It?s amazing what kind of amusing bullshit finds its way on to my Facebook timeline.
Most recently, someone shared a screen shot of BoxRec?s all-time pound-for-pound list with Floyd Mayweather Jr. sitting firmly atop the ratings. And, ranked ahead of no. 2, Manny Pacquiao and no. 3 Carlos Monzon on the all-time list, the career points tally wasn?t even close.
Mayweather?or whoever handles his social media accounts?was quick to jump on this revelation.
?Numbers don?t lie and boxrec told the truth, ??Mayweather? commented via social media.
These same ratings, by the way, have Muhammad Ali and Sugar Ray Robinson as no. 4 and 5, respectively. Oscar De La Hoya, according to the website?s all-time formula, is the ninth greatest fighter of all-time.
There?s a lot of absurdity on the BoxRec all-time list, but some of it borders on absolute sacrilege. For example, Henry Armstrong doesn?t show up until no. 96, a spot below Jermain Taylor and two spots below Felix Sturm. Duilio Loi?a real boxing trivia challenge for anyone not familiar with obscure 60?s Italian fighters?is ranked no. 59, three spots ahead of Ezzard Charles.
Absurdity, sacrilege, or flat-out stupidity, the BoxRec all-time greats list is put together almost as if the person in charge had been struggling through a debilitating stroke while doing the cipherin?.
But, apparently, there is a science behind the badness. Buried within the site is an explanation of how the ratings were put together (along with a ponderously long explanation of their active fighter rankings, which hardly inspires confidence in their accuracy):
?The All Time Rating for a boxer is the sum of annual rank points of best defeated opponent at time of bout and the square root of his career top rating:
1. best opponent rank points = 200/ (best opponent rank – 1) for annual rating (if rank is 1 use rank 1) 2. best opponent p4p rank points = 200 / (best opponent p4p rank – 1) for annual rating (if rank is 1 use rank 1) 3. the ranks are interpolated in relation to the ratings of boxer ranked before him and the boxer behind him 4. the best opponent rank points are limited to the lowest rank points of the opponent, he lost to in this year – pair by pair 5. the value of 200 annual points is reduced, if the annual rating of #30 in the division is less than 76.3 for men, or less than 3.86 for women 6. the value of 200 annual p4p points is reduced, if the annual rating of #50 p4p is less than 279 for men, or less than 12.2 for women?
Huh?
Maybe it?s me not being as sharp as I can be due to this stomach infection (Thanks, Do?a Rosa?s Enchiladas y Sopes), but that made no sense whatsoever.
I don?t want to come off as a BoxRec basher. These guys have provided a tremendous tool for fans and media. Their updated ring records and the attention they devote to covering the day-to-day activity of the fight game is invaluable. Without exaggeration, BoxRec, because of the info provided directly to the fans, is probably the greatest asset the boxing consumer has.
But there IS such a thing as staying in your lane.
The BoxRec rankings have always been flawed and, at times, downright odd. Personally, I favor objective, formula-based rankings over the subjective, opinion-based rankings favored by boxing writer cliques. However, when the formula looks like a bulked-up version of the Standard Model Lagrangian, there?s something wrong?especially when the after-the-fact eye and smell test tells you there?s something way off about the final product. Maybe it?s time for the folks at BoxRec to reel back a bit and reassess their entire rankings formula.
Let?s not tell Mayweather all this right now, though. Word has it that he has a pretty fragile ego.
