Ratings - please read before commenting - Archived

[greg]

... I've just noticed that boxrec moved Vitali Klitschko (Wlad being the second now) to the top spot... any reason for it?

[computerrank]

... I've just noticed that boxrec moved Vitali Klitschko (Wlad being the second now) to the top spot... any reason for it?

Wladimir's best opponent within the last 18 months (547 days) was David Haye. Now Haye gets out of this time window - and Wladimir's next best opponent was Tony Thomsen with only 425 pre-bout rating points.

So Wladimir looses part of his points.

[JCS]

How is Ann Saccurato the #1 P4P Women's boxer?


http://boxrec.com/ratings.php?country=& ... &SUBMIT=Go

[squiggy]

Are there any plans to re-work the all-time ratings?

My suggestion would be to create a new database table so that fighters can accumulate points in more than one division, eliminating a large issue with the current ratings... allowing a fighter to be ranked in more than one division for all-time purposes.

Furthermore, I'd like to suggest something similar to a new baseball stat called JAWS which basically uses the total rating combined with a rating of the best 7 years.

Instead of using solely rating points, I would suggest utilizing rank position as something that is equally weighted. While I can appreciate that rating points impose depth consideration, it seems that some appreciation should be given to era-specificity.

I'd also suggest dropping at least two data points per year, if not four. If the all-time rankings are only run once per month, then so be it.. but the outcome will be far superior to what we have now. To make things run more smoothly, only insert a record if a fighter is ranked say.. #25 or better -- why do we care about anything less?

A table like:

BoxerId,Division,Rating,Rank

At this point, the only question mark is how to use rating and rank equally, but it's a good setup to start with.

This is something similar to what I use at my site (http://www.fightmatrix.com/all-time-mma-rankings/)

One more issue will present itself if we allow fighters to be ranked in more than one division.. and that is, using their rating points accumulated in one division in another division, for having fought a soft opponent. There will need to be some sort of flag that will allow count for that division move based on a quality performance of some kind. Example: If Sergio Martinez takes a fight at 168 against ranked #79 and stays there for 10 months using his lofty Middleweight points, he should not get credit for any of that time. Rather, in that case, it would be assigned back at 160.

In terms of active statistics, it seems pretty obvious to me that a fighter should be ranked at every weight he's actively fighting at. Then you have to have some standard for what is "active," and my own choice is fighting at least once a year. So I would currently have Broner ranked at both super feather and lightweight, Salido ranked at both feather and super feather, Dawson ranked at both super middle and light heavy, etc. And once a year passes without a fight at a certain weight, then that ranking goes inactive.
This would spare us the embarrassment of, for example, Hopkins regaining the top spot from Dawson simply by being inactive while Dawson was challenging the king of another division. Dawson currently would maintain the top spot at light heavy, because he has fought there within the last year, and his ranking there shouldn't be affected by the Ward fight. He also would be considered active at super middleweight, where the Boxrec stats currently give him 652 points. Which would give him the No. 3 spot at that weight.
And that's fine by me, that a boxer should keep most (but not all) of his ranking when he changes weights. Because it's not like the different weight classes take place within different sports. For Roy Jones Jr. to have gained a high heavyweight ranking by beating the not great John Ruiz was fine by me, because he was Roy Jones Jr. In the big picture, you can't say he hadn't earned a high ranking. While you can argue that it overrated him as a heavyweight, what are you gonna do? There was no reason to assume that he would lose to any old heavyweight bum.
Juan Manuel Marquez is top-ranked at light welter, despite having never fought anyone of any consequence there. And I think that's fine, because he's Juan Manuel Marquez, he's fought at that division in the past year, and that's enough to earn him the top spot.
And I see your Martinez example the same way. A Martinez who, in say 2013, moved up to 168 and whupped on the #79 fighter would still be a P4P ranked fighter. Your CV doesn't just disappear when you change weights. (Though of course your rating slips after enough time without quality opponents, and I think that's smart.)
Incidentally, how does Boxrec currently decide which weight class to give a fighter who is active in more than one? Why not consider JMM a top welterweight and a top light welter? Or, back when Mayweather's Cotto and Ortiz fights were both quite recent, why not list him as a top welter and light middle? And if you're not going to do that, do you just make a guess as to which one he will fight in next?

[robertdaluz]

Ok. Read the link...zzzzz. It's all fine and dandy, as long as that guideline is followed. There are a slew of fighters that are ranked in a weight who have never made the actual weight limit for that category. This site is very conveinent, I believe that is the reason for its prominence, but it is not as accurate as it should be. Why? Unknown. We are talking about raw data here, not hard to figure out. Somebody pulling your strings, BoxRec, or are you simply cognitively deficient?
Please, no more links to read. An answer in "plain English" will be adequate. The "slew of fighters"?... too much to list but I will provide many names, if desired.

-Robert Daluz

[JCS]

Ok. Read the link...zzzzz. It's all fine and dandy, as long as that guideline is followed. There are a slew of fighters that are ranked in a weight who have never made the actual weight limit for that category. This site is very conveinent, I believe that is the reason for its prominence, but it is not as accurate as it should be. Why? Unknown. We are talking about raw data here, not hard to figure out. Somebody pulling your strings, BoxRec, or are you simply cognitively deficient?
Please, no more links to read. An answer in "plain English" will be adequate. The "slew of fighters"?... too much to list but I will provide many names, if desired.

-Robert Daluz

Perhaps someone would answer you, if you show some respect for the thousands of hours that were put into the system.

[robertdaluz]

quit being confrontational before you get your feelings hurt...and quit hiding behind a penname.

[JCS]

quit being confrontational before you get your feelings hurt...and quit hiding behind a penname.

I'll answer your original question hoping that you go away.

There are a few reasons for fighters being assigned to divisions lower than which they previously or ever fought:

- Fighters or their teams asking to be put in a different division so they can attract fights in a desired weight class.
- Fighters being assigned to a lower division because they took a catchweight fight above the division.
- Data error.

[robertdaluz]

The original question is valid and it still stands. You answered part of the question, not like you are the authority on the subject. The reason you gave is contrary to a record. Hence, the name Box Rec would be debunk.

"Fighters or their teams asking to be put in a different division so they can attract fights in a desired weight class", this would be a rediculous notion and would not be indicative of a statistical website, by any means. Desires, hopes, gains; these are all words associated with personal gain, which have no bearing on data compilation. At the risk of becoming a frivilous website and a nincompoop like you defending, I and many others others would just like to see accurate recordings. We do not want the desires and wishes of mangaer/trainer/promoter/fighter to be displayed. Not too much to ask. Thank You.

Post Script: "Perhaps someone would answer you, if you show some respect for the thousands of hours that were put into the system."

What about the tens of thousands of hours fighters put into the sport? I believe that time to be notable and worthy, as proper respect to the fighters and their associates lets just tell it "how it is" instead of "how somebody wants it to be told".

[robertdaluz]

LOL!! Somebody just reported me for name calling...?? Wow!! A sad day. Well, did you not call me a tool in your initial post? ok then. dont talk to me anymore...i do not confer with people who have little or nothing to offer.

[Bobbyptsd]

LOL!! Somebody just reported me for name calling...?? Wow!! A sad day. Well, did you not call me a tool in your initial post? ok then. dont talk to me anymore...i do not confer with people who have little or nothing to offer.

You started being quite disrespectful, before anyone called you anything.

I'd suggest you go back over your short posting history, and see if you find anything that might strike you as being unusual.

Here's a hint: It has something to do with you acting like a jerk, right out of the gate.

[Ringropes]

How do I get my name into the boxrec archives
I am a new fighter

[computerrank]

How do I get my name into the boxrec archives
I am a new fighter

Please, post your fight data here:

http://boxrec.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=1

[lionlinekz]

Please update Kanat Islam last win was over Yolexy Leiva. Also please update ratings of Gennady Golovkin

[computerrank]

Please update Kanat Islam last win was over Yolexy Leiva. Also please update ratings of Gennady Golovkin

Gennady Golovkin did'nt get any points for his last win as his opponent had less than 25% of his rating before the bout.

[JCS]

Martin,

How does Tarver still have 553 points?

I would think that the no contest would not count toward the enforcement of having to fight a quality boxer in past 18 months?

[computerrank]

Martin,

How does Tarver still have 553 points?

I would think that the no contest would not count toward the enforcement of having to fight a quality boxer in past 18 months?

It counts at the moment - it shouldn't, perhaps. Not sure for this.

[JCS]

Martin,

How does Tarver still have 553 points?

I would think that the no contest would not count toward the enforcement of having to fight a quality boxer in past 18 months?

It counts at the moment - it shouldn't, perhaps. Not sure for this.

I don't think it should count... It does nothing for either fighter's rating and the result is not counted for any other purposes.. except to remain ranked, but I think this is OK...

[squiggy]

It would seem more fair for it to count for Tarver if it'd been his opponent who'd failed the drug test.

[marcianofan]

Yeah it seems like you'd either have to set a rule that only the non-offending fighter gets credit for having a fight (which might be difficult for a computer to enforce fairly- I don't know), or you've got to leave it the way it is. Kayode did everyhting right, fought a complete fight, and earned no less than a draw despite his opponent's misdeeds, so it would be a greater miscarriage of justice to allow the NC to hurt him than to allow it to help Tarver.

Computerrank- I'm curious- if I were to ask you the date on which a given fighter was last ranked outside the top 10, 20, etc, would you be able to easily find out and answer? I've produced a set of rankings for the heaviest 6 divisions, for which I used the Ring rankings as a precursor, but they've gone so off the rails that I would rather use Boxrec when I expand to the lighter weights, if possible.

[JCS]

Yeah it seems like you'd either have to set a rule that only the non-offending fighter gets credit for having a fight (which might be difficult for a computer to enforce fairly- I don't know), or you've got to leave it the way it is. Kayode did everyhting right, fought a complete fight, and earned no less than a draw despite his opponent's misdeeds, so it would be a greater miscarriage of justice to allow the NC to hurt him than to allow it to help Tarver.

Perhaps some sort of special handler is necessary. Maybe the penalty is halved -- for example.

If the fight ended by accidental headbutt, 30 seconds in... the fight may as well have never happened, yet would still "look" the same to the software.

[computerrank]

...
Computerrank- I'm curious- if I were to ask you the date on which a given fighter was last ranked outside the top 10, 20, etc, would you be able to easily find out and answer? I've produced a set of rankings for the heaviest 6 divisions, for which I used the Ring rankings as a precursor, but they've gone so off the rails that I would rather use Boxrec when I expand to the lighter weights, if possible.

I could do this:

- for all boxers ranked inside the top 30 of every weight division

- find the last month, when he was ranked outside of the top 30 of any weight division

- based on the ratings after every bout

[marcianofan]

I could do this:

- for all boxers ranked inside the top 30 of every weight division

- find the last month, when he was ranked outside of the top 30 of any weight division

- based on the ratings after every bout

Is there something special about the top 30, or was that just an example? I would mainly be interested specifically in the length of a fighter's stay in the top 10 and/or top 20.

[computerrank]

I could do this:

- for all boxers ranked inside the top 30 of every weight division

- find the last month, when he was ranked outside of the top 30 of any weight division

- based on the ratings after every bout

Is there something special about the top 30, or was that just an example? I would mainly be interested specifically in the length of a fighter's stay in the top 10 and/or top 20.

So, for the top 10 and the top 20.

[megastargraphix]

Why Devon Alexander ranked higher than Manny Pacquiao in BoxRec Pound for Pound Ratings? I think Manny Pacquiao is a lot better than Devon Alexander.