Ranking System

I was on the BBC Boxing page and saw their ranking of the top 10 UK fighters.

I was shocked that they had Cleverley and Brook ranked above Khan.

It appears to me Khan's been dropped a few places for losing to Garcia and Brook and Cleverley promoted for beating people far below the level of Khan's opponents.

My question is should someone be punished (in ranking terms) for losing to a Top 10 fighter over a fighter who beats someone of much less ability?

I don't think so personally but what do you think.

If the other guys beat someone that we had even heard of then it could become a possibility (but still harsh), but in this instance I completely agree with you.

There is no way that they can rank ahead of Khan based on the level they've been fighting at.

I wouldn't take too much notice if I were you, it is the BBC boxing page after all.

Cleverley and Brook are undefeated and I would say that matters more to the "man on the street" (which is where the BBC's coverage is aimed I should imagine) than the level of opposition faced.

I detect a similar thing with Channel 5's growing stable of talent, and wonder what will happen once of their men is beaten?

He'll be dropped quicker than marbles held by Jesus.

I think Cleverley has a case in terms of the fact that although we've got a good grasp of the drivvel he's been facing and rank him accordingly, if you mention to average joe he's undefeated, holds a major (well...) belt and boxes regularly they'll consider him better than someone who has lost twice on the bounce - they don't care about the opposition.

Have no idea how Kell Brook is above him, thats insane.

Clev should not be above Khan. He has fought awful opponents.

Cleverly should be below Matthew Hatton let alone Amir Khan!

Based on opposition faced, Matthew has fought Saul Alvarez at least and went the full distance!

Here, here mobile.

Had this same discussion with Seanus on Twitter a few days back.

Can't agree that Khan's defeats cause him to fall back behind a Brook who, as much as I like the guy and want him to do well, hasn't really achieved anything.

Still tempted to have Khan #2 behind Froch tbh. Think Burns might be knocking on the door of my top5 now also. Not sure what to do about Haye......

I'm not saying its right that Clev is above Khan, I'm pointing out why the BBC would have him there.

Boxrec's list:

Carl Froch
David Haye
Ricky Burns
Kell Brook
Tyson Fury
Matthew Macklin
Ola Afolabi
Amir Khan
Tony Bellew
Nathan Cleverly
Martin Murray
David Price
George Groves
Gavin Rees
Darren Barker
Carl Frampton
Billy Joe Saunders
Lee Purdy
Kevin Mitchell
James DeGale

Hit's Khan hard for his losses and is very generous to Fury given his record is no better than Clev, can't see how he's rated so highly.

Kind of also struggle to see how they have Bellew above Cleverly. I know Cleverly is personally and solely responsible for every ill that blights boxing currently from PED’s to Manny and Floyd not fighting but Cleverly did beat Bellew when they fought, realise that does not give him the right to remain above him for eternity but has Bellew really done enough to warrant overtaking him just yet?

Boxrec is in many ways an invaluable and excellent website but dear god how they arrive at their rankings is anyone’s guess.

Boxrec's are pretty unreliable/skewed (someone once posted on here the crazy formula they use) but a useful starting point at least.

Think mine woudl be:

Froch
Khan
Haye
Burns
Brook

Has Haye done enough to rank ahead of Burns? It's probably close either way but I'd probably have them switched around.

Strength of his CW CV for me.

Not for me superfly, can't live of his cruiser exploits for ever. He fights with ridiculous infrequency and his last three fights are a meaningless blow out over the consistently ordinary Audley, a win over Chisora and getting his arse handed to him by Wlad. Burns is above him for me no question.

Both 2 weight world champs. Both coming off decent domestic wins (Mitchell shouldn't be a great win, no matter how 50:50 it seemed going into it) but Haye can a) be said to have been #1 in his division and unified titles which Burns has never done; and b) at least challenged a divisional #1 even if he did lose, which is more than Ricky has done in either division.

Not a Ricky witchhunt by any means, just think it is genuinely close between the two with Haye's fight infrequency being the only thing I can find worse than Ricky's.

Can see the argument tophat and my final sentence may have made it sound like the gap was wider than it is but do think there comes a point in these things where a line has to be drawn under past acheivements. Haye did well at cruiser no question, unquestionably better than Ricky has done at either of his divisions but am loath to put too much emphasis on it because it was, in relative terms a long time ago.

Also don't give him too much kudos for the Wlad fight because it was hardly a heroic failure or herculean effort on his part was it?

rowley wrote:Kind of also struggle to see how they have Bellew above Cleverly. I know Cleverly is personally and solely responsible for every ill that blights boxing currently from PED’s to Manny and Floyd not fighting but Cleverly did beat Bellew when they fought, realise that does not give him the right to remain above him for eternity but has Bellew really done enough to warrant overtaking him just yet?

Boxrec is in many ways an invaluable and excellent website but dear god how they arrive at their rankings is anyone’s guess.

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 (no additional loss points accounted):

opponent in launch state n: v * cd * (25*n - r_a) * max(6*(n+1),min(r_b,25*n)) / (25*n) * max(r_a,18) / (max(r_a,18) + max(r_b,18))
Rating reduction caused by missing opponent quality:

r_new = r_old * (1 - 0.5*(1 - best_opp/r_old/0.5))

And thats why Bellew is above Clev. Simple really when you look at it.

Cheers for that soldier, can't believe I couldn't work it out for myself

On form I think Burns deserves to be higher than both Khan and Haye. Ranking purely on talent or ability maybe not, although he does seem to be getting better and better.

Khan has lost two in row now to guys that were just divisional contenders rather than elite fighters. You have to go back to Valuev probably before Haye has managed a meaningful win. Chisora, Audley, Ruiz and a loss to Wlad is pretty thin over the last couple of years.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Both 2 weight world champs. Both coming off decent domestic wins (Mitchell shouldn't be a great win, no matter how 50:50 it seemed going into it) but Haye can a) be said to have been #1 in his division and unified titles which Burns has never done; and b) at least challenged a divisional #1 even if he did lose, which is more than Ricky has done in either division.

Not a Ricky witchhunt by any means, just think it is genuinely close between the two with Haye's fight infrequency being the only thing I can find worse than Ricky's.

Forgive me if Im mistaken but pretty sure Martinez was ranked as number 1 at SFW before Ricky beat him.

Asfor Brook beig ahead of Kha it does seem riduclous based on todays take on p4p but, was it not originally used to determine which fighter would win if they were a same weight etc....Given Brook and Khan pretty much are with all Khans talk of moving to WW and the large amount of people thinking this is a fight Brook would win maybe it isn't so strange.

Though Boxrec's p4p rankings are terrible and place far too much emphasis on the higher weights.

I was pretty sure at least the two Japs were ahead of him in the divisional rankings.

Not discrediting the win at all, was fantastic, and Martinez was definitely (from memory) top ranked (i.e. top5) but I don't remember him being #1 and certainly not as dominant and unequivocable as Wlad at HW.

Martinez was ranked number 2 by the Ring when Burns beat him. I think Fana was ranked number 1 but there was no "Ring" champion in the division.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Boxrec's list:

Carl Froch
David Haye
Ricky Burns
Kell Brook
Tyson Fury
Matthew Macklin
Ola Afolabi
Amir Khan
Tony Bellew
Nathan Cleverly
Martin Murray
David Price
George Groves
Gavin Rees
Darren Barker
Carl Frampton
Billy Joe Saunders
Lee Purdy
Kevin Mitchell
James DeGale
Hit's Khan hard for his losses and is very generous to Fury given his record is no better than Clev, can't see how he's rated so highly.

The EBU Champ?? Madness