone weighed exactly the same.

[Dave Rado]

Oh, aren't we a cute little statistician?

Wonjongkam has been active and winning over the last 15 months, sure, but did you ever consider the level of comp? To say that it's been deeply mediocre would be an understatement.



Boxing really isn't a sport that can be analyzed to any depth with your brand of statistical reasoning. Go find a forum for one that can, stinkydraws.

My goodness you are pathetic. I did not quote any statistics so your post is ignorant in the extreme. All you needed to do was to point out that his level of competition has been low, which is a fair point, that others made long before you did. The personal attack was just pathetic as well as being based on something that wasn't even true.

[Money Shot]

A guy dominates his division for years on end he's going to be in the p4p list. Some of his fights aren't everyone's cup of tea for sure but he is highly effective. Hope he is still there after July 2nd.