Ratings - please read before commenting - Archived

computerrank · Post by **computerrank** » 17 Feb 2008, 11:14

All time rating forumula changed to sum of
- 50% of current all time rating - career peak slidung averaged value (by some 14 bouts)
- 5% of sum of all annual ratings

JCS · Post by **JCS** » 17 Feb 2008, 11:28

Sergio Gabriel Martinez just lost 2 ranking spots after winning a 40-36, 40-36, 39-35 fight.

That doesn't seem correct.... You can't win a 4 round decision by much wider scorecards than that.

computerrank · Post by **computerrank** » 17 Feb 2008, 11:53

JCS wrote:Sergio Gabriel Martinez just lost 2 ranking spots after winning a 40-36, 40-36, 39-35 fight.

That doesn't seem correct.... You can't win a 4 round decision by much wider scorecards than that.

... there is no problem in the calculation these 4 points per judge are much more than needed for a clear decision - you only need 2 points per judge for 4 rounds boxed.

There must have been some impact from some other change.

JCS · Post by **JCS** » 17 Feb 2008, 19:37

Cobwebcat wrote:
computerrank wrote:All time rating forumula changed to sum of
- 50% of current all time rating - career peak slidung averaged value (by some 14 bouts)
- 5% of sum of all annual ratings
I'd like to say they look better...but they don't. Cooper better than Lewis?...give me a break!!

Yeah, that's pretty bad.

The all-time ratings are a lost cause as are the P4P. We ought to just scrap them.

JCS · Post by **JCS** » 17 Feb 2008, 21:32

Cobwebcat wrote:
JCS wrote:
Cobwebcat wrote: I'd like to say they look better...but they don't. Cooper better than Lewis?...give me a break!!
Yeah, that's pretty bad.

The all-time ratings are a lost cause as are the P4P. We ought to just scrap them.

That would be a shame as there is nothing like them on the net. Boxrec is the only site that has access to the information. No way should all that work go to waste. If it was used in a meaningful way they could draw people to the site.

I don't know why there was a change and I'm not against change for the better but these look silly now and they were reasonable before.

There are so many intangibles and era differences involved..... I don't know..

computerrank · Post by **computerrank** » 18 Feb 2008, 03:56

Yes, I see - when I tested this linear combination some weeks ago - it was pretty better. Seems to be an impact of the recent no-win correction of the current ratings.

I will reduce the part of the sum of the annual ratings - this should work.

Look at the previous test:

http://www.boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 37#1011737

computerrank · Post by **computerrank** » 18 Feb 2008, 14:59

A fix is proposed for launch ...

JCS · Post by **JCS** » 18 Feb 2008, 15:01

MatthewS wrote:
JCS wrote:
computerrank wrote: ... I implemented a fix for this problem. Wins agains winless opponents will not be honored any longer - even in lower rating regions.

I proposed the new release for immediate launch.

This one was long overdue. This helps some overrating of the exclusively foreign fighters building up their ratings with soft opposition.
Is Julio Cesar Chavez fcuked then? Or is that only Females? A lot of the older records are fighters who show up only as 0-2-0 or similar

This fix would be a hindrance to fighters like him... yes.

computerrank · Post by **computerrank** » 18 Feb 2008, 15:48

computerrank wrote:A fix is proposed for launch ...

... done

JCS · Post by **JCS** » 18 Feb 2008, 15:49

computerrank wrote:
computerrank wrote:A fix is proposed for launch ...
... done

John is on top of things these days, the updates used to take days or weeks!

computerrank · Post by **computerrank** » 18 Feb 2008, 15:52

JCS wrote:
computerrank wrote:
computerrank wrote:A fix is proposed for launch ...
... done
John is on top of things these days, the updates used to take days or weeks!

... turbo days ...

jomothepure · Post by **jomothepure** » 29 Feb 2008, 20:49

I am ashamed to say I am turbo unnainititaed in the ways of the rankings.

I also keep clear of heart stoppping threads such as "what put x ahead of y," but seriously, what has put Sprott ahead of Skelton?

JCS · Post by **JCS** » 29 Feb 2008, 23:11

jomothepure wrote:I am ashamed to say I am turbo unnainititaed in the ways of the rankings.

I also keep clear of heart stoppping threads such as "what put x ahead of y," but seriously, what has put Sprott ahead of Skelton?

And Cintron ahead of Margarito :) Its just the way they shuffle.

Personally, I think there should be a bit more mandatory space between the winner and loser to better prevent this from happening.

computerrank · Post by **computerrank** » 01 Mar 2008, 09:28

The basic message is, they are at same level - these boxer are within +-50 points.

11 Lamon Brewster 446
12 Alexander Dimitrenko 444
13 Calvin Brock 423
14 Michael Sprott 416
15 Matt Skelton 409
16 Chris Arreola 404
17 Andrew Golota 401
18 Danny Williams 393 37
19 Hasim Rahman 391
20 James Toney 373

IKSRTFO · Post by **IKSRTFO** » 07 Mar 2008, 21:11

Hopkins #1 P4P?. Cotto 25. Haye and Klit best male boxers?

computerrank · Post by **computerrank** » 08 Mar 2008, 12:59

John has excluded active boxers from the all time ratings - too much confusion before - as active boxers are not assigned to their career top division but to the division according with their current weight.

computerrank · Post by **computerrank** » 09 Mar 2008, 08:49

Cobwebcat wrote:
computerrank wrote:John has excluded active boxers from the all time ratings - too much confusion before - as active boxers are not assigned to their career top division but to the division according with their current weight.
I can see the logic in that. However, how is it that time can be found to do that but not re-introduce the all-time value figures? It's been nearly a year now! Time toadmit they aren't coming back?

... maybe, he doesn't want to see them ...

The Irish Assassin · Post by **The Irish Assassin** » 23 Mar 2008, 21:51

ehtrend wrote:check out this site - live and archived boxing, shows, news, audio and video interviews and alot more - great site.

JCS · Post by **JCS** » 13 Apr 2008, 10:50

Ratings broke?

computerrank · Post by **computerrank** » 13 Apr 2008, 11:56

The daily update is down - John will be back on Monday.

Asterix · Post by **Asterix** » 13 Apr 2008, 16:56

So that explains why things look a little funny.

computerrank · Post by **computerrank** » 14 Apr 2008, 05:37

Daily update is back ...

computerrank · Post by **computerrank** » 20 Apr 2008, 07:41

Cobwebcat wrote:Site half updated?? Calzaghe moved weight class but also still in old one. Bhop rating unchanged after loss? Joe still behind Bhop...

Matter of time I suspect?

Todays update didn't work, I guess.

gregor · Post by **gregor** » 20 Apr 2008, 13:56

Adamek wins with Bell (who was not ranked) by TKO.... and he drops from 9the to 10th place.

Why? Take a guess... because Bell is back in the ranking, at 3rd position!

JCS · Post by **JCS** » 20 Apr 2008, 13:58

gregor wrote:Adamek wins with Bell (who was not ranked) by TKO.... and he drops from 9the to 10th place.

Why? Take a guess... because Bell is back in the ranking, at 3rd position!

Read the damn page. The ratings didn't even run last night.

Ratings - please read before commenting - Archived

Re: www.spam