Why does boxrec.com rank Mike Tyson # 75 on its list of best all-time lb4lb fighters?

[djacobox372]

You should go back and watch his full fights, not the highlights, most are on youtube.

He wasn't nearly as good as people like to believe. He was AMAZINGLY good for a 20-22yo, and "could" have been a top 10 p4p had he kept improving, he didn't.

A lot of his mystic was based on his age, everybody imagined "If this guy is this good at 20, imagine him at 27."

 

[ironfist05]

Boxrec's ranking system is weird and computerized. It's completely biased against lower weight classes and seems to put a lot of emphasis on undefeated records.

 

[KillerIsBack V2]

Their pound-for-pound list looks pretty reasonable, honestly, even you don't agree with it. I mean, the people on it are indisputably great.

Their pound for pound list?
It has Wilder at number 5 ahead of Crawford by one and ahead of AJ by 2. Thats completely unreasonable...

look, I’m not saying its completlyyy random, but that it works on a add/substract point system, there is no context, no human analysis. Just compares records and ABC org rankings.

for examole, Taylor was 1# in his weight class, and ramirez was second. They switched spots after Carlos had a close MD with Postal. The reason for that is that Carlos Ramirez’s records is long so he stacks more points. In reality Taylor beat Postal much more easily, and is ranked everywhere else and 1# and holds more major belts. The computer cant comprehend that it just reads wins, losses, draws, record lengths along with many other numeral factors etc... but again the algorithm isnt watching the fights. Again, no context nor judgment to make these rankings.

I hope it’s clearer now.

 

[Kforcer]

Their pound for pound list?
It has Wilder at number 5 ahead of Crawford by one and ahead of AJ by 2. Thats completely unreasonable...

look, I’m not saying its completlyyy random, but that it works on a add/substract point system, there is no context, no human analysis. Just compares records and ABC org rankings.

for examole, Taylor was 1# in his weight class, and ramirez was second. They switched spots after Carlos had a close MD with Postal. The reason for that is that Carlos Ramirez’s records is long so he stacks more points. In reality Taylor beat Postal much more easily, and is ranked everywhere else and 1# and holds more major belts. The computer cant comprehend that it just reads wins, losses, draws, record lengths along with many other numeral factors etc... but again the algorithm isnt watching the fights. Again, no context nor judgment to make these rankings.

I hope it’s clearer now.

Well, I was thinking of their all-time pound-for-pound list. It sounds like you are talking about their rankings by weight class. But their all-time pound-for-pound list doesn't look absurd at all, to me. I understand that about the computer, that it is simply factoring in wins, losses, etc., but looking at the outcome for their all-time pound-for-pound, it honestly doesn't look horrible. At the very least, it is interesting to see the result and see how fighters stack against one another by a purely objective and numerical criterion. Obviously, it is lacking the human element of being able to distinguish things like the quality of a win and the abilities demonstrated in the ring, but it is still interesting to see how the numbers stack by its criterion.

Ezzard Charles at number one, for example, is interesting to see. I've never heard anyone put him there, of course, though there are those who put him at the top of the all-time light heavyweight lists, but it probably does at least reveal that is record is very impressive and likely more impressive than we give it credit for.