The Official PSP Rankings - Week 20

[hitman09]

I think a system must be somewhat flawed if Corbett, who won by decision vs Palomino, gets as many points as Napoles, who won by KO3 vs a better fighter, Whitaker.

Not only did Napoles beat a better fighter, but he did it more impressively.

Don't think down the lines of just how good the opposition is and that's it, think about the gulf in class between the two fighters.

But that's ridiculous. That means the best fighters have a harder time increasing rank. It should be the same for all fighters, otherwise you aren't rating "who is the best?" but rather " who has overachieved the most?" as far as I can see.

[jBacca]

Hmmm depending on the criteria, maybe this could replace the commish rankings.

Hi commish.

My original goal was just to create another 'buzz' for the sim, to go hand in hand with the commish rankings. It's here, to basically give people another 'claim to fame'. For example, Buzz and Ben's jarg title last season. Or the tournie Detroit setup - it was an achievement to win that honour.

[jBacca]

I think a system must be somewhat flawed if Corbett, who won by decision vs Palomino, gets as many points as Napoles, who won by KO3 vs a better fighter, Whitaker.

Not only did Napoles beat a better fighter, but he did it more impressively.

Don't think down the lines of just how good the opposition is and that's it, think about the gulf in class between the two fighters.

But that's ridiculous. That means the best fighters have a harder time increasing rank. It should be the same for all fighters, otherwise you aren't rating "who is the best?" but rather " who has overachieved the most?" as far as I can see.

The idea is that Robinson will win most of his fights, so the points will even out anyway.

Also, say Robinson does have a bad run, and he's half way down the table, am working on it so if he beats someone near the top, he gets additional points. Same for someone at the top losing against someone near the bottom. (Means if Buzz feasts on CPUs, then finally fights and losers against a lowly placed opponent, then he'll lose more points that normal and it'll even out).

[hitman09]

I just don't see the logic. In my opinion, the #1 ranked guy should be the guy who beats the best opposition. The #2 guy should be the guy who beats the 2nd best opposition. And so on, regardless of ability or talent etc. The way you have it, if someone like Collazo beats weaker (ie. guys like Starling as opposed to guys like Leonard) opposition every week, he'll get more points than if Henry Armstrong beat the very best every week, just because he's less talented.

[glittermonkey]

I'm edging towards Hitman's view, but that's mainly because Hearns beat Duran, but only sits in mid-table.

[jBacca]

I just don't see the logic. In my opinion, the #1 ranked guy should be the guy who beats the best opposition. The #2 guy should be the guy who beats the 2nd best opposition. And so on, regardless of ability or talent etc. The way you have it, if someone like Collazo beats weaker (ie. guys like Starling as opposed to guys like Leonard) opposition every week, he'll get more points than if Henry Armstrong beat the very best every week, just because he's less talented.

... but at the same time, it's pretty realistic to say Collazo won't be beating guys like Starling every week, and so wont shoot ahead of Armstrong on points 9Watch this, Collazo will turn out to be another Rafa Marquez now ) . Same with SRR, he may get less, but he's gonna win alot more than most, meaning he'll still probably have more points than others come the end.

Hitman, fighters are ranked by who beats the best opposition, but it's the best opposition in relation to their own rating. If I did it as simply as you put, then only the top fighters (Robinson, Armstrong, Leonard, Hearns etc) will be at the top. I don't want that, I want to see fighters ranked on who they beat in relation to themselves.

[jBacca]

I'm edging towards Hitman's view, but that's mainly because Hearns beat Duran, but only sits in mid-table.

Don't read too much into placements just yet, it's the first week, Hearns could have been 7 instead of 15.

As soon as more fights happen, tables will show a more realistic view.

[hitman09]

I just don't see the logic. In my opinion, the #1 ranked guy should be the guy who beats the best opposition. The #2 guy should be the guy who beats the 2nd best opposition. And so on, regardless of ability or talent etc. The way you have it, if someone like Collazo beats weaker (ie. guys like Starling as opposed to guys like Leonard) opposition every week, he'll get more points than if Henry Armstrong beat the very best every week, just because he's less talented.

... but at the same time, it's pretty realistic to say Collazo won't be beating guys like Starling every week, and so wont shoot ahead of Armstrong on points 9Watch this, Collazo will turn out to be another Rafa Marquez now ) . Same with SRR, he may get less, but he's gonna win alot more than most, meaning he'll still probably have more points than others come the end.

Hitman, fighters are ranked by who beats the best opposition, but it's the best opposition in relation to their own rating. If I did it as simply as you put, then only the top fighters (Robinson, Armstrong, Leonard, Hearns etc) will be at the top. I don't want that, I want to see fighters ranked on who they beat in relation to themselves.

Then your aim seems to be, as I said earlier, to provide a "who has overachieved the most?" table.

[kevo]

First week rankings are always going to be a bit strange. I say give it a few more fights and the table will start to look like we imagine it should look.

It's good to have an alternative to the Commish rankings, as all that seems to take into account is number of fights won/lost.

[madball1982]

The whole thing makes a bit more sense to myself now. I'll throw my support behind this as being a good, "for laughs" ranking.

My idea was to rate the points more based on the calibre of opponent in general, not the calibre of opponent compared to your fighter. Basically if you're fighting fighters ranked higher than you, you'll gain more points overall. But fight lowly ranked fighters and overall you'll gain less points. As jbacca said, it'll even out and give a clearer picture over the course of the season.

[jBacca]

I just don't see the logic. In my opinion, the #1 ranked guy should be the guy who beats the best opposition. The #2 guy should be the guy who beats the 2nd best opposition. And so on, regardless of ability or talent etc. The way you have it, if someone like Collazo beats weaker (ie. guys like Starling as opposed to guys like Leonard) opposition every week, he'll get more points than if Henry Armstrong beat the very best every week, just because he's less talented.

... but at the same time, it's pretty realistic to say Collazo won't be beating guys like Starling every week, and so wont shoot ahead of Armstrong on points 9Watch this, Collazo will turn out to be another Rafa Marquez now ) . Same with SRR, he may get less, but he's gonna win alot more than most, meaning he'll still probably have more points than others come the end.

Hitman, fighters are ranked by who beats the best opposition, but it's the best opposition in relation to their own rating. If I did it as simply as you put, then only the top fighters (Robinson, Armstrong, Leonard, Hearns etc) will be at the top. I don't want that, I want to see fighters ranked on who they beat in relation to themselves.

Then your aim seems to be, as I said earlier, to provide a "who has overachieved the most?" table.

And as I've said, points will even out over time.

Collazo did something incredible, but if the game doesn't produce another Marquez type fighter, then it's safe to say Collazo may only do the same achievement 1 in every 5 (at least). That's 20 odd points.

Robinson on the other hand, it'd be favourable to think he'd win 4/5 out of every 5, meaning despite him getting fewer points for a win, he'll get them more often. He'd probably be on around 50 points after 5.

[jBacca]

The whole thing makes a bit more sense to myself now. I'll throw my support behind this as being a good, "for laughs" ranking.

My idea was to rate the points more based on the calibre of opponent in general, not the calibre of opponent compared to your fighter. Basically if you're fighting fighters ranked higher than you, you'll gain more points overall. But fight lowly ranked fighters and overall you'll gain less points. As jbacca said, it'll even out and give a clearer picture over the course of the season.

Cheers mate. Appreciated.

First week rankings are always going to be a bit strange. I say give it a few more fights and the table will start to look like we imagine it should look.

It's good to have an alternative to the Commish rankings, as all that seems to take into account is number of fights won/lost.

Indeed kid, and I've also factored in SSM getting bonus points whenever I choose.

[hitman09]

... but at the same time, it's pretty realistic to say Collazo won't be beating guys like Starling every week, and so wont shoot ahead of Armstrong on points 9Watch this, Collazo will turn out to be another Rafa Marquez now ) . Same with SRR, he may get less, but he's gonna win alot more than most, meaning he'll still probably have more points than others come the end.

Hitman, fighters are ranked by who beats the best opposition, but it's the best opposition in relation to their own rating. If I did it as simply as you put, then only the top fighters (Robinson, Armstrong, Leonard, Hearns etc) will be at the top. I don't want that, I want to see fighters ranked on who they beat in relation to themselves.

Then your aim seems to be, as I said earlier, to provide a "who has overachieved the most?" table.

And as I've said, points will even out over time.

Collazo did something incredible, but if the game doesn't produce another Marquez type fighter, then it's safe to say Collazo may only do the same achievement 1 in every 5 (at least). That's 20 odd points.

Robinson on the other hand, it'd be favourable to think he'd win 4/5 out of every 5, meaning despite him getting fewer points for a win, he'll get them more often. He'd probably be on around 50 points after 5.

But if Collazo now faces and beats 4 fighters on his own level, won't he get 40-50 points for that and then be on 60-70 points, despite having beaten nobody comparable to who Robinson has beaten?

[madball1982]

But if Collazo now faces and beats 4 fighters on his own level, won't he get 40-50 points for that and then be on 60-70 points, despite having beaten nobody comparable to who Robinson has beaten?

They of course won't be comparable to Robinson's foes. But they'll be comparable to Collazo's own skills/ratings as a fighter.

Problem with Robinson is that because he's so elite, it's going to be harder for him to gain big point gains under this system. But at the same time, because he's so elite, he's going to consistently get reasonable point totals and still be up around the top.

[jBacca]

Then your aim seems to be, as I said earlier, to provide a "who has overachieved the most?" table.

And as I've said, points will even out over time.

Collazo did something incredible, but if the game doesn't produce another Marquez type fighter, then it's safe to say Collazo may only do the same achievement 1 in every 5 (at least). That's 20 odd points.

Robinson on the other hand, it'd be favourable to think he'd win 4/5 out of every 5, meaning despite him getting fewer points for a win, he'll get them more often. He'd probably be on around 50 points after 5.

But if Collazo now faces and beats 4 fighters on his own level, won't he get 40-50 points for that and then be on 60-70 points, despite having beaten nobody comparable to who Robinson has beaten?

Yes, but Collazo will have a better resume in relation to his own rating, even if he hasn't beat the calibre of fighters that Robinson has. This gives a clearer picture of what fighters have achieved.

I feel like I'm repeating myself quite a bit, so please read this post by Madball which is probably worded better.

The whole thing makes a bit more sense to myself now. I'll throw my support behind this as being a good, "for laughs" ranking.

My idea was to rate the points more based on the calibre of opponent in general, not the calibre of opponent compared to your fighter. Basically if you're fighting fighters ranked higher than you, you'll gain more points overall. But fight lowly ranked fighters and overall you'll gain less points. As jbacca said, it'll even out and give a clearer picture over the course of the season.

[jBacca]

Madball's next post is even clearer!

[JDC]

jBacca, everyone needs to know how these are formulated if they replace commish rankings. Otherwise you would have a big advantage when it comes to matching your fighters.

I have no problem if they remain unnoficial.

[jBacca]

Mate, I don't want them to replace the commish rankings, I just want them to be there for a laugh.

I'll feel like am ruining the buzz if I show the formula. I'll send commish it though, and if he thinks it's ok, then am sure you lot will too.

Look at it this way, if you want to score high, match tough and win, simples

[hitman09]

I'm going to stop arguing now, because we are going in circles. All I can say is, everything you have said seems to support the statement that I made earlier, that

you aren't rating "who is the best?" but rather " who has overachieved the most?"

IMO, rankings should be solely based on who has beaten the best opposition, not the best opposition in relation to themselves, but the best opposition full stop.

[jBacca]

I'm going to stop arguing now, because we are going in circles. All I can say is, everything you have said seems to support the statement that I made earlier, that

you aren't rating "who is the best?" but rather " who has overachieved the most?"

IMO, rankings should be solely based on who has beaten the best opposition, not the best opposition in relation to themselves, but the best opposition full stop.

That could have been done, but then the rankings will hardly be competitive and fun for the lower drafts, will they?

[Crease]

It's a decent idea... I hope that Jai continues this interim rankings until the Commish's are released.

Thanks for the effort Jai.

[BoxBuzz]

jb.....your Colazzo rationale above ...the part about 'in relation to his own ratings"....sounds like Special Olympics.

I think we need to quit giving a break to boxers who are "special". This should be about making a match, and kicking a butt. Period, end of story.

Simple, elegant, and unfettered by nuances, considerations, or complex excuse making.

1 win = 1 win
1 loss = 1 loss
1 draw = 1 draw
1 duck = 1 duck.

And Collazo reports to Walker ASAP for his hazing.


No flim flammery, wise guyishness, double talk, gobbledeegook, or pontificating.

Period. End of story. Print it, love it, live it.

[jBacca]

Buzz, match your fighters against hard opposition, and you'll see your fighters soar. Keep matching against these frauds, and you'll remain somewhere lost in the middle.

[JDC]

Mate, I don't want them to replace the commish rankings, I just want them to be there for a laugh.

I'll feel like am ruining the buzz if I show the formula. I'll send commish it though, and if he thinks it's ok, then am sure you lot will too.

Look at it this way, if you want to score high, match tough and win, simples

They make for an interesting addition. I'm fully behind them

[Crease]

Buzz, match your fighters against hard opposition

oh, GOD FORBID!!! (you should even think of it)

Buzz and a hard fight = surely not.