For those of you who still use BOXREC ratings

[john l]

They currently DO NOT rate Inoue in they're top 17 PFP(no idea why they're rate 17) and have Loma ranked #5,Pac #9,Ruiz #13 and have both D Garcia and Porter ranked but not Thurman who beat both. Computers CAN NOT rank fighters. Just had to vent a bit lol I'm fine now. Great place for records though(credit where credit's due)

[Boxing_1013]

They currently DO NOT rate Inoue in they're top 17 PFP(no idea why they're rate 17) and have Loma ranked #5,Pac #9,Ruiz #13 and have both D Garcia and Porter ranked but not Thurman who beat both. Computers CAN NOT rank fighters. Just had to vent a bit lol I'm fine now. Great place for records though(credit where credit's due)

Thanks...good info...that does seem way off in a lot of ways

[john l]

Thanks...good info...that does seem way off in a lot of ways

Oh you could go on and on, but like I said it is a great site for records.

[Boxing_1013]

Oh you could go on and on, but like I said it is a great site for records.

OH yeah it is a great resource for a lot of stuff

[john l]

OH yeah it is a great resource for a lot of stuff

True just hate it when people use they're ratings, but VERY glad to have it.

[asgarth]

wouldnt use it for p4p rankings. but they are rather reliable for everything past #20.

[kushking]

True just hate it when people use they're ratings, but VERY glad to have it.

Boxrec p4p rankings are actually very accurate because your forgetting one very important fact:Boxrec ranks fighters resumes not fighters talent or eye test or any other subjective bs other p4ps do. ,their ratings are completely fair as opposed to all the others that are voted for by the same exact group of reporters 99% of the time.(hacks)

Just because their rankings are imperfect in certain regards & theres a few outliers doesn't mean their rankings aren't the most unbiased its actually demonstrates unbiased,show me a single other ranking that even goes past top 10,& even then I can guarantee you those rankings would be worse in many regards.

For example most p4ps such as espn.tnrb,ring etc. tend to rank fighters p4p#1 when their resumes stink because those rankings are made by biased fanbois who move the goalposts constantly to suit said bias,they have no formula set in stone & its seemingly impossible for their darlings to be dethroned.

[Citizen Koba]

They currently DO NOT rate Inoue in they're top 17 PFP(no idea why they're rate 17) and have Loma ranked #5,Pac #9,Ruiz #13 and have both D Garcia and Porter ranked but not Thurman who beat both. Computers CAN NOT rank fighters. Just had to vent a bit lol I'm fine now. Great place for records though(credit where credit's due)

Yeah, Boxrec is an indispensable reference, but as a means of ranking fighters - especially P4P - it basically sucks. At best it gives you a loose rough and ready guide within individual divisions... specially if you're looking a quick guide to a fighter you don't really know or are reminding yourself what level a fighter was at at a particular point in their career.

I think they've honestly given it their best shot - they've changed the algorithms a few times over the last few years, but I remember looking over the formulae a few years back and you could see what they were trying to do. They'll even tell you that within divisions their rankings will predict with a high degree of accuracy who will win a match up, but then mostly we can all do that anyway - but the simple fact is that the outcomes are too nuanced, even before you take into account wacky judging and preferential matchmaking, for a computerised system to give any kind of satisfactory picture.

[john l]

Boxrec p4p rankings are actually very accurate because your forgetting one very important fact:Boxrec ranks fighters resumes not fighters talent or eye test or any other subjective bs other p4ps do. ,their ratings are completely fair as opposed to all the others that are voted for by the same exact group of reporters 99% of the time.(hacks)

Just because their rankings are imperfect in certain regards & theres a few outliers doesn't mean their rankings aren't the most unbiased its actually demonstrates unbiased,show me a single other ranking that even goes past top 10,& even then I can guarantee you those rankings would be worse in many regards.

For example most p4ps such as espn.tnrb,ring etc. tend to rank fighters p4p#1 when their resumes stink because those rankings are made by biased fanbois who move the goalposts constantly to suit said bias,they have no formula set in stone & its seemingly impossible for their darlings to be dethroned.

Could not disagree more they may be unbiased because its a computer, but they are WAYYYY off.Computers can not rank fighters, and also their resume's are based off how they rank other fighters.So its a completely flawed system and it shows in ALL their rankings not just PFP.Look at the THE RING or Trans or even ESPN and tell me BOXREC is more accurate.

[kushking]

Could not disagree more they may be unbiased because its a computer, but they are WAYYYY off.Computers can not rank fighters, and also their resume's are based off how they rank other fighters.So its a completely flawed system and it shows in ALL their rankings not just PFP.Look at the THE RING or Trans or even ESPN and tell me BOXREC is more accurate.

I already did tell you boxrec is more accurate & why. Its because they rank fighters resumes & they are as fair as fair gets unliked who I already mentioned in those you listed which are nothing more than celebrity fan polls with votes comprised from most the same exact ppl for Ring/Tnrb/Espn which is why the multitude are usually identical to each other. If you like those fighters they rank so highly you will naturally agree with it in most cases,but fair is what its not.

They used to have ggg ranked p4p #1, despite him at the time having lemuixe as his only semi champion opponent in his career & despite him having held only vacant belts. Chocolatito was ranked #1 for the longest & now isn't ranked,Loma has been ranked #1 on espn & others since early in his career & he had already lost to Salido,& had only like 5 other fights af the time against the furthest things from truly top quality opponents (he had 1 good win against Walters which is still only 1 of 2 good wins,the rest are against vastly overmatched opponents or smaller guys or both.

Inoue is already being ranked above Canelo who despite having by far the best resume in boxing(imo),has never been ranked #1 by a single 1 of those rankings despite having already done 10x more than ggg whom used to be ranked #1 for beating cans like house arrest Wade.

Those orgs & the writers who dictate those lists are completely biased & arbitrarily move the goalposts when needed, Boxrec has every aspect of boxing set in stone & assigned a #,that number is entered into the set in stone formula that takes the sporting aspects of boxing into consideration such as method/margin of victory,quality of opposition,etc.etc.

Where as TNRB/Espn/Ring etc. is decided by writers who can be as any human industry: corrupt/Biased/vindictive/fanbois/agenda driven etc.etc. As I said boxrec literally is #1 at ranking fighters by resumes,writers go off ****** sht like "eye test" is eye test?