So why don’t we organize a Title???
Boxrec World Title
Boxrec World Title
Have you thought, that if boxrec can certify that the rankings are completely based on computer results, that take in consideration number of fights, quality of opponents, boxing activity and a few other aspects, it will be the only trustful Boxing Organization in the world....
So why don’t we organize a Title???
So why don’t we organize a Title???
Besides the lack of objectivity that would promote; a fighter can fall from the #1 spot without losing or doing anything to merit being "stripped".
Even if #1 gets beat, the man who beats him may not even go up to #1. This happened when Hasim Rahman beat Lennox Lewis. Lewis went from #1 to #3, Rahman from somewhere between #10-15 to #2, while Mike Tyson without fighting went to #1.
Even if #1 gets beat, the man who beats him may not even go up to #1. This happened when Hasim Rahman beat Lennox Lewis. Lewis went from #1 to #3, Rahman from somewhere between #10-15 to #2, while Mike Tyson without fighting went to #1.
It's similar to the system used for rating in Chess. You get points for beating other fighters more for a knockout. Quality of opposition is a factor as well, you get little if anything for beating a fighter way below you in points. The ratings start with the first bout in the system (1860's) and works through all 405,000 bouts in the database.
Sorry Monty but I have to disagree. For example you say of Tyson
Look at the system as one of merit not as one of percieved ability, if a fighter has worked his way up then he should only be demoted by losing to the new guns not because of inactivity. Many fighters get frozen out because they are too dangerous or don't sell to the TV. These are the guys that will suffer most from a diminshing system.
That's your opinion and no matter how much we all agree with you opinions are what this system avoids. In his come back Tyson beat Brian Nielsen and Francois Botha both of whom were highly ranked. Is Tyson really too highly ranked ? Are Ruiz, Byrd, Rahman and Johnson dead certs to beat him ?He's washed up. Who cares if he KO'd Jesus 15 years ago...
Look at the system as one of merit not as one of percieved ability, if a fighter has worked his way up then he should only be demoted by losing to the new guns not because of inactivity. Many fighters get frozen out because they are too dangerous or don't sell to the TV. These are the guys that will suffer most from a diminshing system.
NO, the system is as brutal as the sport itself, you're only as good as your last fight. If you lose to the champ then you will lose few if any points, if you lose to a bum then you will plummet.But if a fight from 15 years ago counts equally as much as a fight last night??? Well obviously it is flawed...
I agree with Matt 2 an extent.
Except that fighters don’t fight that often anymore.
Not “2 much strength” should b applied 2 a set rate over a time period for inactivity.
The factors of injury, litigation & being frozen out should b taken in 2 consideration.
Promoters like 2 sign up fighters & put them on the shelf or keep them fighting “opponents” till they are RIPE.
THEN they r signed 4 an elimination or title fight with their main prospect.
The how do U figure in the factor of Victor Polo?
He defeated the top Latin & US boxers on his way 2 title shots.
He’s lost 3 disputed decisions in 3 title challenges.
Point wise, he is ranked below William Albeyan & Bobby Velardez who he’s defeated.
He has been shelved since his diputed loss in Jan 2 Chacon.
Since the original purpose of rating fighters was 2 find the most deserving challenger, Donny Lalonde listing at
# 20 doesn’t bother me much because anything below 10 doesn’t realy matter.
An other poignant example would be Regilio Tuur who came back & lost 2 joueneyman Orlando Salido. Then manages 2
shoot back up 2 # 14 by beating another journeyman.
Another weaknress that distorts things is taking away points after losing 2 another contender.
Louis Azlie down in 26th below Lalonde, bothers me more.
Giving & taking away points is subjective, unfair & NOT necessary.
The way around this is 2 reach a certain level & then fight journeymen like Colin Dunne is doing in the 135’s.
I think the high rating of prospects that r untested at true world class level is BIGGEST weakness in the ratings.
They should not b allowed 2 rise in the ratings passing over proven contenders without defeating a fighter above them.
Except that fighters don’t fight that often anymore.
Not “2 much strength” should b applied 2 a set rate over a time period for inactivity.
The factors of injury, litigation & being frozen out should b taken in 2 consideration.
Promoters like 2 sign up fighters & put them on the shelf or keep them fighting “opponents” till they are RIPE.
THEN they r signed 4 an elimination or title fight with their main prospect.
The how do U figure in the factor of Victor Polo?
He defeated the top Latin & US boxers on his way 2 title shots.
He’s lost 3 disputed decisions in 3 title challenges.
Point wise, he is ranked below William Albeyan & Bobby Velardez who he’s defeated.
He has been shelved since his diputed loss in Jan 2 Chacon.
Since the original purpose of rating fighters was 2 find the most deserving challenger, Donny Lalonde listing at
# 20 doesn’t bother me much because anything below 10 doesn’t realy matter.
An other poignant example would be Regilio Tuur who came back & lost 2 joueneyman Orlando Salido. Then manages 2
shoot back up 2 # 14 by beating another journeyman.
Another weaknress that distorts things is taking away points after losing 2 another contender.
Louis Azlie down in 26th below Lalonde, bothers me more.
Giving & taking away points is subjective, unfair & NOT necessary.
The way around this is 2 reach a certain level & then fight journeymen like Colin Dunne is doing in the 135’s.
I think the high rating of prospects that r untested at true world class level is BIGGEST weakness in the ratings.
They should not b allowed 2 rise in the ratings passing over proven contenders without defeating a fighter above them.
I admit am not a statistician, I have never studied statistics or previously had even the remotest interest in statistics. The boxrec ratings were developed with the help of Professor Mark Glickman of Boston university possible the world's leading expert on "one on one" sports statistics. He started me off with a rating system :-
http://www.glicko.com/glicko2.doc/example.html
which I coded up (eventually as it took me weeks to figure out what it all meant) and ran. It produced a set of ratings that were intelligable but way way inacurate. I then took on board some of Michael Paul's ideas and simplified a lot of the system, this produced much better results. I then simplified it again a couple more times and each time the ratings got better (in my opinion) until I ended up with the system in place at the moment.
Now I'll make a deal with everyone
If you all agree on a system of calculating the ratings and get that system written down in a logical way then I will code it up and run it through the database for you. If it produces better ratings we'll keep it.
John
http://www.glicko.com/glicko2.doc/example.html
which I coded up (eventually as it took me weeks to figure out what it all meant) and ran. It produced a set of ratings that were intelligable but way way inacurate. I then took on board some of Michael Paul's ideas and simplified a lot of the system, this produced much better results. I then simplified it again a couple more times and each time the ratings got better (in my opinion) until I ended up with the system in place at the moment.
Now I'll make a deal with everyone
If you all agree on a system of calculating the ratings and get that system written down in a logical way then I will code it up and run it through the database for you. If it produces better ratings we'll keep it.
John
-
Tomato-Can
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 656
- Joined: 28 Dec 2001, 20:00
I would caution not to use this fact as a judgement of the rankings though.Blue wrote:BTW,
Jose Rojas won over a puffed up 19th rated Bantamweight friday.
He joins Jose Valbuena with the distingtion of being rated ABOVE Yober Ortega who has beaten BOTH of them.
I believe if you were to complete the records of Ortega's opponents, he would most likely rise above Rojas and Valbuena (whom he only trails by 47pts), where he rightfully belongs. Completing (if possible) guys like Ever Garcia, Jorge Soto and Juan Garcia would be a good start.
While hardly perfect, I believe the rankings are quite good given the incompleteness of the database.
Regards,
Brett
A suggestion would be to penalise fighters for inactivity. Create a system where you lose a fraction of your points for every month ( or couple of months ) that you don't fight. That points-reduction should be significant enough to result in a fighter like Donny Lalonde having to start virtually from scratch when coming back, having lost his rating for inactivity.
And also significant enough that points earned for a "big win" will be gone in a decent amount of time ( let's say a year ).
IMO it's important that you make a distinction between the points system for all time rankings and current rankings, it's okay in the former to rest on your laurels and there shouldn't be the proposed inactivity-penalty system. Again the example of Donny Lalonde, his alltime ranking shouldn't be hurt by him being inactive for a long time. But for fighters in the "title race" activity DOES count.
You could make a case that a certain system is already in working, only the other way around; fighters that are inactive are being penalised in the way that they miss out on the points active fighters gather. But in my opinion that's not enough, (in)activity should count a lot more when you're goal is to rank fighters in a way that should reflect who is deserving of a title shot and who's not. So a system as I've described here seems to make sense
And also significant enough that points earned for a "big win" will be gone in a decent amount of time ( let's say a year ).
IMO it's important that you make a distinction between the points system for all time rankings and current rankings, it's okay in the former to rest on your laurels and there shouldn't be the proposed inactivity-penalty system. Again the example of Donny Lalonde, his alltime ranking shouldn't be hurt by him being inactive for a long time. But for fighters in the "title race" activity DOES count.
You could make a case that a certain system is already in working, only the other way around; fighters that are inactive are being penalised in the way that they miss out on the points active fighters gather. But in my opinion that's not enough, (in)activity should count a lot more when you're goal is to rank fighters in a way that should reflect who is deserving of a title shot and who's not. So a system as I've described here seems to make sense
You shouldn't take punishing too literally. It's just a way to make activity count when ranking fighters. The "John Smith" scenario is not realistic, because noone wants a system where it's JUST activity that counts. You've got to find a good balance in points being awarded for activity and for quality of opposition.
The fact that there are certain fighters that only fight about once a year is THEIR problem, if they want to be rated higher let 'em fight more. What's the problem? If it's up to some fighters the most "fair" system would be one where you've scored one big win, don't have to risk anything by fighting and just wait around for your titleshot.
In this system fighters have to FIGHT to protect their rankings, and IMO that's the way it should be.
The fact that there are certain fighters that only fight about once a year is THEIR problem, if they want to be rated higher let 'em fight more. What's the problem? If it's up to some fighters the most "fair" system would be one where you've scored one big win, don't have to risk anything by fighting and just wait around for your titleshot.
In this system fighters have to FIGHT to protect their rankings, and IMO that's the way it should be.
Keep it as simple as possible so that the casual fan can make sense of it.
I have no problem with once a year as long as it’s a bout on their level or higher.
That way, the old timers & over protected prospects will not be able to avoid one an other.
In my mind as a record keeper, if a boxer had a bout on his level or higher on Jan 1, 01 and
he fights his next bout on this same level on Dec, 31, 2002 there is no in-activity.
The American Boxing Commission Ratings Criteria,
http://www.boxrec.com/phpBB2/viewtopic. ... s+criteria
is a good place 2 start from allthough there are still loop holes 2 b filled.
I hope we can all agree that the 1st 4 most important criteria “in order of importance” are,
1) Head to head comparison and common opponents based on wins, losses & draws.
2) Recent performance and accomplishments (a+b+c+a)
3) Overall quality of opposition (defining fights)
4) Activity
In real life, merit is used in armed forces, business, civil service, etc.. you earn your position.
In boxing the only way up should earned by beating someone above you.
There is defining fight that states your rating.
Keep in mind that there is silent hand called Attrition.
The 5th criteria is most active, yet least noticed and understood that happens automaticaly.
You move up by someone above you becoming inactive, retiring or moving to another weight class.
You slide by someone beating a boxer ranked ubove you.
There is NO real purpose of ranking fighters below the very top level unless it is to help promoters,
matchmakers & trainers determine where their boxer stand in the overall order of things.
I have no problem with once a year as long as it’s a bout on their level or higher.
That way, the old timers & over protected prospects will not be able to avoid one an other.
In my mind as a record keeper, if a boxer had a bout on his level or higher on Jan 1, 01 and
he fights his next bout on this same level on Dec, 31, 2002 there is no in-activity.
The American Boxing Commission Ratings Criteria,
http://www.boxrec.com/phpBB2/viewtopic. ... s+criteria
is a good place 2 start from allthough there are still loop holes 2 b filled.
I hope we can all agree that the 1st 4 most important criteria “in order of importance” are,
1) Head to head comparison and common opponents based on wins, losses & draws.
2) Recent performance and accomplishments (a+b+c+a)
3) Overall quality of opposition (defining fights)
4) Activity
In real life, merit is used in armed forces, business, civil service, etc.. you earn your position.
In boxing the only way up should earned by beating someone above you.
There is defining fight that states your rating.
Keep in mind that there is silent hand called Attrition.
The 5th criteria is most active, yet least noticed and understood that happens automaticaly.
You move up by someone above you becoming inactive, retiring or moving to another weight class.
You slide by someone beating a boxer ranked ubove you.
There is NO real purpose of ranking fighters below the very top level unless it is to help promoters,
matchmakers & trainers determine where their boxer stand in the overall order of things.
Have to disagree. Lewis and Holyfield don't give a damn about this ranking system? That shouldn't be a factor in creating a system.Well the problem is, that Lewis and Holyfield don't give a damn about this ranking system hehe. It has to be built around them, and not on the overactive Brian Nielsons of the world.
You put certain criteria in your system, and whoever comes out on top, comes out on top. I'm sure that if the system is sound Lewis and Holyfield WILL come out at or near the top, but HAVING them at the top should not be a criterium in itself.
MontyCircus wrote,
The rankings should reflect a "who would beat who if they fought" type of question...not a "who once had a hall of fame career before I was born" type of question...or a "which fat slob can beat up all the children in Denmark" type of question...
20 years ago Paul Erwin of the South African Boxing World magazine said it best.
“No mathematical equation will ever provide the answer to who wins, loses or draws.
Certainly not when one shot on the chin -even a lucky shot- can upset the calculations of mice and men,
the boxing writers included. It is the sheer unpredictability of fist-throwing that is it's major fascination”
If U want 2 know "who would beat who if they fought", then U r talking about a betting sheet & not rankings.
U need a completely “different & subjective” criteria.
The 1st thing is 2 agree on what the group in this thread want 2 accomplish.
IMO, the purpose of ranking fighters is to determine objectively who deserves through his accomplishments, a shot at the title.
In my mind Smith should b ranked no higher than 200th until he beats a fighter ranked above him.
I don't need 2 give or take away points 2 figure that out.
The rankings should reflect a "who would beat who if they fought" type of question...not a "who once had a hall of fame career before I was born" type of question...or a "which fat slob can beat up all the children in Denmark" type of question...
20 years ago Paul Erwin of the South African Boxing World magazine said it best.
“No mathematical equation will ever provide the answer to who wins, loses or draws.
Certainly not when one shot on the chin -even a lucky shot- can upset the calculations of mice and men,
the boxing writers included. It is the sheer unpredictability of fist-throwing that is it's major fascination”
If U want 2 know "who would beat who if they fought", then U r talking about a betting sheet & not rankings.
U need a completely “different & subjective” criteria.
The 1st thing is 2 agree on what the group in this thread want 2 accomplish.
IMO, the purpose of ranking fighters is to determine objectively who deserves through his accomplishments, a shot at the title.
In my mind Smith should b ranked no higher than 200th until he beats a fighter ranked above him.
I don't need 2 give or take away points 2 figure that out.
MontyCircus wrote,
Yeah, anyone can beat anyone with one punch. But if you put any weight into that statement, then you wouldn't want rankings at all. So why did you quote it? I have no idea...
And how is "who would beat who if they fought" any different from "determining through their accomplishments who should get a shot at the title" ?
I quoted it because "Who would beat who if they fought" is a question 2 c who would win a potentional match up.
U r trying 2 read the FUTURE. (subjective)
NO 1 really knows what’s going 2 happen, it’s a subjective opinion based upon ability or potential.
PAST accomplishments r based on actual results & performance.(objective)
The best fighters should be ranked highly, the worst fighters should be ranked lowly......do you disagree?
I don't see your point
The best PROVEN fighters should be ranked highly.
Their accomplishments demonstate that they r the cream of the crop.
Rankings should be done completely merit-wise, rather than by ability or potential.
"In my mind Smith should b ranked no higher than 200th until he beats a fighter ranked above him.
I don't need 2 give or take away points 2 figure that out."
Right, but the system does need to give or take away points to figure that out...
And so I wonder if the current system would support the logical outcome that you stated (or something similar)...
We r no longer discussing the old system.
Do a ratings search on the Forum & you’ll c I’m a critic of the present ratings.
If not then why and what can be changed?
Giving & taking away points makes 4 bungee jump ratings & IMO, unnecessary.
Yesterday’s Epifanio Mendoza’s TKO over Tokunbo Olajide on espn2 is good example.
Tokunbo fell 27 pts from #15 2 #41 in the present 154 ratings.
Why would U want 2 take away past accomplishments?
It discourages “names” from taking on lower ranked opponents.
In the 140’s, Ricky Hatton’s level of opponents r not any better than Miguel Cotto’s.
Ricky’s #4 & Miguel is #14. The only difference in their records is that it looks like Hatton’s beaten 18 more set-em-ups.
Why would U want 2 give points 2 a prospect 4 beating novices & opponents?
Points for activity only encourage record padding.
Yeah, anyone can beat anyone with one punch. But if you put any weight into that statement, then you wouldn't want rankings at all. So why did you quote it? I have no idea...
And how is "who would beat who if they fought" any different from "determining through their accomplishments who should get a shot at the title" ?
I quoted it because "Who would beat who if they fought" is a question 2 c who would win a potentional match up.
U r trying 2 read the FUTURE. (subjective)
NO 1 really knows what’s going 2 happen, it’s a subjective opinion based upon ability or potential.
PAST accomplishments r based on actual results & performance.(objective)
The best fighters should be ranked highly, the worst fighters should be ranked lowly......do you disagree?
I don't see your point
The best PROVEN fighters should be ranked highly.
Their accomplishments demonstate that they r the cream of the crop.
Rankings should be done completely merit-wise, rather than by ability or potential.
"In my mind Smith should b ranked no higher than 200th until he beats a fighter ranked above him.
I don't need 2 give or take away points 2 figure that out."
Right, but the system does need to give or take away points to figure that out...
And so I wonder if the current system would support the logical outcome that you stated (or something similar)...
We r no longer discussing the old system.
Do a ratings search on the Forum & you’ll c I’m a critic of the present ratings.
If not then why and what can be changed?
Giving & taking away points makes 4 bungee jump ratings & IMO, unnecessary.
Yesterday’s Epifanio Mendoza’s TKO over Tokunbo Olajide on espn2 is good example.
Tokunbo fell 27 pts from #15 2 #41 in the present 154 ratings.
Why would U want 2 take away past accomplishments?
It discourages “names” from taking on lower ranked opponents.
In the 140’s, Ricky Hatton’s level of opponents r not any better than Miguel Cotto’s.
Ricky’s #4 & Miguel is #14. The only difference in their records is that it looks like Hatton’s beaten 18 more set-em-ups.
Why would U want 2 give points 2 a prospect 4 beating novices & opponents?
Points for activity only encourage record padding.