Ratings - please read before commenting - Archived

[JCS]

Lomachenko/Russell was "only" a majority decision. From a software standpoint, that's not clear cut at all..

[crusader]

Even if it's not it's still a win, and I think that a head to head result like that, which occurred only 9 months before Russell beat Gonzalez with GR only having one fight in between, should take precedence over their results in the year since they fought.

Is there anyone who thinks that having Russell 5 spots higher (I believe the gap used to be 10 or so) is the correct ranking? What about Charr being roughly 15 spots ahead of Duhaupas only a month after losing to him? BoxRec doesn't handle these situations well in my opinion.

[JCS]

I wouldn't be opposed to some kind of blocking mechanism. I use it over in my MMA rankings... but that stuff can get hairy.

[crusader]

Here's another good one--unbeaten Ryota Murata is two spots behind Akio Shibata, the fighter he blew out in two rounds in his professional debut. Since they fought Murata has gone 6-0 while Shibata has gone 4-0 against limited Japanese and Indonesian middleweight opposition. Incidentally, if there is a fighter BoxRec overrates more than Shibata I don't think I've found them yet.

[JCS]

if there is a fighter BoxRec overrates more than Shibata I don't think I've found them yet.

How about Robinson Castellanos ?

[crusader]

if there is a fighter BoxRec overrates more than Shibata I don't think I've found them yet.

How about Robinson Castellanos ?

In terms of the number of spots the fighter is overrated I'd still say Shibata, but Castellanos's inflated rank is more significant because it puts him at the top of the division.

[magicrp]

hi computerrank
i'm a boxing fan and i really love all time p4p rank. boxrec and you guys doing a remarkable job.but i have a question,Ricardo Lopez is an outstanding fighter but he has only 218 points.i know it because his weight division is not very competitive and his opponents are not great fighters,but i still feel his points is too low since in The 80 Best Fighters of the Last 80 Years he is No.70. Other small weight division fighters' points are low,too. i want to know your view ,thank you

[JCS]

hi computerrank
i'm a boxing fan and i really love all time p4p rank. boxrec and you guys doing a remarkable job.but i have a question,Ricardo Lopez is an outstanding fighter but he has only 218 points.i know it because his weight division is not very competitive and his opponents are not great fighters,but i still feel his points is too low since in The 80 Best Fighters of the Last 80 Years he is No.70. Other small weight division fighters' points are low,too. i want to know your view ,thank you

You said it all... weaker divisions means less competition. Less competition means less points to go around.

[greg]

...just came across this boxer - Dmitry Bivols:
http://boxrec.com/boxer/703924 ...his resume: less than one year in paid ranks, 3 bouts (=13 rounds total), boxrec ranks him #48...

...I think I'm aware of the computerised rankings' shortcomings...but does that really make ANY sense? Is there a glitch in the system?

[computerrank]

Oh, yes, it makes sense. The Boxrec ratings do not depend on the pure number of wins or rounds boxed, it only depends on quality. I wished, we would see more boxers fighting good opposition as he did.

Jorge Rodriguez Olivera with a rating of 24 brought him to 33 points in his debut bout.

Konstantin Piternov with a rating of 37 brought him to 54 points in his second bout.

Joey Vegas with a rating of 52 points brought him to 104 points points in his 3rd bout.

I call this great!

[John]

Absolutley, Bivol is going hard and fast, no cotton wool fights for him

[greg]

@john
@computerrank

...still kinda weird...considering 1000+ boxers in the data bank, a rookie in paid ranks makes it to the top 50 in no time...I guess I just failed to reconcile computer logic with my own: .... props to him anyway..

[JCS]

Is there a reason why the 102lb division for women has never been supported?

[magicrp]

hey guys
mayweather now is an "all-time" boxer and ranked 7th in boxing p4p history.i want to know how his point be calculated . i have read the rank introduction but sorry guys i'm foolish and i can't understand it.thank you!

[computerrank]

All Time ("Inactive") Ratings

The All Time Rating for a boxer is the sum of 33% of the sum of annual rank points he gets for his annual ratings - and 33% of the sum of annual rank points of best defeated opponents - and 14% of his career top rating:

1. annual year's end ranks -> #1 gets 66.7/1 =66.7 points, #2 gets 66,7/2 = 33,3 points, #3 gets 66.7/3 =22,2 points ... sum over all career years
2. annual best defeated opponent ranks -> -> #1 gets 66.7/1 =66.7 points, #2 gets 66,7/2 = 33,3 points, #3 gets 66.7/3 =22,2 points ... sum over all career years
3. 14% of his career top rating

all time rating = the sum of 1. and 2. and 3.

[asdfjkl]

I still don't really fully understand this system:

http://boxrec.com/boxer/328432
The only thing he did was losing, but he's still better as many others.


Or take a look at these guys:
http://boxrec.com/boxer/732158 (loser)
http://boxrec.com/boxer/730792 (winner)

Now both are still unranked.

They both receive 0 points because they only fought each other.

This makes me thinking that simply fighting someone with 20 wins on their name, even if he has a 100 loses as well, will allways be a better opponend as someone who has only 15 wins on their name, even if he never lost and won them all by KO in the first round.

[computerrank]

I still don't really fully understand this system:

http://boxrec.com/boxer/328432
The only thing he did was losing, but he's still better as many others.

All boxers with 0 points are ranked #915. The ranking program lists them randomly.

[computerrank]

I still don't really fully understand this system:

Or take a look at these guys:
http://boxrec.com/boxer/732158 (loser)
http://boxrec.com/boxer/730792 (winner)

Now both are still unranked.

They both receive 0 points because they only fought each other.

This makes me thinking that simply fighting someone with 20 wins on their name, even if he has a 100 loses as well, will allways be a better opponend as someone who has only 15 wins on their name, even if he never lost and won them all by KO in the first round.

I don't understand your point.

[asdfjkl]

I still don't really fully understand this system:

Or take a look at these guys:
http://boxrec.com/boxer/732158 (loser)
http://boxrec.com/boxer/730792 (winner)

Now both are still unranked.

They both receive 0 points because they only fought each other.

This makes me thinking that simply fighting someone with 20 wins on their name, even if he has a 100 loses as well, will allways be a better opponend as someone who has only 15 wins on their name, even if he never lost and won them all by KO in the first round.

I don't understand your point.

My point is that because of this there are guys skyrocketing by beating avarage boxers, while others stay down for a long time while winning a lot:

http://boxrec.com/boxer/703923 for example won 4 matches against experienced, but quite bad boxers (won 2 of them on KO btw) and is ranked 63 of the world with that after just 4 fights.

http://boxrec.com/boxer/643273 never lost a single match, won 9 of them, all on KO and is ranked 263 of the world.

Now I don't know either of them, but I wouldn't be surprised if the 9 wins 9 KO's guy would win against the 4 wins 2 ko's guy who fought experienced, but quite bad boxers.

[computerrank]

My point is that because of this there are guys skyrocketing by beating avarage boxers, while others stay down for a long time while winning a lot:

http://boxrec.com/boxer/703923 for example won 4 matches against experienced, but quite bad boxers (won 2 of them on KO btw) and is ranked 63 of the world with that after just 4 fights.

http://boxrec.com/boxer/643273 never lost a single match, won 9 of them, all on KO and is ranked 263 of the world.

Now I don't know either of them, but I wouldn't be surprised if the 9 wins 9 KO's guy would win against the 4 wins 2 ko's guy who fought experienced, but quite bad boxers.

Now I understand.

Boxrec ratings only depend on results against good opposition.

Your first example choose a steep ramp up - and defeated a boxer at a level of 78 points at last. This no way was medium level competition. So he now is at 94 points - for right.

Your second example only boxed minor opposition of 2 points at his best. He might defeat another 100 boxers at this level and KO them in the 2nd second - he never might get a better rating - for right. He would scratch around at 10 points for ever.

Record patching does not work with Boxrec ratings.

[Romulus9]

Have a question.

Why is David Markert (link) still calculated at cruiserweight, rather than light heavyweight? He has been 175 or less in the last six fights, and now competes exclusively in the light heavyweight division. On two occasions (vs. K. George and J. Mullins III), the opponent weighed in over their contracted weight limit but the official results were still supposedly submitted at light heavyweight.

Also, a correction has been submitted on the Record Queries and Updates forum for the October 13, 2012 show, which does not even list the weights, scheduled distances, or divisions, so that may be the difference on its own.

Thanks!

[asdfjkl]

My point is that because of this there are guys skyrocketing by beating avarage boxers, while others stay down for a long time while winning a lot:

http://boxrec.com/boxer/703923 for example won 4 matches against experienced, but quite bad boxers (won 2 of them on KO btw) and is ranked 63 of the world with that after just 4 fights.

http://boxrec.com/boxer/643273 never lost a single match, won 9 of them, all on KO and is ranked 263 of the world.

Now I don't know either of them, but I wouldn't be surprised if the 9 wins 9 KO's guy would win against the 4 wins 2 ko's guy who fought experienced, but quite bad boxers.

Now I understand.

Boxrec ratings only depend on results against good opposition.

Your first example choose a steep ramp up - and defeated a boxer at a level of 78 points at last. This no way was medium level competition. So he now is at 94 points - for right.

Your second example only boxed minor opposition of 2 points at his best. He might defeat another 100 boxers at this level and KO them in the 2nd second - he never might get a better rating - for right. He would scratch around at 10 points for ever.

Record patching does not work with Boxrec ratings.

He fought this guy:
http://boxrec.com/boxer/490770
Who has been inactive for three years and wasn't even a real heavyweight.

He fought this guy:
http://boxrec.com/boxer/452366
An experienced guy, but not really that good either, rank 300 or so

He fought this guy:
http://boxrec.com/boxer/421738
Who lost against every name I recognice and won against most of the names I haven't ever heard about.

And he fought this guy:
http://boxrec.com/boxer/42919
Who lost 14 out of his 17 matches since 2008 and hasn't won against any big name either.


Does that really make you the rank 63 of the world?!
I'd like to see this guy against any other top 100 boxer of the world.

[SportsRatings]

He fought this guy:
http://boxrec.com/boxer/490770
Who has been inactive for three years and wasn't even a real heavyweight.

He fought this guy:
http://boxrec.com/boxer/452366
An experienced guy, but not really that good either, rank 300 or so

He fought this guy:
http://boxrec.com/boxer/421738
Who lost against every name I recognice and won against most of the names I haven't ever heard about.

And he fought this guy:
http://boxrec.com/boxer/42919
Who lost 14 out of his 17 matches since 2008 and hasn't won against any big name either.


Does that really make you the rank 63 of the world?!
I'd like to see this guy against any other top 100 boxer of the world.

I follow HW boxing pretty closely, and I can tell you that I recognize 4 out of the 5 opponents in Kuzmin's list, and absolutely none from the other guy's list. None of those 4 are world-beaters but they beat SOMEONE, at SOME TIME, and that's basically why I know them. The other guy's opponents never beat anyone, ever, of even very minor note.

This doesn't make Kuzmin a great HW or the other guy a bum, but it's actually pretty rare when 4 of a guy's first 5 bouts are against recognizable names. Does that make him #63 in the world? I don't know but how many great HW are there past the top 50 these days? And even if he turns out to be great, Apti Davtaev doesn't deserve to be close to the top 100 right now. He's fought complete nobodies who have also fought nobody. Kuzmin has beat minor fighters who have had tough schedules themselves.

And just as a prediction, I think Kuzmin might turn out to be okay...he's young, undefeated, and represented Russia in the World Amateurs, all of which makes him a fairly decent prospect to crack the top 10 some day, though being champ seems clearly out of reach.

[Lennox]

http://www.premierboxingorganistation.c ... weight-200

Only up to Nov 1st but Kuzmin has beaten a four out of five fighters that have been in the top 100.

The quality of wins are all that really matter not the volume with our ratings.

[crusader]

Apologies if this was covered already, but when two boxers have an equal number of points what is the tie-breaking criteria/criterion? This question came to me because I notice that Terry Flanagan and Jorge Linares each have 461 points, but Flanagan is listed as the #1 lightweight.

Thanks