Division depth according to boxrec

[mick1303]

We doing this stiff, slower upper division fighters beat faster, mobile lower division fighters again?
Boxrec gives more worth or points to higher weight class fighters thus inflating their ranking.
According to boxrec, a win over Viloria is worth less than a win over Robert Guerrero, and thats just bull****. Thats why if you check their national P4P lists, you'll see someone like Estrada next to someone like Soto-Karass and Humberto Soto.

lol Flyweight is the very last one.
Lighteweight, Middleweight and Junior Middleweight, three dead wasteland divisions are near the top. The highest lower division weight class is Featherweight which is still very low. And thats ignoring the fact Flyweight is like a million times better.

lol Don't people usually just make fun of boxrec rankings since you know, they are computerized. But I guess when there is an agenda...

Are you sure that Boxrec gives more ranking points to the higher division fighter if the respective rankings of two fighters before the fight are the same? This means for instance that we have fighters A and B at middleweight with say rankings 300 and 400 and fighters C and D at bantamweight with the same rankings 300 and 400. And you say that if A(300) beats B(400) and C(300) beats D(400) then A gets more points than C. You maybe right, but I want to be sure of that myself...

This is the main goal why I started to collect these data - to figure out how it works...

[soul_survivor]

Average against what, exactly?

BoxRec rates near 1800 fighters at 147, yet rates under 300 fighters at minimum weight. Every weight class bantamweight on down has fewer than 800 fighters rated by BoxRec.

Beyond that, there are also "zombie fighters" rated (Michael Grant, Kevin Johnson, and Jonathan Banks are all in the heavyweight top 100, for example).

Honestly not sure what you're seeking to measure.

I was just about to post how this analysis doesn't and by still rating guys like Grant is madness.

I agree ,welterweight probably has the most depth but there is noway heavyweight has more depth than light welter, light middle, feather/super feather and superbantam. No way in hell. That's where the analysis falls apart.

Plus, you can't measure depth simply by how highly a fighter or fighters are ranked within that division, because a name like Pacquiao would skew the statistical data in the welterweight division. Take him out, what would happen? Or Wlad at heavy.

Nice try by OP though, as it probably took a lot of work but I feel boxing is very different from say cricket or baseball where stats can mean a lot. In boxing, I don't think they work out so well.

[mick1303]

They have formal criteria of activity in place. Grant had last fight 2014-10-24. If he does not fight for the next couple of weeks, I guess he will be out of ranking list.

[RaTaTa]

Bullshyt.Light Heavy and Cruiser are the most depth divisions.

[glenn mcrory]

Are you sure that Boxrec gives more ranking points to the higher division fighter if the respective rankings of two fighters before the fight are the same? This means for instance that we have fighters A and B at middleweight with say rankings 300 and 400 and fighters C and D at bantamweight with the same rankings 300 and 400. And you say that if A(300) beats B(400) and C(300) beats D(400) then A gets more points than C. You maybe right, but I want to be sure of that myself...

This is the main goal why I started to collect these data - to figure out how it works...

Take a look at their P4P list, now take a look at the P4P Mexico fighters.
Notice the difference in overall point values. Kell Brook has like 900 points while someone like Estrada only has like 400. The highest ranked mexican, Canelo, is the only mexican fighter above 140(along with Carlos Molina, also above 140.)
All the top US fighters have a ****load of points. Most of them are from welterweight up. The first sub-140 in the P4P list is Frampton with 600 points. The saddest part is that he is only like 2 spaces above ****ing Peter Quillin who somehow has 550.
Edlenier Alvarez is one spot below Juan Francisco Estrada...
I wouldn't take their rankings too seriously if I were you.

[BattleAxePurist]

BoxRec rankings are rubbish therefore so is this

[Scipio2009]

Average is not calculated "against" anything ))) It is just an average. IDK what "smaller words" shall I use... In each division only top 100 was used, therefore the number of fighters below 100 did not matter. While I agree that total number of ranked fighters in the division is also a sign of depth, it is a different matter all together.

A better way to frame my question:

what is your information trying to tell me?

The #95 guy at minimumweight, from a talent level, isn't as good as the #95 guy at welterweight.

BoxRec has changed their setup to list every fighter on the lb for lb database; rather than taking 100 fighters from each of the 17 weight classes (1700 fighters, if the full list was done), why not just look at the top 1000 fighters on BoxRec's p4p list?

Maybe I'm dense, but I don't see the usefulness of the initial chart.

[The Hammer]

Those points are partly based on longevity.

There's more up-and-coming talent at light heavyweight than any other divisions, but some of the best like Beterbiev, Bivol and Gvozdyk haven't had a lot of fights yet, and thus have relatively few points.

A lot of the heavyweights and welterweights are veterans and have had a lot of fights, so therefore more points.

[mick1303]

I started to get first results and first ranking changes. And they are puzzling to say the least. I was hoping that boxing ranking works similarly to chess ranking (or any ranking, basing on ELO system). Does not look like this is the case. Over this weekend there was 11 fights, where I had ranking for both fighters previously recorded and Boxrec shows the ranking change. The thing is - in the majority of cases the winner gets substantially more points added than the loser subtracted. I thought that it shall be roughly the same (plus-minus a point for rounding). But it isn't!!! For instance - Liam Smith won against John Thompson. Winner's ranking changed from 163 (on oct 7th) to 273 (today). Loser's ranking dipped from 178 (on oct 7th) to 117 (today). Winner got 110 ponts, while loser lost 61 points. 49 points differential appeared out of the thin air!!! In other cases the differential is not that outrageous... But still noticeable...Ustinov beat Mo Harris and got 27 points added, while Harris lost just 15 points.

There are also cases when ranking drifts without the change of record... Saul Canelo Alvarez had a ranking of 1074 last Wednesday, but today his ranking is 1075. Why????

[cheeseburger]

I started to get first results and first ranking changes. And they are puzzling to say the least. I was hoping that boxing ranking works similarly to chess ranking (or any ranking, basing on ELO system). Does not look like this is the case. Over this weekend there was 11 fights, where I had ranking for both fighters previously recorded and Boxrec shows the ranking change. The thing is - in the majority of cases the winner gets substantially more points added than the loser subtracted. I thought that it shall be roughly the same (plus-minus a point for rounding). But it isn't!!! For instance - Liam Smith won against John Thompson. Winner's ranking changed from 163 (on oct 7th) to 273 (today). Loser's ranking dipped from 178 (on oct 7th) to 117 (today). Winner got 110 ponts, while loser lost 61 points. 49 points differential appeared out of the thin air!!! In other cases the differential is not that outrageous... But still noticeable...Ustinov beat Mo Harris and got 27 points added, while Harris lost just 15 points.

There are also cases when ranking drifts without the change of record... Saul Canelo Alvarez had a ranking of 1074 last Wednesday, but today his ranking is 1075. Why????

Stop being a fuccboi and just read this.

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Bo...gs_Description

all your questions will be answered