Thread: Boxrec

How accurate is boxrec? I was watching a program on Tyson and in his 4th fight he fought a guy called Rick Spain. He was announce as 7-0 with 5KOs. I thought that was an impressive opponent for early in Tyson's career. I then went to look him up and boxrec said his record was 2-23?

It's about as accurate as the gospels. I'd bet my life on it.

Originally Posted by Fenster

It's about as accurate as the gospels. I'd bet my life on it.

So pure fiction then.

Boxrec is good. I think I'd go with the Boxrec stat rather than whatever was announced on a 4 or 6 rd preliminary bout between a couple of unknown new pros with a few months of experience as pros.
People will jack up records to make things sound good, and nobody gives a $#!t because they're unknown non-televised local preliminary bouts. Tyson fought in some smokers too way back then, they're not on his record nor should they be.

I would be surprised if there weren't a few mistakes scattered throughout Boxrec.

Plenty. Boxing history is so extensive and goes back so far, it's gonna be incomplete...

fightfax is boxing's official records keeper. I think that one's a pay site though.

They do a great job at BoxRec. The people who add the data are volunteers, they don't get paid for it. We should be grateful to them.

We shouldn't expect them to be perfect. Much of the information is what's been given to them by managers/promoters and when something changes, those sources are sometimes slow to notify BoxRec.

I've found the information is mostly accurate and generally reliable.

Its ok. A reference point for dates and names but like anything it's not to be taken at face value. I think of it like the old telephone books...name-date-location but until you make the call, or see the fight...you just don't get the full picture. I like they keep full record of judges, but with add ons and 'volunteers' it feels like Wikipedia in spots.

On Spain, Boxrec may shoot itself in the foot...he is listed as 2-23-1 but his initial bout is noted as 'first in three years'... Why provide 'info' if you cannot support it and show a previous, which by its own count doesn't exist..unless I'm missing something?!

And what was Tyson doing fighting a lt heavyweight

Fellas, fellas, there's over 20 thousand pro Boxing bouts per year in recent years, God knows how many amateur bouts, but it's sure to be more than pro bouts. It's a world sport, there's about 195 countries in the world. It'd be extremely difficult to track and record the stats for all. And records from 50 years ago or more may be difficult if not impossible to get them all listed, especially before 1920 when it was an outlaw sport, or in the no-contest/newspaper decision era. Boxrec is good, stop being b!t<hes...

EDIT:
As for Spain, Boxrec says he had 1 bout when he fought Tyson who only had 3. Obviously it was a soft touch handpicked to build fighter confidence in Tyson and make him look good in his 1st televised appearance. Showcase fight.

Promoters used to beef up an unknown's record to make him sound better on paper than the tomato can he actually was so that a network would buy him as a viable opponent to their cash cow prospect. On this occasion, I'd trust boxrec.

They are not to bad but they are way off for lots of fighters pre say 1950. They are inconsistent. They get Wickwar right and George Dixon wrong.

I use CBZ much more then Boxrec.

On a serious note, Boxrec is fantastic. It certainly slowed down promoters from being able to import obscure fighters with "impressive" unbeaten records and flog them as world beating killers.

With the click of a button everyone can instantly see that Mikhail Abdul Gorbachev Osawasu, although on paper is an impressive 20-0, has actually never fought anywhere but pub carparks and never faced anyone with a pulse.

Dan Rafael mentioned some errors regarding Boxrec...I believe one had to do with Ricardo Mayorga. Does anybody know what the error was