Manrae wrote: ...
Either way, is there any way to adjust points received based on the "prime rating" of the opponent in their career?
For example
Fighter A had a rating of 1000 a few years ago, he's rated at 150 now, but is beaten by a lower ranked opponent B (maybe 75) and B's rating shoots up, even though he fought a guy WAY past his "prime rating" so to speak...
Can that be accounted for in any way?
I do not understand the point, I guess. Why should this boost opponent B?
I guess what I'm getting at is that winning fighters shouldn't get boosts in stats for beating high valued, grossly past prime fighters
Specifically I'm thinking about Ali v Holmes, Berbick
Or, maybe there could be a certain number of years before a fighter's stats decrease automatically due to age
Manrae wrote:...
I guess what I'm getting at is that winning fighters shouldn't get boosts in stats for beating high valued, grossly past prime fighters
Specifically I'm thinking about Ali v Holmes, Berbick
Or, maybe there could be a certain number of years before a fighter's stats decrease automatically due to age
Ali was far away from his top ratings - he had 576 points before the Holmes bout and 458 before the Berbick bout.
He has his hights between 1963 to 1967. where he was between 2400 and 2500 points.
He never reached this level again in the 1970's, where he had between 18000 and 1900 after Frazier.
Manrae wrote:...
I guess what I'm getting at is that winning fighters shouldn't get boosts in stats for beating high valued, grossly past prime fighters
Specifically I'm thinking about Ali v Holmes, Berbick
Or, maybe there could be a certain number of years before a fighter's stats decrease automatically due to age
Ali was far away from his top ratings - he had 576 points before the Holmes bout and 458 before the Berbick bout.
He has his hights between 1963 to 1967. where he was between 2400 and 2500 points.
He never reached this level again in the 1970's, where he had between 18000 and 1900 after Frazier.
jujigatame wrote:Is it me or is it very strange that both Golovkin and Jacobs gained points for their fight? Should that be possible?
This can happen in a close bout, where the losing boxer was rated much lower.
The result was close - only 2.3 points difference per judge. A clear win on points would have required at least 6 points difference per judge in a 12 rounds bout.
And Golovkin with 736 points was rated much higher than Jacobs with 375 points.
So actually regarding regular points Golovkin even lost 18 points and Jacobs got 18 points.
Only due to Jacobs ranked at #2 before the bout, Golovkin got additional 20 points and ended with 2 point higher than before.
In 2001, his rating went from 70 to 97 after defeating Mike Griffith whom had a rating of 65, which dropped to 43
5 months later, he faces Micky Ward yet his rating was 75...
How can his rating drop from 97 to 75 in 5 months?
... but his rating didn't drop really.
The Boxrec editors assigned the Griffith bout to lightweight - and they assigned the Ward bout to welterweight.
So the rating program correctly converted his 97 points at lightweight to equivalent 75 points at welterweight.
But as I see, all boxer weights at both bouts were between 139 and 141 lbs. So I re-assigned both bouts to super lightweight now.
Cool, I'll wait to see how this changes the rating on the next cycle
Hey, I was wondering, have the site operators ever considered implementing a user rating for each bout? Like, I see the boxrec star ratings but they don't really tell how good or bad a match actually was... A user rating by registered members could bring in more activity and new fans who'll know what fights to watch to get them into the sweet science
Another mistake in Emanuel Augustus' weight, v Leonard Dorin in 2001 it's listed as a Super Lightweight bout but it should be a Lightweight bout... I was wondering why his rating didn't increase once he dropped down in weight after fighting Micky Ward
Manrae wrote:Another mistake in Emanuel Augustus' weight, v Leonard Dorin in 2001 it's listed as a Super Lightweight bout but it should be a Lightweight bout... I was wondering why his rating didn't increase once he dropped down in weight after fighting Micky Ward
You are right, I guess.
But it is not me but the Boxrec editors, who update the bouts and records. I am responsible for the rating program.
You can post your corrections in this forum 'Record Queries &Updates':
Manrae wrote:Another mistake in Emanuel Augustus' weight, v Leonard Dorin in 2001 it's listed as a Super Lightweight bout but it should be a Lightweight bout... I was wondering why his rating didn't increase once he dropped down in weight after fighting Micky Ward
You are right, I guess.
But it is not me but the Boxrec editors, who update the bouts and records. I am responsible for the rating program.
You can post your corrections in this forum 'Record Queries &Updates':
Martin, we are having this thread "AJ is now no 44 p4p here on boxrec" on current scene...just curious, where would boxrec place AJ pound-for-pound in case he wins against Klitschko? thank you..
greg wrote:Martin, we are having this thread "AJ is now no 44 p4p here on boxrec" on current scene...just curious, where would boxrec place AJ pound-for-pound in case he wins against Klitschko? thank you..
Joshua comes in with 321 points, Klitschko comes in with 570 points.
Joshua at best can win 385 points and would end up with 706 points. This would move him to p4p #6.
greg wrote:Martin, we are having this thread "AJ is now no 44 p4p here on boxrec" on current scene...just curious, where would boxrec place AJ pound-for-pound in case he wins against Klitschko? thank you..
Joshua comes in with 321 points, Klitschko comes in with 570 points.
Joshua at best can win 385 points and would end up with 706 points. This would move him to p4p #6.
asdfjkl wrote:I'm very surprised to see Guilermo ranked as a rank 9 heavyweight of the world.
Is this correct? Or is it because he fought cruiserweights?
He had 402 points at cruiserweight after his win against Lebedev on 2013-05-07.
On 2015-11-20 he came in at heavyweight with equivalent 239 points. But he got deducted 117 points due inactivity. And he had only 2 low quality opponents at heavyweight. At 2017-05-20 he will lose another 40 points due to missing opponent quality.
So by then his 115 points at heavyweight are good enough für #8 in this currently desastrously incompetitive heavyweight division ...
Can I ask real quick before getting into why I'm posting...why can't I send someone a PM? I think I've been registered here for at least a year or two, maybe longer. I'm on the site every other day...is it because of my inactivity in the forums..? That's a bit on the lame side, seeing as to how I've never used a forum which prohibits the use of certain site features for any reason other than amount of time elapsed since registering.
Anyways in regards to the thread...I've read the rules breakdown before, probably 2-3 times. What I'm wondering about is the bout ratings. I've always thought of something regarded as a five star fight to be a fight worthy of five stars based on the fight that took place...not the fight that WILL take place. That's just a formula spitting out a number based on the two boxers individual ratings. I am hereby making my recommendation of an overhaul to the bout rating system, and volunteering to spearhead the campaign. I'll lay out (my version of/ideas for) the new rating system, I'll go back and apply ratings to previous bouts, and ill rate current/future fights.
I believe most boxing fans, like me, want to be able to see which fights, past and present, are worth watching, and which might be a waste of their time. I know that when I got really into watching all the classics, I sometimes spent an hour watching a 15 rounder that, upon its conclusion, left me wishing I could get that hour of my life back...and sometimes finding a real gem that seemed to go all but unnoticed.
Anyway, if someone can let me know if that's something people want, of the folks who run this site want, I'm eager to find out.
MrBrownstone wrote:Can I ask real quick before getting into why I'm posting...why can't I send someone a PM? I think I've been registered here for at least a year or two, maybe longer. I'm on the site every other day...is it because of my inactivity in the forums..? That's a bit on the lame side, seeing as to how I've never used a forum which prohibits the use of certain site features for any reason other than amount of time elapsed since registering.
Anyways in regards to the thread...I've read the rules breakdown before, probably 2-3 times. What I'm wondering about is the bout ratings. I've always thought of something regarded as a five star fight to be a fight worthy of five stars based on the fight that took place...not the fight that WILL take place. That's just a formula spitting out a number based on the two boxers individual ratings. I am hereby making my recommendation of an overhaul to the bout rating system, and volunteering to spearhead the campaign. I'll lay out (my version of/ideas for) the new rating system, I'll go back and apply ratings to previous bouts, and ill rate current/future fights.
I believe most boxing fans, like me, want to be able to see which fights, past and present, are worth watching, and which might be a waste of their time. I know that when I got really into watching all the classics, I sometimes spent an hour watching a 15 rounder that, upon its conclusion, left me wishing I could get that hour of my life back...and sometimes finding a real gem that seemed to go all but unnoticed.
Anyway, if someone can let me know if that's something people want, of the folks who run this site want, I'm eager to find out.
Because you haven't posted before you were classed new member, and as such your first 2 posts required approval for various reasons. You're A OK now. Cheers
