Ratings - please read before commenting - Archived

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 06 Dec 2005, 11:30

The pfp ranking still sucks. Chris Byrd at #8 gives me stomach cramps, as does Ruiz at 18. In contrast, guys who dominate their divison - Mormeck, Parra - are nowhere near a pfp-ranking.

P

Todd Hodgson · Post by **Todd Hodgson** » 06 Dec 2005, 17:52

computerrank wrote: Brian showed his highest BoxRec rating after defeating Holmes for the WBO belt on 1997-01-24.

Did you mean IBO?

jujigatame · Post by **jujigatame** » 06 Dec 2005, 19:50

The pfp ranking still sucks. Chris Byrd at #8 gives me stomach cramps, as does Ruiz at 18. In contrast, guys who dominate their divison - Mormeck, Parra - are nowhere near a pfp-ranking.

Well you have to take into account the questionable decisions against Oquendo and Golota. BoxRec isn't in the business of re-scoring fights themselves, and if those fights had been scored properly in the first place I doubt he'd be so high on the list.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 07 Dec 2005, 10:45

jujigatame wrote:
The pfp ranking still sucks. Chris Byrd at #8 gives me stomach cramps, as does Ruiz at 18. In contrast, guys who dominate their divison - Mormeck, Parra - are nowhere near a pfp-ranking.
Well you have to take into account the questionable decisions against Oquendo and Golota. BoxRec isn't in the business of re-scoring fights themselves, and if those fights had been scored properly in the first place I doubt he'd be so high on the list.

My hunch is that there is an implicit bias in favor of higher and/or more established weight classes. Oquendo and Golota aren't that high in the heavyweight rankings that they should propel one so far up in the pfp-list.

P

computerrank · Post by **computerrank** » 07 Dec 2005, 11:09

pundit wrote:...

My hunch is that there is an implicit bias in favor of higher and/or more established weight classes. Oquendo and Golota aren't that high in the heavyweight rankings that they should propel one so far up in the pfp-list.

P

pundit,

there is no bias for certain divisions. The top ratings depend on competition in the divisions. You only need to defeat the top boxers.

Heavyweight - 1091 boxers - 1758 top rating
Cruiserweight - 730 boxers - 1506 top rating
Light Heavyweight - 575 boxers - 1759 top rating
Super Middleweight - 684 boxers - 1597 top rating
Middleweight - 937 boxers - 1801 top rating

You can see:

Top rating in Light Heavyweight is as high as in Heavyweight and Middleweight with very few boxers involved.

Cruiserweight and Super Middleweight lack of competition ...

Best regards
Martin

jujigatame · Post by **jujigatame** » 07 Dec 2005, 13:32

My hunch is that there is an implicit bias in favor of higher and/or more established weight classes. Oquendo and Golota aren't that high in the heavyweight rankings that they should propel one so far up in the pfp-list.

P

You're looking at it backwards. When Byrd fought Oquendo and Golota, he was probably already highly ranked due to his wins over Holyfield, Tua, and Vitali. If the judges had scored the Oquendo and Golota bouts more sensibly, he'd have gotten thrown back down to a more reasonable level. However, they didn't so he maintained his high position and kept inching up with each subsequent decision he was given.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 07 Dec 2005, 17:04

computerrank wrote:
pundit wrote:...

My hunch is that there is an implicit bias in favor of higher and/or more established weight classes. Oquendo and Golota aren't that high in the heavyweight rankings that they should propel one so far up in the pfp-list.

P
pundit,

there is no bias for certain divisions. The top ratings depend on competition in the divisions. You only need to defeat the top boxers.

Heavyweight - 1091 boxers - 1758 top rating
Cruiserweight - 730 boxers - 1506 top rating
Light Heavyweight - 575 boxers - 1759 top rating
Super Middleweight - 684 boxers - 1597 top rating
Middleweight - 937 boxers - 1801 top rating

You can see:

Top rating in Light Heavyweight is as high as in Heavyweight and Middleweight with very few boxers involved.

Cruiserweight and Super Middleweight lack of competition ...

Best regards
Martin

Well, you have said this before but it doesn't overcome my doubts - Mormeck has fought and beaten everybody with a name in his divsion, to a point where it's hard to find a credible opponent for him - and yet he has far fewer points than Lamon Brewster, whose best win was Vlad Klitschko - your #6 (!) heavyweight.

Heavyweight, Ligh Heavyweight and Middlweigh are THE three classical divisions in boxing, and incidentally the fighters there tend to get the highest ratings. I do not believe at all that you fiddle with the weights intentionally, but I also doubt this is entirely by chance.

Could it be that there is some endogenous factor - say, as the classical divison have been around for so long, fighters there had the opportunity to score points against fighters with a high points score, who in turn got their score from meeting fighters with high scores.... and so on all the way back until 1900. In contrast, at Cruiser much less of this has been possible due to the short lifespan of the division. - ?

On a different note: I notice that fighters are re-classified almost daily - for example, dunno how often you have promoted Castillo from Light to Light Welterweight by now and all the way back down. Does this have to be?

Btw, in spite of all this you're doing a very worthy and smart job. My points are just details.

P

computerrank · Post by **computerrank** » 13 Dec 2005, 04:09

dangerous wrote:would some one in boxrec land please put my Oct first results in your program. You can contact Aaron Davis the Kansas commisioner on this I do not know what to do. This show was in Topeka Ks, Oct 1 at the Kansas Expocentre.

dangerous,

please address this issue at Record Queries Forum:

http://www.boxrec.com/forum/viewforum.p ... 62fb7889ad

Best regards
Martin

computerrank · Post by **computerrank** » 13 Dec 2005, 04:15

pundit,

Could it be that there is some endogenous factor - say, as the classical divison have been around for so long, fighters there had the opportunity to score points against fighters with a high points score, who in turn got their score from meeting fighters with high scores.... and so on all the way back until 1900. In contrast, at Cruiser much less of this has been possible due to the short lifespan of the division. - ?

I already analysed this and got:

- This initial effect is limited to the very first years
- Cruiserweight saw much higher ratings in the past - so this not from still developing competition

On a different note: I notice that fighters are re-classified almost daily - for example, dunno how often you have promoted Castillo from Light to Light Welterweight by now and all the way back down. Does this have to be?

The boxers are not assigned to the weight classes by the program - this is to decision of the editors - sometimes switching forth and back.

Best regards
Martin

jujigatame · Post by **jujigatame** » 13 Dec 2005, 10:50

Question:

How did Prosper Matsuura get ahead of Nabuo Nashiro even though Nashiro beat him less than a month ago and neither guy has fought since?

JCS · Post by **JCS** » 13 Dec 2005, 13:30

jujigatame wrote:Question:

How did Prosper Matsuura get ahead of Nabuo Nashiro even though Nashiro beat him less than a month ago and neither guy has fought since?

That's actually a pretty good question. Are you just hunting for things to complain bout? lol..

In the system I'm working on Prosper is #27 and the other is #22.

jujigatame · Post by **jujigatame** » 13 Dec 2005, 13:32

Actually I was just rooting around trying to find guys with really good single-digit records and happened upon it. It's very unusual, I wonder what could have made that happen. A bug maybe?

JCS · Post by **JCS** » 13 Dec 2005, 14:00

jujigatame wrote:Actually I was just rooting around trying to find guys with really good single-digit records and happened upon it. It's very unusual, I wonder what could have made that happen. A bug maybe?

More than likely. It was a close matchup.. so perhaps c-rank forgot to put the winner 1-up on the loser after this type of close match.. or its got something to do with decay or cuts... Dunno..

John Shearer · Post by **John Shearer** » 18 Dec 2005, 16:43

Is anyone going to answer the question as to why Fields and Bakhtov jumped several spots recently without having fought. I know there are "formulas" involved in this, but can you spare us statological scatology and explain to us the logic behind these jumps in layman's terms? I would appreciate it. And what was that comment of "you're quick" all about when the same question was asked earlier today?

computerrank · Post by **computerrank** » 18 Dec 2005, 17:29

John Shearer wrote:Is anyone going to answer the question as to why Fields and Bakhtov jumped several spots recently without having fought. I know there are "formulas" involved in this, but can you spare us statological scatology and explain to us the logic behind these jumps in layman's terms? I would appreciate it. And what was that comment of "you're quick" all about when the same question was asked earlier today?

John Shearer,

there was a bug correction in the program - and this correction had an impact to the rating of some boxers. The rating of some boxers was calculated too low by mistake in the past as for Fields and Bakhtov.

Best regards
Martin

gregor · Post by **gregor** » 18 Dec 2005, 19:41

I just looked at HW ratings and found Valuev at no 2. That is clearly insane!

No matter it can be argued he "won" with Ruiz and Donald - IHMO it may be good idea to improve the rating system in any possible way to protect from things like that happening.

JCS · Post by **JCS** » 18 Dec 2005, 19:52

gregor wrote:I just looked at HW ratings and found Valuev at no 2. That is clearly insane!

No matter it can be argued he "won" with Ruiz and Donald - IHMO it may be good idea to improve the rating system in any possible way to protect from things like that happening.

It happens.. What have the other top heavies done lately?? This guy has done nothing but beat the fighters in front of him. A computer can only see the decisions.. not the subjective thing that humans can. Based on that, a solid argument could be made for him being ranked #1.

jbryniar1 · Post by **jbryniar1** » 17 Jan 2006, 10:25

Since Baby Joe is reinstated, does he get ranked again here, or after he fights again?

computerrank · Post by **computerrank** » 17 Jan 2006, 14:20

jbryniar1 wrote:Since Baby Joe is reinstated, does he get ranked again here, or after he fights again?

After he fights again.

jomothepure · Post by **jomothepure** » 20 Jan 2006, 10:37

Sorry if anyone has done this before, and for the not-strictly-boxrec subject, but does anyone fancy having a guess (educated if at all possible) as to how the IBO's system works?

This page will hopefully give you the full ratings for heavyweights
http://www.iboboxing.com/ranking/hvy.htm

but for the lazy a brief summary of the top 5:

Byrd 4157 pts
Valuev 3025
Ruiz 2800
W Klitchko 1971
Brewster 1966

(rankings were updated this month so takes into account recent goings-on)

There seems to me a huge gulf between Byrd and #2, and also Valuev/Ruiz and the rest, whilst from Klitchko-Toney at 8 things are pretty close, and Kirk Johnson is a surprising #7.

It baffles me what they compute or lay emphasis to be honest. I assume they don't lay emphasis on the more recent fights, given Johnson's position and Byrd's innactivity.

That's all I can think of right now. If anyone has any suggestions I'd be much obliged

computerrank · Post by **computerrank** » 21 Feb 2006, 13:30

New feature in BoxRec Rating:

I have calculated all years end ratings for all weight divisions (top16). Please look at:

http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.php/B ... al_Ratings

And please, give me your response.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 21 Feb 2006, 17:12

How can Jackson Chanet be three ranks above Mikkel Kessler in the s-m rankings? Please explain. The only half-known fighter Chanet has fought is Tsypko, and even he is no more than #11 at s-m.

JCS · Post by **JCS** » 21 Feb 2006, 17:16

A better question is, how the hell can Robin Reid be above Calzaghe.

I get the feeling Kessler and Calzaghe suffer from the same problem. C-Rank is hard on guys who haven't faced great competition in a while.. Too hard if you ask me.

mattyp151 · Post by **mattyp151** » 21 Feb 2006, 17:31

jcs83md wrote:A better question is, how the hell can Robin Reid be above Calzaghe.

I get the feeling Kessler and Calzaghe suffer from the same problem. C-Rank is hard on guys who haven't faced great competition in a while.. Too hard if you ask me.

It's more stiff than an uncomputed ranking system. When Hatton fought Maussa, he was 6th or 7th P4P going into that fight. Coming out he was like 14th.

The fact Valuev is put higher than Israel Vazquez really worries me.

JCS · Post by **JCS** » 21 Feb 2006, 17:35

Mattyp151 wrote:
jcs83md wrote:A better question is, how the hell can Robin Reid be above Calzaghe.

I get the feeling Kessler and Calzaghe suffer from the same problem. C-Rank is hard on guys who haven't faced great competition in a while.. Too hard if you ask me.
It's more stiff than an uncomputed ranking system. When Hatton fought Maussa, he was 6th or 7th P4P going into that fight. Coming out he was like 14th.

The fact Valuev is put higher than Israel Vazquez really worries me.

That Hatton thing could've conincided with a modification. The whole P4P thing is weird.. its mainly because theres more of a history at some weight divisions than there are at others.. hence more points to go around until it turns into a snowball effect.

C-Rank doesn't allow enough leeway for a fighter's rating to rise.. and he cuts them down to the best opponent they've beat + some leeway in the last 4 years. That needs to be a gradual hit.. not a steep fall off a cliff hit.. plus fighters need more leeway....

But thats just my opinion.. what do I know.

Ratings - please read before commenting - Archived

Tye Fields and Dennis Bakhtov

Re: Tye Fields and Dennis Bakhtov