Looking at boxrec's top 100 all time

[ironfist05]

I can't imagine what their criteria is.

they published it somewhere on their website, but I'm not sure where

 

[Kovalev's "Man Bag"]

they published it somewhere on their website, but I'm not sure where

BoxRec Ratings Description
Contents

• 1 Introduction
• 2 Ratings Structure
  • 2.1 Current Ratings
  • 2.2 All Time Ratings
  • 2.3 Bout Star Ratings
• 3 Links

Introduction
BoxRec.com provides Current and All Time boxer ratings, as calculated daily by its computer. These ratings are not influenced by subjective views or opinions but are wholly dependent upon the bouts contained in the BoxRec database.

The All Time (or "All Boxers") ratings include both "Inactive" (retired) and "Active" boxers. The Current ratings include only those boxers who have fought a bout within the past 365 days ("Active"). (After a year of not fighting, a boxer is automatically designated "Inactive" by the BoxRec computer. A boxer is also designated "Inactive" if he has announced his retirement, even if he may have had a bout within the past 365 days.) Every boxer in the database is rated--even those with an 0-1 record.

The BoxRec computer re-calculates the ratings daily at approximately 9:35 GMT. As the computer refreshes its calculations each and every day, a boxer may gain or lose ratings points with every bout of his entered into the database by a BoxRec Editor since the last daily calculation. A boxer may also gain or lose points if bouts are added to any of his opponents' records, or to their opponents' records--even if the boxer himself has not had a fight since the last BoxRec computer calculation.

There admittedly are inaccuracies and anomalies, especially in the All Time ratings, mostly because of incomplete records in the BoxRec database. Although a boxer’s own record may be complete, his opponents’ records may not be complete. Pre-World War II boxers in particular are at somewhat of a disadvantage, vis-à-vis modern boxers. Their opponents’ records often are quite incomplete--because of the scarcity of source material or Editors' time--while the records of opponents of more current boxers may be quite complete. So, for example, while Mike Tyson's own record, and those of his opponents, may be complete--thereby earning Tyson a certain number of points and thus giving him a high ranking among the All Time Heavyweights--the records of Young Stribling’s opponents may be extremely lacking, thereby giving Stribling fewer points and a much-lower All Time rating. And it may appear to the casual BoxRec visitor that Stribling had fought many boxers making their professional debuts or having had only a handful of career bouts, when the truth is that not all of his opponents’ total career bouts have been entered into the database. (Too many of those old-time bouts are forever lost in history because they were not reported by a newspaper or similar source, or the source was later destroyed.) However, as BoxRec Editors continue to research older resources and enter “new” historical bouts into the database, or correct bouts/boxers previously entered, the rating of an old-time boxer like Stribling may gradually move up or down, even if his own record is considered complete, if bouts are added to his opponents’ records, or to their opponents' records, and so on.

Finally, because of the very few women presently boxing professionally, with some weight divisions having only a handful of active female boxers, a woman with an 0-1 record will appear “world ranked” by BoxRec. This is simply an anomaly due to the few female entries in the database.

Ratings Structure
All these ratings evaluate every day all bouts in the database in chronological sequence. A higher rated boxer should be expected to defeat a lower rated boxer with increasing probability by increasing rating difference.

Current Ratings

1. Every boxer gets a first rating of 0 before his first bout.
2. After every bout, the ratings of the two boxers involved are changed depending on the bout's official result (KO, TKO, RTD, UD, PTS, NWS, MD, SD, DQ, TD, DRAW).
3. The value of a result varies between v=1 and v=0.
4. The clear decision factor varies between cd=1 and cd=0.
5. The winner cannot lose points for KO, TKO, RTD, DQ, TD and decisions on points with cd=1
6. KO, TKO, RTD are rewarded with full value v=1, cd=1.
7. NWS is rewarded with full value v=1 for 12 rounds boxed and more and a lower value related to the number of rounds boxed. Clear decision factor cd=1.
8. UD, PTS are rewarded with full value v=1 for 12 rounds boxed and more and a lower value related to the number of rounds boxed, clear decision factor cd=1. This is valid, if the score cards are not available.
9. DRAW is rewarded with full value v=1 for 12 rounds boxed and more and a lower value related to the number of rounds boxed. Clear decision factor cd=0.
10. MD, SD, DQ, TD are rewarded with full value v=1 for 12 rounds boxed and more and a lower value related to the number of rounds boxed. Clear decision factor cd=0.5. This is valid, if the score cards are not available.
11. If the score cards are available, the value rewarded is in direct proportion to the rounds boxed, with full value v=1 for 12 rounds boxed and more. The clear decision factor is in proportion to rounds boxed and the mean score difference per judge. cd=1 for a mean score difference per judge of 50% of the rounds boxed.
12. All bouts are regarded to have the same weight independent of titles.
13. The winner gets a certain part of the opponent's points and a certain part of the rating difference to the opponent's rating.
14. For a DRAW the rating of the higher rated boxer is reduced by some part of the point difference; the rating of the lower rated boxer is enhanced by the same amount of points.
15. The full relative point reward is 33%. It is in direct proportion to the pre-bout rating of the defeated opponent.
16. The winner also gets additional points from the bout's additional points value in proportion of the opponent's rating to his own rating
17. The bout's additional points value comprehends 3 parts
18. 1 point anyway - another 4 points for an opponent connected by strong results to other connected boxers - and another up to 258 points for an opponent in the division top 50 for men and the division top 30 for women
19. The rating of a boxer is reduced, if he didn't box an opponent with a rating of at least 50% (for men) or 33% (for women) of his own rating points within 18 months.
20. The rating of a boxer is reduced by up to 50% in proportion to the difference of 2 times the rating points of his best opponent in this time period minus his own rating for men.
21. The rating of a boxer is reduced by up to 50% in proportion to the difference of 3 times the rating points of his best opponent in this time period minus his own rating for women.
22. The reduction is in proportion to the time the requirement was missed.
23. The rating of a boxer is reduced by 50% for every time period of inactivity of 18 months.
24. The pre-bout rating of a successfully debuting boxer is set to 25% of his opponents pre-bout rating.
25. The rating points are in relation to a weight division. The rating points are converted with the cube of the upper weight limit ratio of the old and new weight division.

Formula

If a boxer with a rating of r_a before the fight defeats a boxer b with a rating of r_b before the fight with result of value v and clear decision factor cd, the new ratings r_a_new and r_b_new after a fight are, earn_f is 33.3%:

• earn = earn_f * v * (r_b*cd + (r_b-r_a)/(1+2*cd));
• r_a_new = r_a + earn
• r_b_new = r_b - earn

Additional points:

• opponent is connected or not: con=(1 or 0), value of result v, clearness of decision cd, winner's rating r_a, opponents rating r_b, opponent's rank in division rank (#1 is equivalent to #2):

additional points winner = (1 + 4*con + 258/(rank-1)) * v * cd * (r_b+10)/(r_a+r_b+20)


Rating reduction caused by missing opponent quality:

• r_red-10 = (r_old-10) * (1 - 0.5*(1 - 2*best_opp/r_old)) for men
• r_red-10 = (r_old-10) * (1 - 0.5*(1 - 3**best_opp/r_old)) for women

Examples

Boxer a KO boxer b, a has 1000 points, b has 500 points. launch state 4, v=1, cd=1,

• earn= 0.33 * 1 * (500*1 + (500-1000)/(1+2*1)) = 111
• r_a_new = 1000 + 111 = 1111
• r_b_new = 500 - 111 = 389

Boxer a UD 6 boxer b, scores 59:55 58:56 58:56, a has 1000 points, b has 500 points.

• A 6 rounder is rewarded with value 6/12, v=0.5
• UD is rewarded with cd=1 at maximum
• mean score difference per judge is (4+2+2)/3 = 2.667, which is rewarded in direct proportion to half the rounds boxed with cd= 2.667/3 = 0.89 at maximum
• so cd=0.89

• earn= 0.33 * 0.5 * (500*0.89 + (500-1000)/(1+2*0.89)) = 44
• r_a_new = 1000 + 44 = 1044
• r_b_new = 500 - 44 = 456

Boxer a SD 4 boxer b, scores 39:37 39:37 37:39, a has 1000 points, b has 500 points

• A 4 rounder is rewarded with 4/12, v=0.333
• SD is rewarded with cd=0.5 at maximum
• mean score difference per judge is (2+2-2)/3 = 0.667, which is rewarded in direct proportion to half the rounds boxed 0.667/2 at maximum\
• so cd=0.333

• earn= 0.33 * 0.33 * (500*0.33 + (500-1000)/(1+2*0.33)) = -15
• r_a_new = 1000 - 15 = 985
• r_b_new = 500 + 15 = 515

More complex - Boxer a KO 4 boxer b, a has 300 points, b has 400 points, boxer b is connected con=1, v=1, cd=1, opponent's rank in division rank=5

• earn= 0.33 * 1 * (400*1 + (400-300)/(1+2*1)) = 143
• r_a_new = 300 + 143 = 443
• r_b_new = 400 - 143 = 257

• additional points:

• additional points winner = (1 +4*1 + 258/(5-1)) * 1 * 1 * (400+10)/(400+300+20) = 40
• r_a_new = 444 + 40 = 484
• r_a_new = 257 + 0 = 257

All Time Ratings
The All Time Rating for a boxer is the sum of the sum of annual rank points he gets for his annual ratings - and the sum of annual rank points of best defeated opponents at time of bout - and the square root of his career top rating:

1. the annual rating is the rating at the end of every year the boxer was active
2. rank points = 100 / annual rank in division for annual rating
3. best opponent rank points = 100 / (best opponent rank - 1) for annual rating (if rank is 1 use rank 1)
4. the value of 100 annual points for the top boxer is reduced, if the annual rating of #10 in the division is less than 67 for men, - and if the annual rating of #5 in the division is less than 30 for women

Bout Star Ratings
All bouts are rated with 0 to 5 stars.

Men

• 5 stars = both opponents have 179 ratings points at least ~ best 100 boxers
• 4 stars = both opponents have 93 ratings points at least ~ best 300 boxers
• 3 stars = both opponents have 46 ratings points at least ~ best 900 boxers
• 2 stars = both opponents have 20 ratings points at least ~ best 2700 boxers
• 1 stars = both opponents have 5 rating point at least = best 8100 boxers
• 0 stars = one opponents has not even 5 rating point at least = not rated boxers

Women

• 5 stars = both opponents have 75 ratings points at least ~ best 50 boxers
• 4 stars = both opponents have 42 ratings points at least ~ best 100 boxers
• 3 stars = both opponents have 18 ratings points at least ~ best 200 boxers
• 2 stars = both opponents have 5 ratings points at least ~ best 400 boxers
• 1 stars = both opponents have 1 rating point at least = best 700 boxer
• 0 stars = one opponents has not even 1 rating point at least = not rated boxers

BoxRec Ratings Description

 

[Kovalev's "Man Bag"]

It gives their mathematical formula and explanation on how you accumulate points but only for Current Ratings & All Time Ratings. There's no mention of P4P (Lb for Lb). There has to be more to the P4P Ratings than just the Current Ratings formula, you would think.

 

[Oscaraps]

Lol at canelo p4p and the list is just bizarre

 

[Oscaraps]

I don't get how anyone justifies Hopkins being one of the 5 best fighters in history. Hell, Floyd at number 1 is pretty far off too.

Unlike most people I love Hopkins but I agree , bizarre is an understatement for this list

 

[City_Lights]

Lol at canelo p4p and the list is just bizarre

You get points for winning fights and he's won a lot plus he got a ton for beating Cotto. I'm not necessarily saying he he deserves it but it's not surprising based on the system.

 

[moosaev]

1. Floyd Patterson higher ranked than Larry Holmes. LMAO.
2. Pernell Whitaker not a top 20 fighter??!
3. Where's Salvador Sanchez? He TKO'd Azumah Nelson (#18) and was undefeated when he died (many think he's the best Mexican fighter of all time) and yet he doesn't even make the list??

I don't care what system they used, its garbage.

 

[Oscaraps]

You get points for winning fights and he's won a lot plus he got a ton for beating Cotto. I'm not necessarily saying he he deserves it but it's not surprising based on the system.

I know what you're saying but its just laughable having canelo as p4p regardless of whatever system is used, who knows maybe in the future he can be but as of now it's just laughable

 

[Vlad76]

I don't get how anyone justifies Hopkins being one of the 5 best fighters in history. Hell, Floyd at number 1 is pretty far off too.

I do also dont get the Hopkins hype, he is horrible just freaking horrible

 

[ironfist05]

It gives their mathematical formula and explanation on how you accumulate points but only for Current Ratings & All Time Ratings. There's no mention of P4P (Lb for Lb). There has to be more to the P4P Ratings than just the Current Ratings formula, you would think.

I'm pretty sure that's how they do it, they just take an average or composite or something.

 

[nastyleft]

I do also dont get the Hopkins hype, he is horrible just freaking horrible

Based on the criteria, I could see how his numerous MW defenses might have helped Bhop climb so highly, by the metrics. Same thing for Floyd, probably.
15 world titles and 26-0 in world title fights is a pretty lofty number.

 

[nastyleft]

Based on the criteria, I could see how his numerous MW defenses might have helped Bhop climb so highly, by the metrics. Same thing for Floyd, probably.
15 world titles and 26-0 in world title fights is a pretty lofty number.

Wha....no argument?

 

[Vlad76]

Based on the criteria, I could see how his numerous MWw defenses might have helped Bhop climb so highly, by the metrics. Same thing for Floyd, probably.
15 world titles and 26-0 in world title fights is a pretty lofty number.

Still he is just a plain boring hugging loving type of fighter, some of the worse I've seen. I hate today's boxing stars and he started this diva shit.

 

[nastyleft]

Still he is just a plain boring hugging loving type of fighter, some of the worse I've seen. I hate today's boxing stars and he started this diva shit.

There we go, 5 days with no response, I expected more hate.

 

[Vlad76]

There we go, 5 days with no response, I expected more hate.

I dont have time to post much, look 2005 account and only 1,000 + post. see?
But my point still stands Bhop shouldn't even be ranked he stinks

 

[Klippy]

Charlie Zelenoff should be number 1.

 

[nastyleft]

I dont have time to post much, look 2005 account and only 1,000 + post. see?
But my point still stands Bhop shouldn't even be ranked he stinks

Thats arguable, he was only really vulnerable after he turned 50..lol.. but no, I wouldnt consider him top 3 anything. But again...based on the criteria that is set forth in their evaluation, I'm pretty sure his long run of MW title defenses in the mid-late 2000s was probably a big factor in bumping his formula quotient or whatever, up to that ranking.

Think about it like this. Just specualtion, but as Im trying to understand why they used the criteria they used, Im imagining the natural distractions and lapses in concentration, training, lifestyle choices, personal motivation issues, mixed in with numerous title defenses against top ranked opposition for a guys era that a champion boxer has to deal with; life. Thinking about it this way, it starts to make some sense. The baddest man on the planet in the late 80s early 90s, Iron Mike Tyson is a good example of this with Douglas, dudes life was off the rails it finally caught up to him against a motivated dude that fought the fight of his life. Ali-Norton, and others in history are other examples. More often times than not, if you do it long enough, somebody is gonna have your number when youre on top, and it doesnt have to be other superman boxers, just the timing and ancillary issues. Buster Douglas was nothing special. Joey Maxim (a guy with only 21 KOs in 115 fights) when he TKO'd SRR..
Ken Norton was nothing special...The guys that were able to persevere and keep winning deserve to be recognized for doing so.
People can try to argue about resume of opponent, or maybe they dont like a guys style, but one thing cant be denied is, in spite of what we may think about a guy, you cant ignore the accomplishments. Everyone in history has fought some questionables along their reign. From Robinson, to Ali, to Chavez, Mayweather, to Bhop and many more. The smell test is how many championships, and for how long they reigned against everyone bringing their best.

And when I think about it from that perspective; I dont have a problem with the list.

 

[ironfist05]

I dont have time to post much, look 2005 account and only 1,000 + post. see?
But my point still stands Bhop shouldn't even be ranked he stinks

you mean to say B-Hops shouldn't be in the top 100 AT? That's pretty indefensible IMO unless you're using entertainment as a huge criteria

 

[ironfist05]

lol these rankings were just changed a bit
http://boxrec.com/records/

 

[hillelslovak87]

No matter the metric, having Floyd in the top 10, much less the first spot, is absurd.