BOXREC and how to use it...

by **oxring** Mon Nov 21, 2011 1:26 pm

What value do we accord this august organ of boxing history?

The site certainly has value - I cannot remember fluently (shame I know) the full details of Sam Langford's career - in terms of the precise dates and manners in which he defeated Jeanette. I can check boxrec and note that the key victory was by 7th round stoppage.

The site also has ratings - which are close-to-reasonable for modern day fighters.

However - by their own admission the old-timer records are notoriously inaccurate:

boxrec wrote:There admittedly are inaccuracies and anomalies, especially in the All-Time ratings, 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 often are quite complete. So, for example, while the records of Mike Tyson’s opponents may be quite complete--thereby earning Tyson a certain number of points and 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 yet into the database by an Editor. (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.) But as the BoxRec Editors continue to research older resources and enter “new” historical bouts into the database, the rating of an old-time boxer like Stribling will gradually move up or down, even if his own record is complete--if bouts are added to his opponents’ records, or to his opponents' opponents' records, and so forth. So the BoxRec ratings are continually improving as new bouts are entered into the database. (Presently, some 2,000 current and old-time bouts are entered each week by the BoxRec Editors.)

Manos has an interesting - and as far as modern fighters go - an extremely valid method of using the ratings index. Not only does he look at the details of the fight - weights etc, he also checks the ages, future fights, past record, wins and losses of each fighter. As such - rather than just looking at things from a who-beat-who perspective, he builds a slightly more 3 dimensional picture of events.

The only point where this fails, in my opinion, is for old-time contests. Tancy Lee according to boxrec's career record finished with a resume of 12-7-1. This would make him a green novice when Wilde beat him and a green novice who beat Wilde. However - boxrec's own encyclopedia records Tancy as going 48-2-10 over the course of his career.

Somewhere, someone is inaccurate.

My conclusion is that boxrec for pre-war, especially pre-1930 fighters is OK if the rating is there, but more often than not it isn't. Its useful to remind you of fight weights or fight endings, but more conclusions than that can't be drawn. They are really bad at the lighter weights - as there are fewer records for those fighters.

However - post war - the ratings can give a relatively rounded and impartial picture of the events before and during a fight.

by **HumanWindmill** Mon Nov 21, 2011 1:35 pm

I detest Boxrec, and only use it on the rare occasions that my other sources come up dry.

When analysing a fighter, my preferred method is to locate what I believe to be a reasonable starting point for his ascendancy into world class, together with a reasonable closing point, and then to calculate his record for the period, his opponents' average records for the period, the number of HOF bouts participated in, title defences where applicable, etc., etc.

Having recently read the superb Harry Otty bio of Charley Burley I've formed the opinion that it's necessary to go back two generations of opponents - at least - rather than a mere one, ( calculate not only the opponents' records for the period, but the opponents' opponents records. ) Reason for this is that I came across a couple of Burley's opponents of whom I had never heard ( the Hogue brothers, for example, ) and was astounded by some of the names they had on their records.

by manos de piedra Mon Nov 21, 2011 1:35 pm

Its probably not the best for pre 1930s fights, when there were no real independant boxing rankings, unless it can be cross referenced with other sources.

But I think its handy overall as long as its used in a reasonable fashion and not for instance, to prove Calzaghe was better than Jones because he beat him easily.

If its used purely on its own and not cross referenced or analysed properly then its pretty much pointless and can be very misleading.

I started using more for the HoF thread as there were a number of fighters in there I had pretty limited knowledge of and I found it to be very helpful if you can spend the time to use it properly. An example would be Jimmy Bivins, where using it changed my mind on him as it was easier to isolate his peak years from his overall record and that was sufficient for me to change my initial no vote to a yes.

by AlexHuckerby Mon Nov 21, 2011 1:48 pm

to be fair boxrec is ok if you just want a quick gloss over records but would rarely use it for much else. for the modern fighters i think its rather good at what its there for.

by Rowley Mon Nov 21, 2011 1:48 pm

As Manos and Windy have already alluded to it is only useful to a point. The Bivins point Manos raises is a fair one, look at his record and at his peak he looks terrific but his form falls off alarmingly after 1946. Now after reading a biography of him I now know he suffered an assault whilst in the army which damaged him physically quite severly and his form dips almost straight after this incident, obviously just reading Boxrec would leave me blissfully unaware of this, which goes some way to explain my shameful no when deciding his HOF worthiness.

by **oxring** Mon Nov 21, 2011 1:48 pm

There are a couple of fighters for whom boxrec lets down - and Windy makes an excellent point in mentioning Burley.

Burley's bio describes his losses and the circumstances surrounding them in excellent detail. Looking at them as colours on a screen suggests that he lost every time he stepped up. However - this is a mistake - as a lot of his "big name" opponents never got their shot either. And it is only by tortuous fight listings - ie Burley beat so-and-so who had just demolished this guy - that you realise that the opponents weren't that bad.

Boxrec is however quite good for HWs - in fact it has an awful HW bias. Its relatively accurate all the way back to the days of Jack Johnson - although a bit false in the days before that. The early career of champs like Sullivan and Corbett is probably missing. And those that didn't win the title, more so.

by Imperial Ghosty Mon Nov 21, 2011 1:52 pm

It tends to be the black murderers row era fighters whom I enjoy researching the most and like Windy it's not there opponents who really matter as I can spot the big names they beat but it's men more like California Jackie Wilson who become important. A highly regarded Welterweight of the 1940's whom was at one point beaten by both Robinson and LaMotta, often overlooked as a great win for Sugar Ray but it's upon going deeper that you realise what a great fighter Wilson was, at one point regarded to be the best Welterweight on the planet.

by Scottrf Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:06 pm

Boxrec is invaluable. I’ve never watched a fight in my life, but no one has picked up on it yet.

by bellchees Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:17 pm

It's very helpful for looking up the fighters in the UCPL who you have never heard of. I would ignore it's ranking system entirely as there is no way you can get an accurate point system for something so complex with so many varying factors.

by coxy0001 Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:27 pm

Only use boxrec when Union gives us some random fight in Namibia to predict

by manos de piedra Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:34 pm

I think like any archive of records, you need to put in time to analyse it. If you just glance over a fighters record on boxrec you wont learn much. But if you go through it in detail it does provide valuable information. Its also pretty objective as a source for the most part unless you are going back to the very early eras which can be refreshing. Biographies have a habit of overstating acheivements and downplaying or excusing failures at times.

by BALTIMORA Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:38 pm

Boxrec's great when used in the right way, ie not taken out of context. Same as any other source.

by skidd1 Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:51 pm

I dont like it and only use it to check the spelling of the odd fighters name
I hate statistics which probably explains it.

by Mind the windows Tino. Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:54 pm

skidd1 wrote:I dont like it and only use it to check the spelling of the odd fighters name
I hate statistics which probably explains it.

I agree with 50% of what you have said.

by Rowley Mon Nov 21, 2011 3:00 pm

I can't access Boxrec at work which means I have to rely on my memory and knowledge of the game, which never ends well.

by Mind the windows Tino. Mon Nov 21, 2011 3:04 pm

Your knowledge does end well, jeff. Well into the 1950's.

by **oxring** Mon Nov 21, 2011 3:34 pm

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:Your knowledge does end well, jeff. Well into the 1950's.

Without a doubt, one of the best put-downs I have read on here. I salute you sir. Sorry Jeff.

by Rowley Mon Nov 21, 2011 3:35 pm

Not a problem, am flattered anyone thinks I know the first thing about anything that modern.

by Mind the windows Tino. Mon Nov 21, 2011 3:43 pm

oxring wrote:
Mind the windows Tino. wrote:Your knowledge does end well, jeff. Well into the 1950's.

Without a doubt, one of the best put-downs I have read on here. I salute you sir. Sorry Jeff.

Thanks Oxy. I kind of had my eye on another post of the day award from Windy but alas, his standards are pretty exacting these days.

by **oxring** Mon Nov 21, 2011 3:43 pm

On topic again (apologies for dragging it off topic) - if a statistics site is so full of inaccuracies - how useful is it?

What is Tancy Lee's real record?

12-7-1 as reported by their boxer career?
49-2-10 as reported by their online encyclopaedia?

One of those 2 is an awesome career resume. The former isn't quite so hot.

by TopHat24/7 Mon Nov 21, 2011 3:44 pm

rowley wrote:As Manos and Windy have already alluded to it is only useful to a point. The Bivins point Manos raises is a fair one, look at his record and at his peak he looks terrific but his form falls off alarmingly after 1946. Now after reading a biography of him I now know he suffered an assault whilst in the army which damaged him physically quite severly and his form dips almost straight after this incident, obviously just reading Boxrec would leave me blissfully unaware of this, which goes some way to explain my shameful no when deciding his HOF worthiness.

Was that the fighter/story Alexd/Miles posted about a few months back?? Was a fascinating tale though very sad also.

by Rowley Mon Nov 21, 2011 3:47 pm

Don't know Top hat, I read it in a book on Bivins by Jerry Ftich but more than possible.

by Jukebox Timebomb Mon Nov 21, 2011 4:46 pm

Boxrec is the best thing that's happened to boxing in decades. Remember when Frank Warren used to get away with digging up corpses with unbeaten records for Eubank/Naz/Calzaghe/Hatton etc to feast on because no one could actually find their records. Not anymore.

As Lou DiBella (I think) said, "anyone in boxing who says they don't use BoxRec is a liar."

by Imperial Ghosty Tue Nov 22, 2011 2:52 am

It can still be fairly deceptive for the modern fighters, looking purely at Khans record for instance the win over Salita going just by Boxrec looks quite decent in todays climate, an unbeaten of 30+ fights but you then have to research further to realise that Salita was absolute garbage. I see it more as a foundation for further research rather than a source of research if that makes sense.

by **oxring** Tue Nov 22, 2011 12:48 pm

Imperial Ghosty wrote:It can still be fairly deceptive for the modern fighters, looking purely at Khans record for instance the win over Salita going just by Boxrec looks quite decent in todays climate, an unbeaten of 30+ fights but you then have to research further to realise that Salita was absolute garbage. I see it more as a foundation for further research rather than a source of research if that makes sense.

Good point - but if you were to use boxrec properly - you'd notice that most of his opponents had losing records or, at the very least a lot of defeats. Salita had beaten world title challenger Rocky Martinez, for instance - but Martinez was very shopworn by the time that Salita beat him. So using the "manos method" - boxrec was still helpful there IMO.

by Scottrf Tue Nov 22, 2011 12:50 pm

If you combine the manos method and the oxring method, you'd be able to find out how many punches someone has landed against each opponent and how that compares to the opponents average.

by **oxring** Tue Nov 22, 2011 12:54 pm

Scottrf wrote:If you combine the manos method and the oxring method, you'd be able to find out how many punches someone has landed against each opponent and how that compares to the opponents average.

An integrated boxrec/compubox system is definitely my dream...ahem.

by Jukebox Timebomb Tue Nov 22, 2011 2:57 pm

Imperial Ghosty wrote:It can still be fairly deceptive for the modern fighters, looking purely at Khans record for instance the win over Salita going just by Boxrec looks quite decent in todays climate, an unbeaten of 30+ fights but you then have to research further to realise that Salita was absolute garbage. I see it more as a foundation for further research rather than a source of research if that makes sense.

Exactly. You can use BoxRec to see just how rubbish Salita was/is. Pre BoxRec we didn't have this ability, and Fwank would've been able to sell us a garbage fight much more easily. How many PPV's did Khan v Salita do? ~ 150 maybe. If ol' fish eyes had been able to dupe us and pull in mega money from Khan fighting bums do you think Khan would be in the US now.

If BoxRec can tweak their ranking system so it's a bit more reliable they could become the biggest players in Boxing. A completely unbiased ranking system is what boxing has been crying out for forever. Would also spell the end for the WBC, WBA..and the rest of the crooks.

by **oxring** Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:04 pm

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:
Imperial Ghosty wrote:It can still be fairly deceptive for the modern fighters, looking purely at Khans record for instance the win over Salita going just by Boxrec looks quite decent in todays climate, an unbeaten of 30+ fights but you then have to research further to realise that Salita was absolute garbage. I see it more as a foundation for further research rather than a source of research if that makes sense.

Exactly. You can use BoxRec to see just how rubbish Salita was/is. Pre BoxRec we didn't have this ability, and Fwank would've been able to sell us a garbage fight much more easily. How many PPV's did Khan v Salita do? ~ 150 maybe. If ol' fish eyes had been able to dupe us and pull in mega money from Khan fighting bums do you think Khan would be in the US now.

If BoxRec can tweak their ranking system so it's a bit more reliable they could become the biggest players in Boxing. A completely unbiased ranking system is what boxing has been crying out for forever. Would also spell the end for the WBC, WBA..and the rest of the crooks.

Amen to that. To be honest, I've been using their "no.1" rankings for quite some time - and they are pretty good TBH.

by Scottrf Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:07 pm

Word of caution in their all time divisional rankings: They are actually just P4P rankings, but with the fighters being categorised under a single division, not necessarily the one they were most significant in.

by **Union Cane** Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:08 pm

Ezzard Charles doesn't appear on their light-heavyweight list, for example.

by Imperial Ghosty Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:09 pm

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:
Imperial Ghosty wrote:It can still be fairly deceptive for the modern fighters, looking purely at Khans record for instance the win over Salita going just by Boxrec looks quite decent in todays climate, an unbeaten of 30+ fights but you then have to research further to realise that Salita was absolute garbage. I see it more as a foundation for further research rather than a source of research if that makes sense.

Exactly. You can use BoxRec to see just how rubbish Salita was/is. Pre BoxRec we didn't have this ability, and Fwank would've been able to sell us a garbage fight much more easily. How many PPV's did Khan v Salita do? ~ 150 maybe. If ol' fish eyes had been able to dupe us and pull in mega money from Khan fighting bums do you think Khan would be in the US now.

If BoxRec can tweak their ranking system so it's a bit more reliable they could become the biggest players in Boxing. A completely unbiased ranking system is what boxing has been crying out for forever. Would also spell the end for the WBC, WBA..and the rest of the crooks.

I could quite easily cut out Boxrec as a source and research Salita directly, think the worth of it is over rated.

by Scottrf Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:10 pm

Imperial Ghosty wrote:
Jukebox Timebomb wrote:
Imperial Ghosty wrote:It can still be fairly deceptive for the modern fighters, looking purely at Khans record for instance the win over Salita going just by Boxrec looks quite decent in todays climate, an unbeaten of 30+ fights but you then have to research further to realise that Salita was absolute garbage. I see it more as a foundation for further research rather than a source of research if that makes sense.

Exactly. You can use BoxRec to see just how rubbish Salita was/is. Pre BoxRec we didn't have this ability, and Fwank would've been able to sell us a garbage fight much more easily. How many PPV's did Khan v Salita do? ~ 150 maybe. If ol' fish eyes had been able to dupe us and pull in mega money from Khan fighting bums do you think Khan would be in the US now.

If BoxRec can tweak their ranking system so it's a bit more reliable they could become the biggest players in Boxing. A completely unbiased ranking system is what boxing has been crying out for forever. Would also spell the end for the WBC, WBA..and the rest of the crooks.

I could quite easily cut out Boxrec as a source and research Salita directly, think the worth of it is over rated.

How easy would it be to find who he's fought and the dates?

by Imperial Ghosty Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:11 pm

Scottrf wrote:Word of caution in their all time divisional rankings: They are actually just P4P rankings, but with the fighters being categorised under a single division, not necessarily the one they were most significant in.

There rankings are god awful, the fact they have most of the right people at number in the divisions covers up quite how shocking they are beyond that.

by Imperial Ghosty Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:13 pm

Scottrf wrote:
Imperial Ghosty wrote:
Jukebox Timebomb wrote:
Imperial Ghosty wrote:It can still be fairly deceptive for the modern fighters, looking purely at Khans record for instance the win over Salita going just by Boxrec looks quite decent in todays climate, an unbeaten of 30+ fights but you then have to research further to realise that Salita was absolute garbage. I see it more as a foundation for further research rather than a source of research if that makes sense.

Exactly. You can use BoxRec to see just how rubbish Salita was/is. Pre BoxRec we didn't have this ability, and Fwank would've been able to sell us a garbage fight much more easily. How many PPV's did Khan v Salita do? ~ 150 maybe. If ol' fish eyes had been able to dupe us and pull in mega money from Khan fighting bums do you think Khan would be in the US now.

If BoxRec can tweak their ranking system so it's a bit more reliable they could become the biggest players in Boxing. A completely unbiased ranking system is what boxing has been crying out for forever. Would also spell the end for the WBC, WBA..and the rest of the crooks.

I could quite easily cut out Boxrec as a source and research Salita directly, think the worth of it is over rated.
How easy would it be to find who he's fought and the dates?

Who he's fought is easy, the date only becomes relavent when its a semi decent opponent.

by Scottrf Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:16 pm

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Who he's fought is easy, the date only becomes relavent when its a semi decent opponent.

How easy? Where would you go? A site based on boxrec information?

Considering it would take you longer than visiting boxrec, why would you?

by Imperial Ghosty Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:21 pm

Not all sites are based on boxrec information, the majority of sites have now started to implement there own records.

I'll admit Scott for modern day boxing I don't need boxrec for the fighters whom I watch while the majority of my research is about fighters from the 30-60's so it then becomes a useless tool.

by Scottrf Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:24 pm

That's fine, I just think there's a lot of snobbery about it. Of course by itself you can't tell much about a boxer but it's a useful starting point and a very impressive collection of records, free.

Matchmakers, promoters and boxers all use it.

by Imperial Ghosty Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:30 pm

I see a need for it but I don't watch enough current boxing for its use to become a necessity.

Also Windy, had a quick read up on the hogue brothers which has given me the idea of a thread tomorrow.

by **HumanWindmill** Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:37 pm

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I see a need for it but I don't watch enough current boxing for its use to become a necessity.

Also Windy, had a quick read up on the hogue brothers which has given me the idea of a thread tomorrow.

Just my luck, Ghosty.

I'm away for three or four days as from tomorrow morning. Will need to catch up with it next week. Perhaps, when it's done, you could PM me a link to it if you can remember.

Thanks.

by **oxring** Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:39 pm

Boxrec's all time rankings are horse manure, to be perfectly frank - and appear manipulated to me.

Ali comes out at number 1 HW - which is convenient - given that someone like Marciano should do better on an all time HW list for his string of victories over fellow highly ranked HWs - Louis, Charles Walcott, without defeats taking his points away.

Ergo - in my opinion - they've fiddled it slightly. Which is a shame.
-------------------------------------------------------------
However - their current rankins of divisions are outstanding in my opinion.

Take their number 1s.
HW - W Klit
CW - Hernandez - correct - ie NOT Huck, nor Lebedev until he wins a title
LHW - Dawson - correct
SMW - Bute - ok maybe not - but I doubt he will be after the S6 finishes
MW - Martinez - correct
LMW - Cotto - correct - unless you give Martinez the title across 2 weights
WW - Manny - but it will be Floyd when he fights again - they're swapping it
LWW - Bradley - cos he's fought more recently than Khan - correct
LW - JMM - correct
SFW - Broner - correct.

That's actually quite impressive - and a damn site better than the ring rankings.

by BALTIMORA Tue Nov 22, 2011 8:27 pm

So beating a 40-year-old Casamayor is worth more than beating a half-decent Judah, because it's more recent?

Excellent, great lists everyone.

by **oxring** Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:24 pm

A 40 year old Casamayor, on the back of 3 wins over the universally accepted number 3 in the division - Witter, Holt, Alexander.

Whereas Khan has Maidana, Malignaggi, Judah. Not quite as impressive a resume at 140.

If you're picking on Casamayor for being 40 - why not Judah for being the wrong side of 30 and 5 years after he last showed he was effective? (Unless you count the Mabuza win highly, that is).

Anyway - nice to see you on the main page again, Balti.

by Imperial Ghosty Wed Nov 23, 2011 2:15 am

Can't really agree with you there Oxy

Heavyweight- Agreed
Cruiserweight- No Idea and don't really care
Light Heavyweight- Hopkins at 1 with Pascal at 2, Dawson would be third
Super Middleweight- Ward and Froch would be the top 2
Middleweight- Martinez quite obviously
Light Middleweight- Not overly sure but it's a toss up between Cotto and Alvarez, neither really has a top class win
Welterweight- Technically has to be Pacquiao based on activity
Light Welterweight- Khan for me, Kotelnik, Maidana, Judah and Malignaggi constitutes a better set of wins as far as i'm concerned
Lightweight- Marquez yes
Super Featherweight- Tricky but can't see what Broner has done to be regarded as the divisions best thus far, so possibly Fana

Tends to be beyond the top 2/3 that there rankings start becoming a joke, for instance what has Soto done to be regarded in the top ten at 140lbs?

by Imperial Ghosty Wed Nov 23, 2011 2:16 am

P.s. just for you Windy i'll hold fire on my article as it will mainly be your brains i'm looking to pick.

by manos de piedra Wed Nov 23, 2011 9:07 am

I got to say I prefer the Ring magazine ratings to boxrec overall. There isnt a massive difference between the top 1,2 or 3 guys in each division but boxrec can throw up some completely bizzare ratings beyond that. Im not sure a computerized rankings system works that well as it seems to ignore the common sense and subjective element needed when considering fighters. The Ring arent perfect but I think they are pretty good overall.

by The genius of PBF Wed Nov 23, 2011 10:17 am

oxring wrote:Boxrec's all time rankings are horse manure, to be perfectly frank - and appear manipulated to me.

Ali comes out at number 1 HW - which is convenient - given that someone like Marciano should do better on an all time HW list for his string of victories over fellow highly ranked HWs - Louis, Charles Walcott, without defeats taking his points away.

Ergo - in my opinion - they've fiddled it slightly. Which is a shame.
-------------------------------------------------------------
However - their current rankins of divisions are outstanding in my opinion.

Take their number 1s.
HW - W Klit
CW - Hernandez - correct - ie NOT Huck, nor Lebedev until he wins a title
LHW - Dawson - correct
SMW - Bute - ok maybe not - but I doubt he will be after the S6 finishes
MW - Martinez - correct
LMW - Cotto - correct - unless you give Martinez the title across 2 weights
WW - Manny - but it will be Floyd when he fights again - they're swapping it
LWW - Bradley - cos he's fought more recently than Khan - correct
LW - JMM - correct
SFW - Broner - correct.

That's actually quite impressive - and a damn site better than the ring rankings.

Erm why is Cotto number one?...Beating a powder puff puncher and a shot Mayorga does not make you the best at that weight...Or are you doing it on reputation? Why not have Holyfield number one at heavyweight based on that logic then.

Kirkland and Alvarez etc have done way more...Disagree on Bradley he ducked Khan clearly and has only fought once in the last 10 months since Alexander.

by AlexHuckerby Wed Nov 23, 2011 10:36 am

To be fair regarding the LMW rankings I suppose you have a fair point there, however I think they are taking into account what happened at the weight below as well, also could argue Alvarez hasn't realy fought anyone prper world class yet and sort of the same with Kirkland with Angulo being his only good opponent but getting hammered bya journeyman sets him back for a bit.

by **oxring** Wed Nov 23, 2011 10:58 am

As you say Alex - Kirkland has just come back from being hammered by a journeyman - which lost him points and places.

As for Canelo - I really rate the kid - but he was given his belt against Hatton and Ryan Rhodes and Alfonso Gomez are not the stuff of legend. If Cotto gets a beat down from Marg and Canelo beats up Cintron - maybe he'll be number 1.

So pbf - that's probably why Cotto is number 1 - because he beat a recognised belt holder at the proper weight and then defended that title against a better name than anyone Canelo or Kirkland have beaten of late.
------------------------------
@Ghosty.

Have missed you around. Politeness reigns even when you're disagreeing.

In spite of the disagreement - you still matched 4/5 out of 8 with the boxrec list. That's not too bad - given that in all cases - the number 1s boxrec picked out are close to the number 2 spot - exception being at LHW.

At LHW - Dawson will drop back to 3 in a couple of months - as far as we can tell. He's top because he's still listed as having beaten Hopkins, even though the WBC and the Ring are refusing to accept the result. So even there - its not the worst result.

As for Pascal - hard to see where he ranks. I was a massive fan for his performances against Diaconu and Dawson - but he was schooled twice by B-hop and sounded like a lippy child afterwards. He needs a decent win to save face.

by Imperial Ghosty Wed Nov 23, 2011 1:12 pm

I think based on Pascals wins over Dawson and Diaconu the divisions 3 and 5 he seems an obvious choice to be number 2 behind Hopkins, a far better recent record than Dawson.

by Sponsored content