Ratings - please read before commenting - Archived

jujigatame · Post by **jujigatame** » 02 Feb 2009, 12:40

-> Yes, I am sure the impacts are multiple and correlated . But designing a rating, you have to keep things operable. The home promoter factor was identified as an important and strongly significant one. An other option was boxer nationality/show country, and this factor is significant too. But the current choice appears more related to business practice.

So you admit that you are using a very limited set of data. Wouldn't you agree that this reduces the statistical significance of your results, and therefore the effect of the advantage should be reduced?

-> This was tested, and didn't change the results. Even KO/TKO results show a ratio of 2.3:1 for the home promoter boxer.

Again, you don't really understand the factors and mechanisms that contribute to this, and yet you allow the rankings to be influenced in very significant ways by it.

-> home boxer >= 4 bouts with show promoter, opponent <2; study is by boxer nationality

So you're not even using the same methodology as the paper that your entire premise is based on. This is madness!!

-> This is just an explanation model, might be more or less

And to add to all that, you are using a completely arbitrary percentage. Don't you think that you should try tweaking this percentage a little bit, considering that it's completely arbitrary anyway and it has produced several unrealistic and undesirable anomalies in your rankings?

-> Home promoter is no way little information. It is an important factor. The whole business is built around this factor. And the participants very well know, why.

Home promoter may be significant, but you are treating it as though it is as significant as everything else combined. Even your rules for determining home promoter are not particularly fair or effective. Who do you think a promoter is more likely to favor, a superstar they just signed, or a mid-level fighter they've had for 5 fights? What if the promoter gets options on the visiting fighter if he wins? Not to mention that different promoters/countries/states have HUGELY disparate effects on fights and you are completely ignoring this.

I really do appreciate what you're trying to do here but there is absolutely no way to implement it in a computerized system, and your attempts to do so have created a huge mess.

computerrank · Post by **computerrank** » 02 Feb 2009, 14:59

@jujigatame

For short now.

All factors in a rating are valid only on an average level.

The originally cited study regarding home advantage was an inspiration, not the script of my analysis.

The current implementation compensates for 50% of the mean significant effect related to the impact factors used. 50% are used to avoid overcompensation for now - maybe this value will be extented to 100%.

I am convinced, that compensating the promoter advantage by this means makes the ratings a bit more fair.

The rating will be kept as simple as possible, but also keep trying to compensate for important basic effects.

BobbyDobbs · Post by **BobbyDobbs** » 02 Feb 2009, 15:05

computerrank wrote:@jujigatame

For short now.

All factors in a rating are valid only on an average level.

The originally cited study regarding home advantage was an inspiration, not the script of my analysis.

The current implementation compensates for 50% of the mean significant effect related to the impact factors used. 50% are used to avoid overcompensation for now - maybe this value will be extented to 100%.

I am convinced, that compensating the promoter advantage by this means makes the ratings a bit more fair.

The rating will be kept as simple as possible, but also keep trying to compensate for important basic effects.

Its wrong, its unfair and too subjective. Not evey situation is built the same and boxrec's computer doesnt have all the facts to decide who has what advantage. That should only matter if a fighter from out of town loses a close decision against a hometown favorite.

Take Carson Jones vs Jose Gonzales for example. I am sure you calculated that Carson is the promoters fighter. Well he isnt. In fact I think that him and Jose Gonzales have both fought for Holden in equal amounts of shows. The fight was held in Oklahoma. Carson is from Oklahoma and Gonzales is from Missuri. What the computers dont know is that the fight was in Miami, OK which is on the Missouri border 20 miles from Gonzales house and 200 from Carsons. So there was no hometown crowd inspiration.

I am not lobbying for you to change it. I already know you never think you make a mistake. But, my example is just one on what must be thousands of erroneous assumptions made by people who dont have the facts that lead to the computer not calculating properly.

BD

JCS · Post by **JCS** » 02 Feb 2009, 15:32

Part of making and properly understanding (and tolerating) a computerized rating system is to understand that you need to rely on the typical situations. The outliers need to be controlled, but its the typical situations that need to be the best accounted for... after all, they are the majority.

The promoter advantage is a great idea, but in theory, its nearly impossible to get an outstanding success rate, and there will always be outliers.

If it were me, and I created it in the same manner, I would probably not make the effect exceed 15% or so. In that same study, they showed no measurable differences within the first two-thirds of the 20th century. That was pretty telling and I wonder if it suggests that matchmakers are simply getting smarter in using those fighters with gaudy records who they know are no match for their fighter with a similar one. The technology age may have assisted them in helping skew the statistics.

computerrank · Post by **computerrank** » 02 Feb 2009, 16:20

BobbyDobbs wrote:
...

Take Carson Jones vs Jose Gonzales for example. I am sure you calculated that Carson is the promoters fighter. Well he isnt. In fact I think that him and Jose Gonzales have both fought for Holden in equal amounts of shows. The fight was held in Oklahoma. Carson is from Oklahoma and Gonzales is from Missuri. What the computers dont know is that the fight was in Miami, OK which is on the Missouri border 20 miles from Gonzales house and 200 from Carsons. So there was no hometown crowd inspiration.

...

BD

Be not too sure, bold boxers only are regarded home promoter boxers in their bouts.

date |division |boxer |opponent |rs|dec|r0box|r1box|r0opp|r1opp
2004-10-05|Light Middleweight |Jones |Mosley |W |TKO| 0| 18| 6| 4
2004-12-10|Middleweight |Jones |Molton |W |TKO| 15| 15| 0| 0
2005-01-13|Light Middleweight |Jones |Vincent |W |TKO| 15| 76| 52| 30
2005-04-15|Middleweight |Jones |Sherman |NC|ND | 0| 0| 0| 0
2005-06-16|Light Middleweight |Jones |Medina |D |PTS| 76| 67| 22| 25
2005-07-22|Light Middleweight |Jones |Cunningham |W |TKO| 67| 67| 0| 0
2005-08-02|Light Middleweight |Jones |Castaneda |W |SD | 67| 82| 86| 79
2005-10-04|Middleweight |Jones |Smith |W |UD | 76| 94| 51| 48
2005-10-27|Light Middleweight |Jones |Medina |L |UD | 94| 64| 25| 68
2005-11-18|Light Middleweight |Jones |Johnson |W |UD | 64| 87| 46| 41
2006-02-02|Middleweight |Jones |Townsend |W |MD | 87| 105| 45| 42
2006-02-17|Light Middleweight |Jones |Perez |L |TKO| 105| 78| 98| 183
2006-04-26|Light Middleweight |Jones |Capo |W |TKO| 78| 78| 7| 7
2006-05-06|Light Middleweight |Jones |Hill |W |KO | 78| 78| 0| 0
2006-06-15|Light Middleweight |Jones |Carpenter |W |TKO| 78| 121| 40| 35
2006-07-21|Light Middleweight |Jones |Flanagan |W |UD | 121| 121| 10| 10
2006-08-25|Light Middleweight |Jones |Gomez |L |TKO| 121| 113| 349| 374
2006-10-27|Light Middleweight |Jones |Hernandez |L |SD | 113| 143| 330| 262
2007-06-08|Light Middleweight |Jones |Garcia |L |UD | 143| 143| 366| 366
2008-01-04|Light Middleweight |Jones |Gonzalez |W |MD | 143| 169| 182| 165
2008-01-19|Light Middleweight |Jones |Gray |L |UD | 169| 123| 70| 130
2008-04-18|Super Middleweight |Jones |Gonzalez |W |UD | 105| 184| 156| 115
2008-07-22|Middleweight |Jones |Huskey |W |TKO| 184| 184| 0| 0
2008-09-20|Middleweight |Jones |Castaneda |W |UD | 184| 184| 24| 24
2008-11-24|Light Middleweight |Jones |Hinkle |W |TKO| 184| 184| 0| 0
2009-01-16|Light Middleweight |Jones |Divison |W |TKO| 184| 184| 28| 28
2009-02-06|Light Middleweight |Jones |Soto Karass |SC|NC | 0| 0| 0| 0

BobbyDobbs · Post by **BobbyDobbs** » 02 Feb 2009, 16:24

computerrank wrote:
BobbyDobbs wrote:
...

Take Carson Jones vs Jose Gonzales for example. I am sure you calculated that Carson is the promoters fighter. Well he isnt. In fact I think that him and Jose Gonzales have both fought for Holden in equal amounts of shows. The fight was held in Oklahoma. Carson is from Oklahoma and Gonzales is from Missuri. What the computers dont know is that the fight was in Miami, OK which is on the Missouri border 20 miles from Gonzales house and 200 from Carsons. So there was no hometown crowd inspiration.

...

BD
Be not too sure, bold boxers only are regarded home promoter boxers in their bouts.

date |division |boxer |opponent |rs|dec|r0box|r1box|r0opp|r1opp
2004-10-05|Light Middleweight |Jones |Mosley |W |TKO| 0| 18| 6| 4
2004-12-10|Middleweight |Jones |Molton |W |TKO| 15| 15| 0| 0
2005-01-13|Light Middleweight |Jones |Vincent |W |TKO| 15| 76| 52| 30
2005-04-15|Middleweight |Jones |Sherman |NC|ND | 0| 0| 0| 0
2005-06-16|Light Middleweight |Jones |Medina |D |PTS| 76| 67| 22| 25
2005-07-22|Light Middleweight |Jones |Cunningham |W |TKO| 67| 67| 0| 0
2005-08-02|Light Middleweight |Jones |Castaneda |W |SD | 67| 82| 86| 79
2005-10-04|Middleweight |Jones |Smith |W |UD | 76| 94| 51| 48
2005-10-27|Light Middleweight |Jones |Medina |L |UD | 94| 64| 25| 68
2005-11-18|Light Middleweight |Jones |Johnson |W |UD | 64| 87| 46| 41
2006-02-02|Middleweight |Jones |Townsend |W |MD | 87| 105| 45| 42
2006-02-17|Light Middleweight |Jones |Perez |L |TKO| 105| 78| 98| 183
2006-04-26|Light Middleweight |Jones |Capo |W |TKO| 78| 78| 7| 7
2006-05-06|Light Middleweight |Jones |Hill |W |KO | 78| 78| 0| 0
2006-06-15|Light Middleweight |Jones |Carpenter |W |TKO| 78| 121| 40| 35
2006-07-21|Light Middleweight |Jones |Flanagan |W |UD | 121| 121| 10| 10
2006-08-25|Light Middleweight |Jones |Gomez |L |TKO| 121| 113| 349| 374
2006-10-27|Light Middleweight |Jones |Hernandez |L |SD | 113| 143| 330| 262
2007-06-08|Light Middleweight |Jones |Garcia |L |UD | 143| 143| 366| 366
2008-01-04|Light Middleweight |Jones |Gonzalez |W |MD | 143| 169| 182| 165
2008-01-19|Light Middleweight |Jones |Gray |L |UD | 169| 123| 70| 130
2008-04-18|Super Middleweight |Jones |Gonzalez |W |UD | 105| 184| 156| 115
2008-07-22|Middleweight |Jones |Huskey |W |TKO| 184| 184| 0| 0
2008-09-20|Middleweight |Jones |Castaneda |W |UD | 184| 184| 24| 24
2008-11-24|Light Middleweight |Jones |Hinkle |W |TKO| 184| 184| 0| 0
2009-01-16|Light Middleweight |Jones |Divison |W |TKO| 184| 184| 28| 28
2009-02-06|Light Middleweight |Jones |Soto Karass |SC|NC | 0| 0| 0| 0

Then how do you account for his 37 point ratings drop two days after winning a fight when that is the only change you have said was made?

computerrank · Post by **computerrank** » 02 Feb 2009, 16:24

JCS wrote:Part of making and properly understanding (and tolerating) a computerized rating system is to understand that you need to rely on the typical situations. The outliers need to be controlled, but its the typical situations that need to be the best accounted for... after all, they are the majority.

The promoter advantage is a great idea, but in theory, its nearly impossible to get an outstanding success rate, and there will always be outliers.

If it were me, and I created it in the same manner, I would probably not make the effect exceed 15% or so. In that same study, they showed no measurable differences within the first two-thirds of the 20th century. That was pretty telling and I wonder if it suggests that matchmakers are simply getting smarter in using those fighters with gaudy records who they know are no match for their fighter with a similar one. The technology age may have assisted them in helping skew the statistics.

Jason,

in the cited study the home advantage was based on the nationality of the boxers.

computerrank · Post by **computerrank** » 02 Feb 2009, 16:27

BobbyDobbs wrote:

Then how do you account for his 37 point ratings drop two days after winning a fight when that is the only change you have said was made?

There were also 2 other corrections in the line - see above.

BobbyDobbs · Post by **BobbyDobbs** » 02 Feb 2009, 16:49

computerrank wrote:
BobbyDobbs wrote:

Then how do you account for his 37 point ratings drop two days after winning a fight when that is the only change you have said was made?
There were also 2 other corrections in the line - see above.

What is it? There was nothing 18 months ago that would have fallen off to make the difference. Seeing above what? What exactly caused the drop?

computerrank · Post by **computerrank** » 02 Feb 2009, 17:10

BobbyDobbs wrote:
What is it? There was nothing 18 months ago that would have fallen off to make the difference. Seeing above what? What exactly caused the drop?

Cited from above - might be 1. and/or 2. then:

Release N is launched - changes:

1. Bug fix for close decisions. In some cases the winner got less points for a clearer decision than for a closer decision.

2. Upset loser lost up to 70% of his points - such as a boxer with promoter advantage losing clearly by points.

It is more systematic to use the same ratio now. If the winner gets 70% (factor 1.7), the loser goes down to 100%/1.7 = 59% and loses 41%.

3. The prebout rating of a boxer coming back successfully from inactivity is now set up to the opponents prebout rating, depending on the returning boxer's prior rating (see Vitali Klitschko).

BobbyDobbs · Post by **BobbyDobbs** » 02 Feb 2009, 18:22

computerrank wrote:
BobbyDobbs wrote:
What is it? There was nothing 18 months ago that would have fallen off to make the difference. Seeing above what? What exactly caused the drop?
Cited from above - might be 1. and/or 2. then:

Release N is launched - changes:

1. Bug fix for close decisions. In some cases the winner got less points for a clearer decision than for a closer decision.

2. Upset loser lost up to 70% of his points - such as a boxer with promoter advantage losing clearly by points.

It is more systematic to use the same ratio now. If the winner gets 70% (factor 1.7), the loser goes down to 100%/1.7 = 59% and loses 41%.

3. The prebout rating of a boxer coming back successfully from inactivity is now set up to the opponents prebout rating, depending on the returning boxer's prior rating (see Vitali Klitschko).

Then that could only mean that since Carson won the first fight against Gonzales by MD that he is now 37 spots lower in the ratings regardless of the fact he won by shutout a few months later. That is a 50% drop in his rating for a very silly and unjustifiable reason.

Lackeos · Post by **Lackeos** » 02 Feb 2009, 18:41

It seems like there's got to be a small bug when Mijares narrowly beats Munoz, then Darchinyan KO's Mijares, and Munoz is ahead of Darchinyan.

I don't have a problem with the ratings accounting for a hometown / home promoter advantage, but the math has to be wrong if this is the final outcome.

Asterix · Post by **Asterix** » 02 Feb 2009, 18:45

The ratings have progressively worsened in the past few months, imo.

conan_the_cribber · Post by **conan_the_cribber** » 02 Feb 2009, 19:04

Guys, this promotor thing is getting sillier and sillier. Stop ignoring the evidence.

Valuev is now ranked below Ruiz, although he beat him and went on to beat Holyfield. Ruiz has done nothing since. Such a thing is indefensible. Stop pretending that the promotor thingo is making it better, when you know in your hearts, it's making it worse.

conan

Asterix · Post by **Asterix** » 02 Feb 2009, 19:29

Is there not a bug? Alfonso Gomez is rated 15th in the World by Boxrec.

http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?hu ... &cat=boxer

allworld80 · Post by **allworld80** » 02 Feb 2009, 19:35

Asterix wrote:Is there not a bug? Alfonso Gomez is rated 15th in the World by Boxrec.

http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?hu ... &cat=boxer

9 spots ahead of Collazo

jujigatame · Post by **jujigatame** » 02 Feb 2009, 22:46

I am convinced, that compensating the promoter advantage by this means makes the ratings a bit more fair.

Well this is the crux of the problem. I simply cannot understand how you can look at what you have produced and consider it "fair" in any way. I understand what you are trying to do and it is commendable, but put simply, this implementation has failed to accomplish your goal. There is no way you are being honest with yourself as a boxing fan if you consider this to be a success. I mean, seriously, as a boxing fan, can you explain to me Munoz at #1 or Hasegawa at #3? This noble experiment has failed, and I'd be shocked if you could find a single person on this website to disagree with me.

ludovic · Post by **ludovic** » 03 Feb 2009, 07:42

yeah i think it's also strange... i posted a thread about it a week ago or something like that, but no one replied. happy to see there's some popular response now

El Raincoat · Post by **El Raincoat** » 03 Feb 2009, 08:03

Matt Skelton at 5# at Heavy. Way to high
Krzysztof Wlodarczyk at 24# Cruiser. He's top 10.
Dean Francis at 8#. Lt Heavy. He's beaten nobody of consequence.
Sakio Bika at 4# S. Middle. This is too high, he's low end top 10.
Wayne Elcock 5# at Middle. Way to high.
Said Ouali 10# at Welter. To high.

To name just a few.

Asterix · Post by **Asterix** » 03 Feb 2009, 08:31

El Raincoat wrote:Matt Skelton at 5# at Heavy. Way to high
Krzysztof Wlodarczyk at 24# Cruiser. He's top 10.
Dean Francis at 8#. Lt Heavy. He's beaten nobody of consequence.
Sakio Bika at 4# S. Middle. This is too high, he's low end top 10.
Wayne Elcock 5# at Middle. Way to high.
Said Ouali 10# at Welter. To high.

To name just a few.

computerrank · Post by **computerrank** » 03 Feb 2009, 15:09

... litte strokes fell big oaks ...

You will find a revival release, next weekend I think ... implementation of promoter home advantage will be withdrawn.

We won't drive off our supporters!

Asterix · Post by **Asterix** » 03 Feb 2009, 15:22

Just to say, I'm a big fan of the ratings. They've gone a bit wayward recently, but they were very good last year.

jujigatame · Post by **jujigatame** » 03 Feb 2009, 15:36

Thank you!!

Really, I'm sorry if I ever came off as too harsh or critical here. I really do appreciate what you are trying to do. I just feel that these attempts to identify/quantify home advantage have not been successful and have really hurt the credibility of what were once the best rankings available. These rankings really are an invaluable resource, thanks for listening to the fans on this one.

jujigatame · Post by **jujigatame** » 04 Feb 2009, 20:06

Dude, if you read his last post he just said the home promoter factor is being removed entirely.

JCS · Post by **JCS** » 05 Feb 2009, 15:11

Cobwebcat wrote:
jujigatame wrote:Dude, if you read his last post he just said the home promoter factor is being removed entirely.
So what? If you read back there are numerous subjective weightings. I don't care about one more than another I think it should all be objective. Promoter influence was just the latest example.

In order to make it completely objective, you need to be guided by a statistic. Selecting that statistic is subjective....

Unless of course you go to a ladder system.. but even then, there are issues to handle when it comes to changing weight divisions, becoming inactivity, etc.

Ratings - please read before commenting - Archived

Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings

Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings

Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings

Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings

Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings

Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings

Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings

Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings

Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings

Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings

Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings

Re: Alexander Munoz 1# at S. Flyweight?

Re: Alexander Munoz 1# at S. Flyweight?

Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings

Re: Alexander Munoz 1# at S. Flyweight?

Re: Alexander Munoz 1# at S. Flyweight?

Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings

Re: Alexander Munoz 1# at S. Flyweight?

Re: Alexander Munoz 1# at S. Flyweight?

Re: Alexander Munoz 1# at S. Flyweight?

Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings

Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings

Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings

Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings

Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings