Ratings - please read before commenting - Archived

[computerrank]

I've noticed Crawford is ranked #1 at 147 before even having a fight there.

The editors move boxers, when a boxer or his management request, the boxer won't box at the old division any longer

[StarLord25]

Ok, great. What's the logic behind not starting a guy at 0 when he moves to another division because some would argue that because he hasn't really established himself at 147 yet, Crawford isn't #1.

[JCS]

Ok, great. What's the logic behind not starting a guy at 0 when he moves to another division because some would argue that because he hasn't really established himself at 147 yet, Crawford isn't #1.

The logic is that this would make zero sense as it pertains to the ratings.

If Crawford moves to 154 in his next fight and gets knocked out, would you give his opponent absolutely zero credit for the win?

[mike1989]

hi Martin!
what happened with the ratings why many boxers somewhere disappeared????

who disappeared - BoxRec ID please?

all the boxers with a negative rating, in which only career defeat ???

[computerrank]

hi Martin!
what happened with the ratings why many boxers somewhere disappeared????

who disappeared - BoxRec ID please?

all the boxers with a negative rating, in which only career defeat ???

What is a negative rating? The rating points are all positive - there are no negative points. ???

[mike1989]

who disappeared - BoxRec ID please?

all the boxers with a negative rating, in which only career defeat ???

What is a negative rating? The rating points are all positive - there are no negative points. ???

when the fighter has no victories, only defeats and rating 0 points ?

[computerrank]

all the boxers with a negative rating, in which only career defeat ???

What is a negative rating? The rating points are all positive - there are no negative points. ???

when the fighter has no victories, only defeats and rating 0 points ?

Yes, I see.

[StarLord25]

Ok, great. What's the logic behind not starting a guy at 0 when he moves to another division because some would argue that because he hasn't really established himself at 147 yet, Crawford isn't #1.

The logic is that this would make zero sense as it pertains to the ratings.

If Crawford moves to 154 in his next fight and gets knocked out, would you give his opponent absolutely zero credit for the win?

True and great point. That's one of the main criticisms I've seen of Boxrec. But you can't let a fighter who moves to another division begin at 0. It's like his whole career before that became pointless.

[JCS]

Ok, great. What's the logic behind not starting a guy at 0 when he moves to another division because some would argue that because he hasn't really established himself at 147 yet, Crawford isn't #1.

The logic is that this would make zero sense as it pertains to the ratings.

If Crawford moves to 154 in his next fight and gets knocked out, would you give his opponent absolutely zero credit for the win?

True and great point. That's one of the main criticisms I've seen of Boxrec. But you can't let a fighter who moves to another division begin at 0. It's like his whole career before that became pointless.

I can't really determine if you are "for" or "against" that??

[mike1989]

What is a negative rating? The rating points are all positive - there are no negative points. ???

when the fighter has no victories, only defeats and rating 0 points ?

Yes, I see.

and ???...

[computerrank]

when the fighter has no victories, only defeats and rating 0 points ?

Yes, I see.

and ???...

Where ist the problem, they are not listed the ratings. In their record you will find the remark 'no rating'. It makes some sense - so they can not say I am #xxx in a weight division.

[mike1989]

Yes, I see.

and ???...

Where ist the problem, they are not listed the ratings. In their record you will find the remark 'no rating'. It makes some sense - so they can not say I am #xxx in a weight division.

this is interesting...
but the essence is lost the base where you can find all of them?... it may be logical units with no wins and points in a separate section??? how else to find a fighter???

[StarLord25]

The logic is that this would make zero sense as it pertains to the ratings.

If Crawford moves to 154 in his next fight and gets knocked out, would you give his opponent absolutely zero credit for the win?

True and great point. That's one of the main criticisms I've seen of Boxrec. But you can't let a fighter who moves to another division begin at 0. It's like his whole career before that became pointless.

I can't really determine if you are "for" or "against" that??

I just wanted to see what was the reasoning behind it. I agree you can't start a guy moving to another division right at 0.

[computerrank]

and ???...

Where ist the problem, they are not listed the ratings. In their record you will find the remark 'no rating'. It makes some sense - so they can not say I am #xxx in a weight division.

this is interesting...
but the essence is lost the base where you can find all of them?... it may be logical units with no wins and points in a separate section??? how else to find a fighter???

You will find him by his name or by his ID or in the records

[mike1989]

Where ist the problem, they are not listed the ratings. In their record you will find the remark 'no rating'. It makes some sense - so they can not say I am #xxx in a weight division.

this is interesting...
but the essence is lost the base where you can find all of them?... it may be logical units with no wins and points in a separate section??? how else to find a fighter???

You will find him by his name or by his ID or in the records

it is a bit difficult. many people consider how the BoxRec database : just people Boxing functionaries in much need in a convenient search boxer with a negative record, but the search will not be easy... in my point of view, the data innovations will reduce the traffic of the website BoxRec ???

[computerrank]

this is interesting...
but the essence is lost the base where you can find all of them?... it may be logical units with no wins and points in a separate section??? how else to find a fighter???

You will find him by his name or by his ID or in the records

it is a bit difficult. many people consider how the BoxRec database : just people Boxing functionaries in much need in a convenient search boxer with a negative record, but the search will not be easy... in my point of view, the data innovations will reduce the traffic of the website BoxRec ???

... for boxers with losses only? I don't think so. A Boxer with losses only can not be rated.

[mike1989]

You will find him by his name or by his ID or in the records

it is a bit difficult. many people consider how the BoxRec database : just people Boxing functionaries in much need in a convenient search boxer with a negative record, but the search will not be easy... in my point of view, the data innovations will reduce the traffic of the website BoxRec ???

... for boxers with losses only? I don't think so. A Boxer with losses only can not be rated.

but half of all fighters made rating ???

[computerrank]

it is a bit difficult. many people consider how the BoxRec database : just people Boxing functionaries in much need in a convenient search boxer with a negative record, but the search will not be easy... in my point of view, the data innovations will reduce the traffic of the website BoxRec ???

... for boxers with losses only? I don't think so. A Boxer with losses only can not be rated.

but half of all fighters made rating ???

70 percent are rated, 30 percent are not.

[mike1989]

... for boxers with losses only? I don't think so. A Boxer with losses only can not be rated.

but half of all fighters made rating ???

70 percent are rated, 30 percent are not.

in the ranking р4р all time was about 630000 boxers now, 330000 boxers ???

[Lennox]

.

[computerrank]

You have a woman ranked at 105 in the straw-weights, Mens.

Somebody fixed it ...

[mike1989]

You have a woman ranked at 105 in the straw-weights, Mens.

Somebody fixed it ...

hi Martin!
question: the annual ranking points are awarded to the top 20 or top 15 ???

[computerrank]

You have a woman ranked at 105 in the straw-weights, Mens.

Somebody fixed it ...

hi Martin!
question: the annual ranking points are awarded to the top 20 or top 15 ???

Top 20 for men

[mike1989]

Somebody fixed it ...

hi Martin!
question: the annual ranking points are awarded to the top 20 or top 15 ???

Top 20 for men

then why Vyacheslav Shabranskyy global ID 626314 and Eugene Khitrov global ID 667461 not received an annual rating points ???

[mike1989]

Somebody fixed it ...

hi Martin!
question: the annual ranking points are awarded to the top 20 or top 15 ???

Top 20 for men

then why Vyacheslav Shabranskyy global ID 626314 and Eugene Khitrov global ID 667461 not received an annual rating points ???