For those of you who still use BOXREC ratings

[RuleOfTheSpear]

Boxrec is shi t.

They rank fighters based on activity, not resume.

Thurman should be #1 welterweight based on his record

Spence hasn't unified
Crawford hasn't unified
Pac hasn't unified
Porter hasn't unified

[Citizen Koba]

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.

I could go into it in more depth, but that is one thing I do like about the Boxrec rankings - the vast majority of us- mostly quite unconsciously are full of biases, or preferences; how often we've seen a fighter, and on what stage, how they performed on those occasions, how much we simply like them, how much they've been plugged and whether we react positively or bristle at such 'hype'. At least computerised rankings do away with all that guff - providing the algorithms don't contain intrinsic biases themselves (they did have have an absurd addition at one stage which basically rewarded a fighter over and above if their opponent was highly ranked).

What they do fall sharply out on though is in the ranking of lower divisional fighters where there are fewer dudes per division and fighters tend to stay in divisions for a shorter time (and also the matchmaking tends to be less calculated cos the financial interests are smaller in the main).

Anyway - shit - I think about that BS too much... suffice to say that your point about the impartiality of computerised systems is absolutely valid but they're still rubbish and will be I think for the foreseeable - at least until someone gets round to applying some robust AI to the problem.

[Citizen Koba]

Boxrec is shi t.

They rank fighters based on activity, not resume.

Thurman should be #1 welterweight based on his record

Spence hasn't unified
Crawford hasn't unified
Pac hasn't unified
Porter hasn't unified

It is **** for ranking fighters - especially P4P but they rank on both activity and resume. Basically you start to lose points if you don't stay active or you haven't fought a reasonably closely ranked opponent in a while. it isn't an unreasonable approach, but one that is entirely impossible to quantify in a rational way... just one more way in which the system - however well intentioned - falls down.

[RuleOfTheSpear]

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)

Thurman is ranked way below at #41 in the PFP rankings. Absolutely madness.

He should at least be above #11 Porter or #10 Santa Cruz. Thurman unified and undefeated.

[john l]

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.

Agree its a great site just not for rankings

[john l]

Thurman is ranked way below at #41 in the PFP rankings. Absolutely madness.

He should at least be above #11 Porter or #10 Santa Cruz. Thurman unified and undefeated.

Agree the farther you look into them the worse it gets lol.

[john l]

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?

Your sound more biased as the ratings you ***** about.You bring up Loma's defeat in 2nd fight with a top 3 guy but don't mention Canelo's loss to Mayweather,GGG(by most by far)Lara(by AT LEAST half).This to me sounds like you have an agenda that starts and stops with Canelo(who I agree has a great resume).The ratings suck man I don't know what else to tell you.Dont bother responding I have no interest in your opinion on this, have a great day.

[kushking]

Your sound more biased as the ratings you ***** about.You bring up Loma's defeat in 2nd fight with a top 3 guy but don't mention Canelo's loss to Mayweather,GGG(by most by far)Lara(by AT LEAST half).This to me sounds like you have an agenda that starts and stops with Canelo(who I agree has a great resume).The ratings suck man I don't know what else to tell you.Dont bother responding I have no interest in your opinion on this, have a great day.

The fact you consider close wins against the literal best from a very young age as reasons to not rank a fighter is the definition of bias,then you add more ******ity of claiming loma at an older age losing to a C level is meaningless shows just what a biased fanboi you are. Bo surprise you childishly start with "Im not listening, lalalalalalelalela" like a 2 yr old that can't deal with someone disproving your biased ******ity.

[john l]

The fact you consider close wins against the literal best from a very young age as reasons to not rank a fighter is the definition of bias,then you add more ******ity of claiming loma at an older age losing to a C level is meaningless shows just what a biased fanboi you are. Bo surprise you childishly start with "Im not listening, lalalalalalelalela" like a 2 yr old that can't deal with someone disproving your biased ******ity.

The Mayweather fight was not a close win nor was the GGG fight(like to twist or just forget certain facts huh?) and you brought losses 1st. I was nice but it seems to have been wasted on a Canelo fanboy who don't know s hit.Not ONE person has agreed with your dumbazz now go back to mommies basement and stare at your picture of Canelo.BTW I like Canelo also, but just not a fanboy casual like yourself.

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

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)

It’s the arguably the worst ranking system in boxing, certainly the most hilarious.😂

They have Chris Eubank Jr ranked as the P4P #21, David Lemieux ranked at #63 and then rank Billy Joe Saunders #84 despite him clearly beating Lemieux and also beating Eubank.

They have at #27 Jeff Horn (yes Jeff Horn) and he is rated above Inoue, Estrada and is a full 68 places ahead of 4 weight world champion Donnie Nietes who also finds himself 15 places behind Anthony Crolla.

And my personal favourite...
Rocky Fielding 8 places higher than former consensus p4p #1 Roman Gonzalez.

F*** Boxrec’s rankings...