BoxRec: Terence Crawford #1 Welterweight, Pacquiao DROPPED, Broner Top 10

[_Rexy_]

BoxRec has always had terrible rankings. It’s wntirely points based which doesn’t show if you beat a bunch of over the hill guys who were once great (I could fight RJJ tomorrow and get a load of points even though he’s 15 years past his prime

[QueensburyRules]

--- Boxrec based on a complex computer rated points system, so Horn collected many of manny's points no matter the bogus officiating.

It's completely objective in theory though their gurus admit it's a work in progress to explain obvious flaws. Ring and espn polls are more flawed because of subjective contamination, like when loony teddy or idiot kellerman cast their votes.

Win/lose/draw/ manny will be back in the ratings at the end of the Matthysse fight once the computer is fed the results.

[Citizen Koba]

Their rankings are just a popularity contest & based more off facing the right person at the most opportune time rather than the toughest tests. Fun for fans to look at but mean nothing in the grand schemes of rankings. ie...

Crawford #13 atg WW after 1 fight! Broner #32 & Spinks #24!! OMG.

Take a look at HW atg sometime. Holyfield ranked #3, Vlad #6 while Lewis #20?

Holyfield beat past primes Foreman, Holmes, Tyson x2
went pretty even with Bowe 2-1, Moorer 1-1, Ruiz 1-1-1
but lost to Lewis 0-1-1, Byrd, Toney, Ibragimov & Valuev.
Now take a look at where all those guys he lost to are ranked.
Evander had a ton of heart but to believe he was 3rd best HW ever is ludicrous.
Vlad wasn't even better than his brother Vitali let alone so many others on that list.
Lennox ranked way lower than he should be.

Hopkins ranked #1 MW ever? Nevermind he fought his last 15 fights over the last 10yrs at LHW?
Meanwhile RJJ is considered #2 LHW rather than SMW?
Sturm ranked #4 SMW only fighting there 3 times?
Martinez #9 MW only fighting 5 true MW's?
Alvarez #13 MW only fighting 1?

I could go on & on...there is absolutely no consistency with where the fighters are ranked & over whom. As I said, it's only about facing the right name at the right time, heavily rewarded for stopping them & how long your career lasts.

Boxrec's rankings are ****, to be sure. It's a great resource, but a piss poor way of getting accurate rankings. The two areas where you are absolutely wrong however are here:

Their rankings are just a popularity contest..

and here:

...there is absolutely no consistency with where the fighters are ranked & over whom.

The one advantage Boxrec does have over other ranking systems is that it is consistent and unbiased, no matter how rubbish the results they produce, the same algorithms are applied to each and every fight and fighter to establish their Boxrec points total. The algorithms themselves are explained in detail on the Boxrec site, and you can see they've tried their best to come up with a good system, but unfortunately boxing is not a sport that lends itself well to automated rankings.

[S7V7N]

The one advantage Boxrec does have over other ranking systems is that it is consistent and unbiased, no matter how rubbish the results they produce, the same algorithms are applied to each and every fight and fighter to establish their Boxrec points total. The algorithms themselves are explained in detail on the Boxrec site, and you can see they've tried their best to come up with a good system, but unfortunately boxing is not a sport that lends itself well to automated rankings.

I've looked at the formulas & that's not what I was referring to.
Where does it factor in the age of the opponents & the timing of catching said opponents at the opportune time?
Where does it factor in controversial decisions?
Horn was the beneficiary of beating an old Manny, raising 450 points in just that one win. The same amount that Marquez got for KO'g Pacquiao 5 years younger! Then Bud capitalized off the timing of this fight & raising his in turn by 300. Is that really a better win than say...Spence stopping Brook for half that amount? Kell had just went up 2 divisions & lost 100+ points for doing so, doesn't represent the quality of the win because of the timing. Just because they use the same formula doesn't make the resulting figures accurate because there are variables & the timing of said opponents is crucial!

J.Taylor is ranked 20 spots higher than Pavlik & he lost to him twice! What about Taylor being stopped in 3of4 losses while Kelly only lost twice in decisions? Jermain is the beneficiary of beating B-Hop twice when he was the MW king, yet Kelly dethroned him & didn't receive the same credit for doing so. He also fought B-Hop at 170 yet Bernard gets more points totals for doing than & Pavlik is penalized. It's not the same weights & measures because not all fights are equal & there needs to be variables to adjust for this.

Lastly, how is it determined what weight class the fighters end up in? This is why I used B-Hop as a MW example while Sturm is considered a SMW? That's the inconsistent part.

[BLASTER1]

Every fan of boxing knows who are the best top 10 fighters in most divisions so i usually dont even take any notice of any of the computerized rankings.

[Luilun]

You see how corrupt boxing works Broner has lost to every elite Welter he has faced but is signed by Floyd and now he;s ranked what a joke. Put him in there with Spence or Thurman to end the Broner Circus

[Combat Talk Radio]

You see how corrupt boxing works Broner has lost to every elite Welter he has faced but is signed by Floyd and now he;s ranked what a joke. Put him in there with Spence or Thurman to end the Broner Circus

Problem is the welters he lost to, are retired except Porter. Instant rank up!

[TBear]

Boxrec has never been known for their rankings.

[Larry the boss]

Boxrec???????? really?

[pillowfists98]

Good top 10. Broner is a top ten welterweight. The division isn't that deep.