Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings

John
Posts: 3848
Joined: 28 Dec 2001, 20:00
Location: Yorkshire, England

Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings

Postby John » 18 May 2005, 10:29

A full explanation of the ratings can be found here http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.php/B ... escription
Last edited by John on 22 May 2006, 13:10, edited 1 time in total.
Barrera
Posts: 10
Joined: 14 Sep 2005, 00:22

Postby Barrera » 14 Sep 2005, 00:57

Damn, reading from that link has given me a much better understanding of how the database thing works, and just how massive and complex the whole thing is. Maybe there wasn't any crazy people sitting behind a computer on the other side of the world from me purposely placing Carlos Maussa 6th in the world afterall, just the huge upset against a top 5 guy rocketed him up the rankings.

Also, I look forward to a time when the older boxers records are a lot better documented, as I must admit there has been times when I've been looking at peoples records from over 50-75 years ago and on noticing that most of their fights are against guys with less than 20 pro fights I've been like "What the hell!?!", but after reading the part of that link about Mike Tyson and Young Stribling, that makes it alot clearer why it is currently like that.

Keep up the good work, it's very much appreciated. :TU:
JCS
Posts: 6873
Joined: 17 Dec 2004, 13:27
Location: USA

Re: NEW LOCATION FOR THIS FIGHT

Postby JCS » 16 Sep 2005, 12:31

pundit wrote:
computerrank wrote:pundit,

an import point is, middleweight is much more competitive than cruiserweight.

So the pointages of top boxers in cruiserweight are somewhat lower than in middleweight - and other classic weight divisions.

Best regards
Martin


Thaks for the explantion. Maybe this should lead you to re-asses the weight class pointages, then.

Cheers, P


Its all about the competition. Its not the point system's fault that there are less history and competitiveness in that division, its just the way that boxing works.
pundit

Re: NEW LOCATION FOR THIS FIGHT

Postby pundit » 16 Sep 2005, 13:53

jcs83md wrote:Its all about the competition. Its not the point system's fault that there are less history and competitiveness in that division, its just the way that boxing works.


If this means "nothing can be changed" you'll have to live with implausible ratings as the one mentioned above, I'm afraid. At least as far as cross-weightlclass comparisons are concerned.

This said, I consider the effort boxrec is undertaking very worthwhile.

Cheers
P
JCS
Posts: 6873
Joined: 17 Dec 2004, 13:27
Location: USA

Postby JCS » 16 Sep 2005, 14:04

The ACTIVE points system is about as good as it gets. The All-Time system is being worked on and I have a hand in that personally w/ computerrank! The cruiserweight division is stale and its been a while since the division has had unified champions or a stand-out fighter. When they do get this person, they end up moving to Heavyweight because its an easy transition.

For instance, if Mormeck fought and beat both O'Neill Bell and Guillermo Jones next year, I would wager to say that he would then be in the bottom-half of that P4P list you see on the front page.

Well, lets do the math.

Say Mormeck KO'd Bell and UD'd Jones by a mean difference of 4 pts on the scorecards.

Current Ratings of these fighters are
Mormeck - 1576
Bell - 1519
Jones - 1498

If my math is right.....

Mormeck would move to 1648 after KO'ing Bell, Mormeck's rating would move up to 1707 after decisioning Jones. This rating would currently place him at #25 on the P4P list. It would be even higher if Bell or Jones scored some competitive wins of there own in the meantime!

Then again, Mormeck would probably not have the necessary CUT to move up that high in the ratings.
Last edited by JCS on 18 Sep 2005, 11:01, edited 1 time in total.
Maxime
Posts: 193
Joined: 05 Apr 2003, 19:02
Location: Montréal

Postby Maxime » 17 Sep 2005, 12:40

Is says on the website that the ratings are refreshed at around 9:35 GMT.

Is it 9:35 am or pm?

Thats translate to what? about 4:30 Eastern time?

When will Bute's rating be updated? I had 1410 points before his fight with Salem last night and its still showing 1410. :P

Maxime,
computerrank
Posts: 1017
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59
Location: Germany

Postby computerrank » 17 Sep 2005, 12:57

Maxime wrote:Is says on the website that the ratings are refreshed at around 9:35 GMT.

Is it 9:35 am or pm?

Thats translate to what? about 4:30 Eastern time?

When will Bute's rating be updated? I had 1410 points before his fight with Salem last night and its still showing 1410. :P

Maxime,


Maxime,

Bute's rating will not increase due to this bout. His rating is limited by his cut, the rating of his best defeated opponent Christian Cruz.

Bute must defeat a boxer better than 1320 points to improve.

Best regards
Martin
jomothepure
Posts: 2660
Joined: 24 Oct 2004, 08:43
Location: Edinburgh

Postby jomothepure » 18 Sep 2005, 06:57

computerrank wrote:
jomothepure wrote:I'd be interested to know, if anyone has a bit of a memory and would be kind enough to tell all - what sort of ranking did the boxrec system give to Brian Nielsen at the, um, 'peak' of his career?


jomothepure,

Brian showed his highest BoxRec rating after defeating Holmes for the WBO belt on 1997-01-24.

His rating was 1705 points at that time.

Today this would be #4 in heavyweight.

Best regards
Martin


Cheers :TU:
acevedoalx
Posts: 1
Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 17:47

Postby acevedoalx » 21 Oct 2005, 17:55

how could they put miguel cotto #16 in the jr welter rankings and put aver him guys like demetrius hopkins that never been in a title bout and only fought 10 rounds fights,juan lazcano,unknown fighters like naoutel ben rabah, souleymare mbaye, juan diaz, nirio kimura, junior witter that only been in one title fight, vivian harris who get an upset in the hands of a garbage fighter,carlos maussa who got knockout against cotto, acelino freitas who only been fighting unknown fighters since he loss to corrales,arturo gatti who received the punishment of his life in hands of pbf, jose luis castillo who is a 135 not a 140. i think those rankings are very wrong cotto should be 3 or 4 in the rankings he is undefeated 25-0 and have a world title, and have defeat past and present champions. come on, those rankings are very wrong
JCS
Posts: 6873
Joined: 17 Dec 2004, 13:27
Location: USA

Postby JCS » 21 Oct 2005, 19:04

acevedoalx wrote:how could they put miguel cotto #16 in the jr welter rankings and put aver him guys like demetrius hopkins that never been in a title bout and only fought 10 rounds fights,juan lazcano,unknown fighters like naoutel ben rabah, souleymare mbaye, juan diaz, nirio kimura, junior witter that only been in one title fight, vivian harris who get an upset in the hands of a garbage fighter,carlos maussa who got knockout against cotto, acelino freitas who only been fighting unknown fighters since he loss to corrales,arturo gatti who received the punishment of his life in hands of pbf, jose luis castillo who is a 135 not a 140. i think those rankings are very wrong cotto should be 3 or 4 in the rankings he is undefeated 25-0 and have a world title, and have defeat past and present champions. come on, those rankings are very wrong


Cotto has beat good fighters past their prime and mediocre fighters in their primes. Half the time, belts don't mean poo anyway. Yeah the current ratings system has problems. Main ones are..

A. Max rating caps arent handled well on draws
B. Decay rate needs doubled


But noone will change a thing since the current system suggests the "best prediction rate" on a "Standardized system" ;)
JCS
Posts: 6873
Joined: 17 Dec 2004, 13:27
Location: USA

Postby JCS » 24 Oct 2005, 13:41

Looks like draw handling will soon be improved. :TU:

If we can only determine an acceptable way to prevent someone like Whitaker from attaining the #11 spot.
TerribleTim2
Posts: 37
Joined: 25 Mar 2005, 02:03
Location: Indy

Postby TerribleTim2 » 07 Nov 2005, 09:10

Today George Arias jumped 14 places in the ratings by beating a guy making his pro debut. :o So the link with the ratings info on it will even explain this?
JCS
Posts: 6873
Joined: 17 Dec 2004, 13:27
Location: USA

Postby JCS » 07 Nov 2005, 09:19

TerribleTim2 wrote:Today George Arias jumped 14 places in the ratings by beating a guy making his pro debut. :o So the link with the ratings info on it will even explain this?


Probably had extra space in his cut to allow it. In other words, if he beat 20 more guys making his pro debut tomorrow, his rating wouldn't move at all, but thats just assumption.
computerrank
Posts: 1017
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59
Location: Germany

Postby computerrank » 07 Nov 2005, 10:41

TerribleTim2 wrote:Today George Arias jumped 14 places in the ratings by beating a guy making his pro debut. :o So the link with the ratings info on it will even explain this?


jcs83md is correct with his assumption.

Arias got a high cut by recently defeating Nielsen - but his basic rating was lower, caused by his losses.

So he now got the chance to improve his current rating, even by defeating low rated boxers.

His cut is somewhere at 1177 (pre-bout rating Nielsen). Arias can easily improve to 1267.
computerrank
Posts: 1017
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59
Location: Germany

Postby computerrank » 14 Nov 2005, 05:03

New additions:

- The cut is improved to the best defeated opponents rating - 90 + the specific earning for the result. E.g. this is the same result only for KO/TKO/TD and less for other results.

- The cut is also improved for losers to the rating their opponents - 90 - the specific loss for the result. But only for close decisions (SD, MD and close decisions on points).

The evaluation showed a new maximum for the prediction rate.
jujigatame
Posts: 4087
Joined: 30 Oct 2004, 21:08
Location: New York, NY

Postby jujigatame » 14 Nov 2005, 13:23

Can you explain how Lance Whitaker remains so high? Neither of his wins since the Krasniqi KO seem like they should hold much points value.

Overall though, I think the recalibration was good.
JCS
Posts: 6873
Joined: 17 Dec 2004, 13:27
Location: USA

Postby JCS » 14 Nov 2005, 13:26

jujigatame wrote:Can you explain how Lance Whitaker remains so high? Neither of his wins since the Krasniqi KO seem like they should hold much points value.

Overall though, I think the recalibration was good.


I think that, or at least the variables which led to his high ranking, are being looked at.

He managed to get a high cut/rating 5-6 years ago and it has simply not fallen that much. His ranking is also helped by the poor HW division. The fact that he has not beaten a solid opponent in so long calls for some kind of advanced decay.
jujigatame
Posts: 4087
Joined: 30 Oct 2004, 21:08
Location: New York, NY

Postby jujigatame » 14 Nov 2005, 13:38

Also, although I know it has been explained somewhere, I can't find a relevant thread on why JMM shot up to #1 P4P a few weeks ago.
jujigatame
Posts: 4087
Joined: 30 Oct 2004, 21:08
Location: New York, NY

Postby jujigatame » 14 Nov 2005, 16:27

Because he's good. Another rating change which involved draws. that I proposed and increased the prediction rate.

Advanced decay is another one of my proposals, which will hopefully result in Whitaker being knocked down in the ratings.


I think this advanced decay idea is a good one. JMM is very good but I don't see how he's beaten enough people to be considered the most accomplished fighter in the world right now, especially by the extremely wide margin that he is leading the P4P list by now.
computerrank
Posts: 1017
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59
Location: Germany

Postby computerrank » 23 Nov 2005, 12:11

Dear all,

A major ratings improvement is released now.

The cut of a boxer, which limits his rating, is calculated from the last 3 years only now.

So some boxers, not defending their standard in the last 3 years, dropped down the ratings - more or less.

This improves the prediction rate again ...

Best regards
Martin
JCS
Posts: 6873
Joined: 17 Dec 2004, 13:27
Location: USA

Re: Recalculations

Postby JCS » 26 Nov 2005, 23:38

John Shearer wrote:I understand the recalculations from three days ago, but why were the rankings readjusted a second time today as well?


There is always room for improvement!!
computerrank
Posts: 1017
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59
Location: Germany

Re: Recalculations

Postby computerrank » 27 Nov 2005, 10:14

John Shearer wrote:I understand the recalculations from three days ago, but why were the rankings readjusted a second time today as well?


There was an error in the calculation, now we use the correct values. So this version was intended to be used the last time already.
computerrank
Posts: 1017
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59
Location: Germany

Postby computerrank » 29 Nov 2005, 03:04

Maxime wrote:What's up with that?

http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=009051

Edit: hmmm it's not showing the samething I saw the first time.



This may happen during database update for a moment ...
Ric
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2542
Joined: 28 Dec 2001, 20:00
Location: Puget Sound

Postby Ric » 29 Nov 2005, 12:57

Dempsey and Johnson fell down the rankings Big Time!
http://www.boxrec.com/ratings.php?natio ... &index=100
JCS
Posts: 6873
Joined: 17 Dec 2004, 13:27
Location: USA

Postby JCS » 29 Nov 2005, 13:00

Ric wrote:Dempsey and Johnson fell down the rankings Big Time!
http://www.boxrec.com/ratings.php?natio ... &index=100


Maybe its an accurate reflection of how overrated they both were?

I think the all-time ratings will probably need some tweaking since the last update to the current ratings had a somewhat drastic effect.

Return to “Current Scene”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest