Ratings - please read before commenting - Archived

Locked
conan_the_cribber
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 8476
Joined: 03 Jan 2005, 19:11

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

Post by conan_the_cribber »

computerrank wrote:@conan

... a bit more maths and less politics ...

But because Jones was more like 2000 and only fought against 500s then he lost

$r_after=$r_before* (1-0.5*(1-$r_opp/$r_before}/0.5));
= 2000* (1 - 0.5*(1 - 500/2000/0.5) )
= 2000* (1 - 0.5*(1 - 0.25/0.5) )
= 2000* (1 - 0.5*(1 - 0.5) )
= 2000* (1- 0.5*(0.5))
= 2000 * (1-0.25)
= 2000 * (0.75)
= 1500

For defeating a best opponent of only 25% of his rating in the relevant time period?
Still holding a level of 300% of his best defeated opponent in the relevant time period?
Why not?[/quote]

Thanks for picking up the mistake.

Would you mind explaining the 650 pts #8 thru #12 adaption bit. I looked at the divisional ratings and can't see any weight division where this is true. Is this the sum of all #8's and #12's across all divisions?

And a question in general. At which point does a fighter's rating go down? I believe you work the database from the first bout to the last. Do you reduce the fighter on the day of his bout e.g. here, on the day he fought Clinton Woods, or do you reduce it prior to the bout?

conan
conan_the_cribber
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 8476
Joined: 03 Jan 2005, 19:11

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

Post by conan_the_cribber »

JCS wrote:
Asterix wrote:
computerrank wrote: - the ratings change due to the daily adaption to division performance level = mean of #8 ... #12 ratings per division cluster set to 650

- light heavyweight division cluster lost some top ranked boxers in this period and so the rating excellence of rest top ranked boxers grew
Are you happy with Hopkins growing from 1940 to 2414? Doesn't that mean his P4P ranking is inflated?
That's the point. Its based on division dominance. He stayed the same, the division representation got weaker, so therefore his P4P rating went up.
OK, do I understand this. For p4p, the divsion 8 to 12 average is adjusted to 650. So if Ihave Hopkins on 1000pts, and the average of #8 to #12 is just 325. Then Hopkins p4p rating will jump to 1000 * 650/325 = 2000, because he is head and shoulders above the rest of his division?
computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2492
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

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

Post by computerrank »

@conan

Would you mind explaining the 650 pts #8 thru #12 adaption bit. I looked at the divisional ratings and can't see any weight division where this is true. Is this the sum of all #8's and #12's across all divisions?

-> For equalisation I use division clusters (historical weight divsions) = heavyweight + cruiserweight, light heavyweight + super middleweight ... to make the relations comparable from a historical perspective.

Otherwise some problems arised, when new divsions were introduced.

But currently I am working on new solution for the current p4p ratings, refering to some suggestions from the forum's side:

- The ratings are used without equalisation.
- For p4p purpose a boxer's current rating is transformed to the lowest divsion, he achieved 500 in at least.

-> So boxers like Mayweather, Hopkins, Pacquio, Haye ... get a higher p4p rating. They will no longer lose points for moving up the divisions.
-> The ratings will no longer change daily caused by the division cluster equalisation
-> the p4p rating will no longer change by simply changing the division

Looks like this will bring Pacquiao to #1


And a question in general. At which point does a fighter's rating go down? I believe you work the database from the first bout to the last. Do you reduce the fighter on the day of his bout e.g. here, on the day he fought Clinton Woods, or do you reduce it prior to the bout?

-> The current rating goes down exactly after 18 months.
computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2492
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

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

Post by computerrank »

Here the proposed P4P ratings:

- current rating normalized to lowest career division with 500 rating points minimum.

Code: Select all

+------+-------------+---------------+------+
| rank | first_name  | last_name     | r    |
+------+-------------+---------------+------+
|    1 | Manny       | Pacquiao      | 2642 | 
|    2 | Bernard     | Hopkins       | 1789 | 
|    3 | Floyd       | Mayweather Jr | 1770 | 
|    4 | Wladimir    | Klitschko     | 1121 | 
|    5 | Vitali      | Klitschko     | 1055 | 
|    6 | Paul        | Williams      |  943 | 
|    7 | Juan Manuel | Marquez       |  942 | 
|    8 | Chad        | Dawson        |  924 | 
|    9 | David       | Haye          |  914 | 
|   10 | Tomasz      | Adamek        |  892 | 
|   11 | Arthur      | Abraham       |  884 | 
|   12 | Kelly       | Pavlik        |  821 | 
|   13 | Lucian      | Bute          |  799 | 
|   14 | Juan Manuel | Lopez         |  778 | 
|   15 | Chris       | John          |  774 | 
|   16 | Timothy     | Bradley       |  719 | 
|   17 | Carl        | Froch         |  716 | 
|   18 | Nate        | Campbell      |  694 | 
|   19 | Celestino   | Caballero     |  686 | 
|   20 | Hozumi      | Hasegawa      |  678 | 
|   21 | Felix       | Sturm         |  668 | 
|   22 | Ricky       | Hatton        |  666 | 
|   23 | Edwin       | Valero        |  636 | 
|   24 | Robert      | Guerrero      |  621 | 
|   25 | Andre       | Berto         |  620 | 
+------+-------------+---------------+------+
JCS
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 6243
Joined: 17 Dec 2004, 13:27

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

Post by JCS »

I'm not sure I like that idea... the fighter's lowest career division could have been 15+ years ago.

How about their lowest division in the past X years? What would 3 look like?

What if you expanded the "cluster"? I've been touting that for a while now. What if you expanded it to say.. #5 to #15?
computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2492
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

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

Post by computerrank »

JCS wrote:I'm not sure I like that idea... the fighter's lowest career division could have been 15+ years ago.

How about their lowest division in the past X years? What would 3 look like?
Why would these 15 years mind, if he was already world class then?

This is not consequent from my perspective.

If this idea is real at all, then it is based on the aspect that a boxer, who was world class in a lower division and steps up, he should not be punished for this ...
JCS
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 6243
Joined: 17 Dec 2004, 13:27

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

Post by JCS »

computerrank wrote:
JCS wrote:I'm not sure I like that idea... the fighter's lowest career division could have been 15+ years ago.

How about their lowest division in the past X years? What would 3 look like?
Why would these 15 years mind, if he was already world class then?

This is not consequent from my perspective.

If this idea is real at all, then it is based on the aspect that a boxer, who was world class in a lower division and steps up, he should not be punished for this ...
Pacquiao was not world class at the lowest division he ever boxed in. I think the current methodology is fine, but the cluster has always been too small to be accurately representative.
computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2492
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

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

Post by computerrank »

JCS wrote:
computerrank wrote:
JCS wrote:I'm not sure I like that idea... the fighter's lowest career division could have been 15+ years ago.

How about their lowest division in the past X years? What would 3 look like?
Why would these 15 years mind, if he was already world class then?

This is not consequent from my perspective.

If this idea is real at all, then it is based on the aspect that a boxer, who was world class in a lower division and steps up, he should not be punished for this ...
Pacquiao was not world class at the lowest division he ever boxed in. I think the current methodology is fine, but the cluster has always been too small to be accurately representative.
Pacquiao was Boxrec #1 in flyweight 1998 and WBC champ.

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/BoxRe ... ght--1990s
computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2492
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

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

Post by computerrank »

I recognized the cluster concept has holes ...

It punishes boxers stepping into a strong division, and it awards boxers stepping into a weak divsision - for nothing ...

I don't like the daily rating changes, just because some boxers change the divisions ...
JCS
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 6243
Joined: 17 Dec 2004, 13:27

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

Post by JCS »

computerrank wrote:
JCS wrote:
computerrank wrote: Why would these 15 years mind, if he was already world class then?

This is not consequent from my perspective.

If this idea is real at all, then it is based on the aspect that a boxer, who was world class in a lower division and steps up, he should not be punished for this ...
Pacquiao was not world class at the lowest division he ever boxed in. I think the current methodology is fine, but the cluster has always been too small to be accurately representative.
Pacquiao was Boxrec #1 in flyweight 1998 and WBC champ.

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/BoxRe ... ght--1990s

Pacquiao fought at Light Flyweight at one point though.. right?

I think part of it, is keeping boxers in the "right" division and not moving them simply for a tuneup which often happens for Japanese boxers.
computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2492
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

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

Post by computerrank »

JCS wrote:
Pacquiao fought at Light Flyweight at one point though.. right?

I think part of it, is keeping boxers in the "right" division and not moving them simply for a tuneup which often happens for Japanese boxers.
In my message I said:

- current rating normalized to lowest career division with 500 rating points minimum.

This was flyweight for Pacquiao, not light flyweight ...

Regarding the Japanese boxers, the Japanese editor strictly looks at the weight limits - no chance to change this ...
JCS
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 6243
Joined: 17 Dec 2004, 13:27

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

Post by JCS »

Editors should cooperate.... No sense in making a guy a Super Middleweight for weighing in at 160.5.. which I've seen on many occasions.

Could you expand the "clusteR" to 5-15 and post those? I am curious to see how it would affect things.
computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2492
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

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

Post by computerrank »

JCS wrote:Editors should cooperate.... No sense in making a guy a Super Middleweight for weighing in at 160.5.. which I've seen on many occasions.

Could you expand the "clusteR" to 5-15 and post those? I am curious to see how it would affect things.
Doesn't change much - averages per cluster #5-#15 (#8-#12):

-2% heavyweight 420 (430)
+8% light heavyweight 441 (412)
-1% middleweight 436 (439)
+3% welterweight 504 (490)
+0% lightweight 388 (388)
+1% featherweight 388 (383)
+5% bantamweight 321 (306)
+2% flyweight 280 (275)
JCS
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 6243
Joined: 17 Dec 2004, 13:27

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

Post by JCS »

Fair enough.

In any event, I think the current method would work very well if considered more of a "division dominance" rating and the editors adhered to only moving fighters when they have legitimately moved divisions.

The method w/ lowest division is an interesting idea, but I think basing it on a fighter's CAREER lowest is invalid. It has even larger holes than the current method. You shot down my "last X years" argument, but have used an arbitrary number to reject consideration of the weakest divisions. I don't think many people today consider Pacquiao's title reign at Flyweight anymore.. or at least I hope not. I don't really consider anything prior to his days at Featherweight in considering his CURRENT P4P rating.

Another issue is the number of divisions in boxing. Basing a metric on a single division when you have seventeen is very specific, especially when a fighter like Pacquiao has fought in so many. This makes calculating a P4P rating nearly hopeless in the first place.
Freedom
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 215
Joined: 11 Jan 2003, 20:05

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

Post by Freedom »

Any chance of having a "African, Asian and South America ratings?" There is a Commonwealth, Mex/Can/USA and Europe. :bow:
John
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 9048
Joined: 08 May 2000, 20:00

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

Post by John »

Freedom wrote:Any chance of having a "African, Asian and South America ratings?" There is a Commonwealth, Mex/Can/USA and Europe. :bow:
OK,
you list the countries' ISO codes http://www.iso.org/iso/english_country_ ... e_elements and I'll code it up :TU:
jujigatame
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 7437
Joined: 30 Oct 2004, 21:08

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

Post by jujigatame »

I don't know when it went into effect, but the new rankings tracker that has been added to the fighter pages is absolutely AWESOME.
JCS
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 6243
Joined: 17 Dec 2004, 13:27

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

Post by JCS »

I assume the new P4P went in based on career lowest division?
computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2492
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

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

Post by computerrank »

JCS wrote:I assume the new P4P went in based on career lowest division?
No, the division equalisation is tilt ...
computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2492
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

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

Post by computerrank »

1) The #8 to #12 rating average per division cluster is no longer set to a common value.

2) All-time rating of inactive and active boxers

Code: Select all

+------+-------------------+---------------+------+
| rank | first_name        | last_name     | r    |
+------+-------------------+---------------+------+
|    1 | Archie            | Moore         | 2631 | 
|    2 | Sugar Ray         | Robinson      | 2311 | 
|    3 | Muhammad          | Ali           | 1834 | 
|    4 | Joe               | Louis         | 1807 | 
|    5 | Tony              | Canzoneri     | 1637 | 
|    6 | Carlos            | Ortiz         | 1536 | 
|    7 | Ezzard            | Charles       | 1514 | 
|    8 | Floyd             | Patterson     | 1508 | 
|    9 | Carlos            | Monzon        | 1454 | 
|   10 | Harry             | Greb          | 1437 | 
|   11 | Benny             | Leonard       | 1412 | 
|   12 | Dick              | Tiger         | 1399 | 
|   13 | Emile             | Griffith      | 1372 | 
|   14 | Harry             | Wills         | 1366 | 
|   15 | Jimmy             | McLarnin      | 1366 | 
|   16 | Jose              | Napoles       | 1351 | 
|   17 | Mickey            | Walker        | 1346 | 
|   18 | Young             | Corbett III   | 1305 | 
|   19 | Joe               | Gans          | 1283 | 
|   20 | Sam               | Langford      | 1277 | 
|   21 | Henry             | Armstrong     | 1268 | 
|   22 | Max               | Schmeling     | 1264 | 
|   23 | Jimmy             | Bivins        | 1246 | 
|   24 | Willie            | Pep           | 1219 | 
|   25 | Roberto           | Duran         | 1213 | 
|   26 | Bobo              | Olson         | 1210 | 
|   27 | Rocky             | Marciano      | 1207 | 
|   28 | Lew               | Tendler       | 1179 | 
|   29 | Marvin            | Hagler        | 1174 | 
|   30 | Billy             | Conn          | 1161 | 
|   31 | Jack              | Britton       | 1153 | 
|   32 | Floyd             | Mayweather Jr | 1150 | 
|   33 | Bernard           | Hopkins       | 1143 | 
|   34 | Jack              | Johnson       | 1138 | 
|   35 | Gene              | Tunney        | 1138 | 
|   36 | Roy               | Jones Jr      | 1119 | 
|   37 | Gene              | Fullmer       | 1100 | 
|   38 | Bob               | Montgomery    | 1098 | 
|   39 | Tommy             | Loughran      | 1094 | 
|   40 | Larry             | Holmes        | 1075 | 
|   41 | Joey              | Giardello     | 1071 | 
|   42 | Tommy             | Ryan          | 1059 | 
|   43 | Joey              | Maxim         | 1053 | 
|   44 | Julio Cesar       | Chavez        | 1051 | 
|   45 | Ike               | Williams      | 1048 | 
|   46 | Sammy             | Angott        | 1047 | 
|   47 | Maxie             | Rosenbloom    | 1035 | 
|   48 | Carmen            | Basilio       | 1024 | 
|   49 | Harold            | Johnson       | 1023 | 
|   50 | Barney            | Ross          | 1022 | 
|   51 | Lou               | Ambers        | 1011 | 
|   52 | Abe               | Attell        | 1010 | 
|   53 | Eder              | Jofre         | 1004 | 
|   54 | Oscar             | De La Hoya    |  999 | 
|   55 | Sonny             | Liston        |  995 | 
|   56 | Manny             | Pacquiao      |  994 | 
|   57 | Beau              | Jack          |  989 | 
|   58 | Bob               | Foster        |  987 | 
|   59 | Sugar Ray         | Leonard       |  977 | 
|   60 | Fred              | Apostoli      |  974 | 
|   61 | Joe               | Frazier       |  971 | 
|   62 | Vicente           | Saldivar      |  966 | 
|   63 | Sandy             | Saddler       |  956 | 
|   64 | John Henry        | Lewis         |  956 | 
|   65 | Johnny            | Dundee        |  956 | 
|   66 | Azumah            | Nelson        |  945 | 
|   67 | Thomas            | Hearns        |  942 | 
|   68 | Pernell           | Whitaker      |  941 | 
|   69 | Lennox            | Lewis         |  940 | 
|   70 | Kid               | Gavilan       |  932 | 
|   71 | Duilio            | Loi           |  919 | 
|   72 | Evander           | Holyfield     |  908 | 
|   73 | Panama Al         | Brown         |  902 | 
|   74 | Luis Manuel       | Rodriguez     |  898 | 
|   75 | Sammy             | Mandell       |  896 | 
|   76 | Jack              | Sharkey       |  887 | 
|   77 | Michael           | Spinks        |  880 | 
|   78 | Sam               | McVea         |  864 | 
|   79 | Battling          | Levinsky      |  859 | 
|   80 | Jersey Joe        | Walcott       |  858 | 
|   81 | Freddie           | Welsh         |  848 | 
|   82 | Dave              | Shade         |  847 | 
|   83 | Ted (Kid)         | Lewis         |  841 | 
|   84 | Joe               | Brown         |  835 | 
|   85 | Lou               | Brouillard    |  831 | 
|   86 | Jake              | LaMotta       |  827 | 
|   87 | Naseem            | Hamed         |  819 | 
|   88 | Ingemar           | Johansson     |  816 | 
|   89 | Tommy             | Gibbons       |  816 | 
|   90 | Kid               | Chocolate     |  813 | 
|   91 | Max               | Baer          |  811 | 
|   92 | Philadelphia Jack | O'Brien       |  801 | 
|   93 | Joe               | Jeannette     |  796 | 
|   94 | Fidel             | LaBarba       |  795 | 
|   95 | Shane             | Mosley        |  793 | 
|   96 | Fighting          | Harada        |  792 | 
|   97 | Ismael            | Laguna        |  790 | 
|   98 | Alexis            | Arguello      |  783 | 
|   99 | Nino              | Benvenuti     |  781 | 
|  100 | Kenny             | Lane          |  780 | 
+------+-------------------+---------------+------+
JCS
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 6243
Joined: 17 Dec 2004, 13:27

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

Post by JCS »

Someone should do a query on the database to see how many unanimous decisions there are where the scorecards have been entered in reverse..
computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2492
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

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

Post by computerrank »

JCS wrote:Someone should do a query on the database to see how many unanimous decisions there are where the scorecards have been entered in reverse..
Good idea ...
JCS
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 6243
Joined: 17 Dec 2004, 13:27

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

Post by JCS »

Martin... for UDs maybe you could just take the absolute value of the scorecard difference and use that...
computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2492
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

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

Post by computerrank »

I found 117 reverse scorings in UDs ... this will be checked and corrected ... thanks
m1kee50
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4518
Joined: 04 Sep 2006, 11:07

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

Post by m1kee50 »

what are the biggest recorded fights that have taken place on an August 13th?

:TU:
Locked