BoxRec rank of opponend added

[asdfjkl]

I was just thinking, by watching the heavyweight boxrec ranks, shouldn't the rank of the opponend at the moment the fight happened be added to the fightlist of everybody? Instead of just the name?

This way it's more easy to notice how big a fight actually was.

In 20 years people look back at David Haye, or Anthony Joshua for example and think:
Wow, Mark de Mori, 30-1 this must have been one of the best boxers in his time!
And wow, Gari Cornish, 21-0! He must have been loads better as his opponend right after who's only a 16-0 called Dillian Whyte!


Now if you add that Dillian Whyte was rank 50 or so and Gari Cornish was only rank 70 or so because he fought worser opponends it will be much more easy to see who was actually good and who wasn't, even in 20 years.

If you look at Evander Holyfield his record for example, you think well 44-10 quite good, but not the best of the best, whyle he in fact only fought the best boxers availeble at his time.

I'd love to see the Boxrec rank of the opponend at the time of the fight added to the recordlist.


Thanks everyone for supporting or putting your comment on this matter.

I can understand some information is forgotten nowadays, but then at least from now on it could be started.

[forestbox]

Great idea.often fought something along those lines.

[Horse]

In 20 years people look back at David Haye, or Anthony Joshua for example and think:
Wow, Mark de Mori, 30-1 this must have been one of the best boxers in his time!
And wow, Gari Cornish, 21-0! He must have been loads better as his opponend right after who's only a 16-0 called Dillian Whyte!

They can just look at their records and find out they weren't very good.

[ikorolev]

There is also opponent's boxrec rating displayed if you select so, and that rating is pretty much reflection of boxrec rank.

[asdfjkl]

In 20 years people look back at David Haye, or Anthony Joshua for example and think:
Wow, Mark de Mori, 30-1 this must have been one of the best boxers in his time!
And wow, Gari Cornish, 21-0! He must have been loads better as his opponend right after who's only a 16-0 called Dillian Whyte!

They can just look at their records and find out they weren't very good.

Yea, when you actually investigate you will eventually find out yes, but if you want to see it in one eyecatch this is the way to do it.

There is also opponent's boxrec rating displayed if you select so, and that rating is pretty much reflection of boxrec rank.

But a rating doesn't say as much as a rank does. How good is your boxer? Yea, he got a rating of 340!

Now how good is that?

[Aaronide_ger]

There is also opponent's boxrec rating displayed if you select so, and that rating is pretty much reflection of boxrec rank.

U understand that the rating it sais is the CURRENT rating, if u go in an old fight of Golovkin for example with Stevens it will show his 2015 RANKING not his 2013 ranking.

[asdfjkl]

There is also opponent's boxrec rating displayed if you select so, and that rating is pretty much reflection of boxrec rank.

U understand that the rating it sais is the CURRENT rating, if u go in an old fight of Golovkin for example with Stevens it will show his 2015 RANKING not his 2013 ranking.

No, look at the settings, you can ask for the rating of the past, I didn't know this either, but I still think the rank is more interesting as the amount of points.
I know what the number stands for, but the avarage guy on the street, do you think they have any clue what a BoxRecrating of 500 means?
Yes, if you investigate you can eventually find out how good someone really is, but I still prefere to see the opponends rank instead of rating.

[JCS]

From a technical standpoint, it is unrealistic to expect that.

It's easy to store the rating points at the time of the fight.. but now you're asking Martin to re-rank every single day throughout history so a rank can be stored. Don't think this will happen folks.

[Impractical Poster]

From a technical standpoint, it is unrealistic to expect that.

It's easy to store the rating points at the type of the fight.. but now you're asking Martin to re-rank every single day throughout history so a rank can be stored. Don't think this will happen folks.

Couldn't a ranking be set to automatically correlate with the rating? Or would that make for an unrealistic ranking? I'm not too savvy with these types of things.

[man]

From a technical standpoint, it is unrealistic to expect that.
It's easy to store the rating points at the type of the fight ... but now you're asking Martin to re-rank every single day throughout history so a rank can be stored. Don't think this will happen folks.

if he just had a machine to do this
lousy job ...

[ikorolev]

There is also opponent's boxrec rating displayed if you select so, and that rating is pretty much reflection of boxrec rank.

U understand that the rating it sais is the CURRENT rating, if u go in an old fight of Golovkin for example with Stevens it will show his 2015 RANKING not his 2013 ranking.

No, in a list of fights, one can see fighters' and opponents' ratings before and after any fight. You just need to check a box in preferences.

[Aaronide_ger]

There is also opponent's boxrec rating displayed if you select so, and that rating is pretty much reflection of boxrec rank.

U understand that the rating it sais is the CURRENT rating, if u go in an old fight of Golovkin for example with Stevens it will show his 2015 RANKING not his 2013 ranking.

No, in a list of fights, one can see fighters' and opponents' ratings before and after any fight. You just need to check a box in preferences.

Excuse me im talking about the No. he was in the world. It doesnt show, I kniw about the pts

[Lackeos]

-Sounds like a great feature. Since the scale of ratings is different for different eras, you can't look at a 1980 rating of 400 and assume that it means the same as a 2016 rating of 400. A fighter with a 400 rating today might be #6 in his division, but a fighter in 1980 with a rating of 400 might have been #17 in his division.
-Once the ranking at the time of the fight is calculated, the amount of storage space it would consume to store them as new columns in the database would be on the order of the fight weights, which would probably be relatively tolerable.
-There is not actually any way to compute the rankings at the time of each fight except to go back to the beginning of time, do a day-by-day recompilation of all rankings, and store any relevant rankings in the corresponding time-of-the-fight rankings column. Even if done in an automated fashion, I expect this task would take infinitely long to complete, and boxrec hardly has fast servers paid for by premium customers. It would probably take less than a day to write a script that could do this, and your lifetime for the script to finish executing. Also, it would be nice to think that this only has to be retroactively done one time, and then can be easily maintained going forward; but boxrec periodically reweights variables like hometown advantage in their rating change formula, and then they have to recompile all ratings throughout history with the changed formula. So with the new support for opponent rankings, they would have to recompile the history rating AND rankings each time they alter the formula. So they would end-up having to do this historical ranking recompilation many more times than just once.

[Lennox]

www.premierboxingorganisation.com

We list the opponent ranking for the last 20 fights, provided the opponent was top 100 ranked otherwise it shows as a W.

[asdfjkl]

http://www.premierboxingorganisation.com

We list the opponent ranking for the last 20 fights, provided the opponent was top 100 ranked otherwise it shows as a W.

I like that, but then from BoxRec, not from some random organisation with their own opinion.

[Lennox]

It is not an opinion or random organisation. The top 100 are the finest ratings calculated on facts and measurable bars, Boxrec ratings are not very good. If you can't spot the flaws in them then shame on you.

[BAD INTENTIONS]

If they added this feature, it'd be easier to see why Roman Gonzalez can't be #1 p4p.

I hate how HBO equates excitement with quality.

Not saying he isn't quality, but #1 p4p with his opponent list ...

[JCS]

http://www.premierboxingorganisation.com

We list the opponent ranking for the last 20 fights, provided the opponent was top 100 ranked otherwise it shows as a W.

In all fairness, you rank by month, not day, right?

[Lennox]

Publish them monthly, but it is a live system so changes with results.

[Boxing Prospect]

Off topic but meh-

I know that computer systems have issues but the PBO rankings with Taguchi #11 just 1 place above Joyi @108lb is just bizarre. Joyi has 1 win in the last 2 years, against an 8-6-2 guy and is 2-2 at the weight yet is ranked #12 (TBF Boxrec ranking him at #14 isn't much better) Felix Alvarado being ranked by BOTH boxrec and PBO at 108lbs is another one that is befuddling considering he's not fought at the weight in more than 2 years (in fact he's made 108lbs ONCE in 4 years!)

[Lennox]

Alvarado's management have asked that he is ranked at 108.

Joyi is definetly on the way down but he has two decent wins in his last four, against others doing less that is where he is ranked.

Taguchi may be WBA champion but he has fought relative poor opposition recently. All above him have more recently fought better.

Some divisions are extremely weak and some like Welterweight are very strong. PBO ratings are calculated purely on facts and the results that have happened. So if you think you find something not right just check the results and records of the boxer and boxers fought, there will always be a factual reason, though sometimes the subjective opinion will see boxers in decline that should be lower and fighters that are clearly better than their ranking, but until they beat someone ranked higher they are where they are.

[Boxing Prospect]

Alvarado's management have asked that he is ranked at 108.

Joyi is definetly on the way down but he has two decent wins in his last four, against others doing less that is where he is ranked.

Taguchi may be WBA champion but he has fought relative poor opposition recently. All above him have more recently fought better.

Some divisions are extremely weak and some like Welterweight are very strong. PBO ratings are calculated purely on facts and the results that have happened. So if you think you find something not right just check the results and records of the boxer and boxers fought, there will always be a factual reason, though sometimes the subjective opinion will see boxers in decline that should be lower and fighters that are clearly better than their ranking, but until they beat someone ranked higher they are where they are.

Joyi hasn't had a decent win since he beat Takayama almost 4 years ago! At a different weight anyway!

Personally if a fighter wants to be regarded as a fighter in a division he should be fighting there or there abouts, not more than 4lbs over the limit.

Muranaka is another example, he's FAILED to make Site right TWICE in the last 12 months (being stripped of the JBC title after the first and the second bout was canned), the guy shouldn't be ranked at 112lbs (and I'm saying that as a genuine fan of his, loved the Kogawa war and the KO of Sakashita was brilliant).

Staying at Flyweight Nawaphon is ranked #8 when his best win is over a #19 yet Higa is, who beat an #18 is only ranked #18.

[Lennox]

Keep following it and you will understand it. It is not just about one fight, but it will become clearer as you follow it. Most fighters do not box in the category that they should strictly belong too, 90% of fights are overweights.

What it is not is a mere points system.

[JCS]

Both human-driven and software-driven systems have flaws.. no matter how invested or detailed.. they just have different kinds fo flaws.

[Boxing Prospect]

Most fighters do fight above their weight...but not above the limit of the next weight up. You don't tend to get Middleweights having stay busy fights at 170lbs, or Welterweights regularly fighting at 155lbs. Alvarado has pretty much been doing that.