boxrec has tony bellew as 4 at heavy ...

[JCS]

ya but haye hadnt scored a decent win in years , that should be able to be accounted

in the last 5-6 years hed only beaten de mori and gjerjag and hed had long inactivity

It is accounted for... don't you see the point drop for Haye?

[joshj909]

When Bellew faces Usyk, all will be restored so you just got to wait a few more months and the threads will stop.

[Lennox]

ya but haye hadnt scored a decent win in years , that should be able to be accounted

in the last 5-6 years hed only beaten de mori and gjerjag and hed had long inactivity

It is accounted for... don't you see the point drop for Haye?

the accounting system is wrong then if he is 4 boxrec and 10 PBO, unless you think 4 is right.

[joshj909]

ya but haye hadnt scored a decent win in years , that should be able to be accounted

in the last 5-6 years hed only beaten de mori and gjerjag and hed had long inactivity

It is accounted for... don't you see the point drop for Haye?

the accounting system is wrong then if he is 4 boxrec and 10 PBO, unless you think 4 is right.

Your system has Wach at 12... Stop acting like your system is perfect. All of the systems have their own faults

[Lennox]

its not perfect but having Wach at 12 is nothing like as bad as having Bellew at 4.

[JCS]

ya but haye hadnt scored a decent win in years , that should be able to be accounted

in the last 5-6 years hed only beaten de mori and gjerjag and hed had long inactivity

It is accounted for... don't you see the point drop for Haye?

the accounting system is wrong then if he is 4 boxrec and 10 PBO, unless you think 4 is right.

I mean.. here we go again.

Are the particulars of your system published? You can have a really great rating system if you move some boxers by hand you know.. especially ones like Bellew.

[jamamb]

ya but haye hadnt scored a decent win in years , that should be able to be accounted

in the last 5-6 years hed only beaten de mori and gjerjag and hed had long inactivity

It is accounted for... don't you see the point drop for Haye?

like lennox said, obv not enough

[JCS]

ya but haye hadnt scored a decent win in years , that should be able to be accounted

in the last 5-6 years hed only beaten de mori and gjerjag and hed had long inactivity

It is accounted for... don't you see the point drop for Haye?

like lennox said, obv not enough

341 points down to 70, isn't enough?

He still fought and beat Gjergjaj.. so even if he started higher, once he got to and beat Gjergjaj he'd be damn close to where he was before Bellew.

Everybody needs to get a grip and realize Heavyweight pretty much sucks.

[Lennox]

It is accounted for... don't you see the point drop for Haye?

the accounting system is wrong then if he is 4 boxrec and 10 PBO, unless you think 4 is right.

I mean.. here we go again.

Are the particulars of your system published? You can have a really great rating system if you move some boxers by hand you know.. especially ones like Bellew.

I will take that as a compliment that you think its tampered with.
Bellew beat a fighter ranked 17 (Haye 1st time) then he beat a fighter ranked 19 (Haye 2nd time) he moved to be ranked 19 after the first fight then 11 after the second fight.
It is fairly easy to see how boxers rise in our ratings (look at the numbers)
Fighters move down without losing when they have not made compliant fights.

[jamamb]

It is accounted for... don't you see the point drop for Haye?

like lennox said, obv not enough

341 points down to 70, isn't enough?

He still fought and beat Gjergjaj.. so even if he started higher, once he got to and beat Gjergjaj he'd be damn close to where he was before Bellew.

Everybody needs to get a grip and realize Heavyweight pretty much sucks.

its not really a hw sucks issue when there are clear cases of guys being rated above more deserving guys. like youve just said that haye got up to like 340 from 70 for beating gjerjag, yet a guy like whyte beats chisora,browne, and parker and finds himself with like 150 less then that!

hw aint great but no way is bellew the 4 hw. its fine, computerized systems cant be perfect and i think boxrec is still good overall, but its defo a bad rating and really stands out

[JCS]

the accounting system is wrong then if he is 4 boxrec and 10 PBO, unless you think 4 is right.

I mean.. here we go again.

Are the particulars of your system published? You can have a really great rating system if you move some boxers by hand you know.. especially ones like Bellew.

I will take that as a compliment that you think its tampered with.
Bellew beat a fighter ranked 17 (Haye 1st time) then he beat a fighter ranked 19 (Haye 2nd time) he moved to be ranked 19 after the first fight then 11 after the second fight.
It is fairly easy to see how boxers rise in our ratings (look at the numbers)
Fighters move down without losing when they have not made compliant fights.

Not suggesting it is tampered with -- maybe this is how you handle things, but since you have a particular "call out", I'd like to understand how exactly you (or your system) place fighters who move into a new division. Otherwise, you could very well be ranking these boxers where you see fit on a case-by-case basis, which I suppose is fine.... but you should probably admit that.

[JCS]

like lennox said, obv not enough

341 points down to 70, isn't enough?

He still fought and beat Gjergjaj.. so even if he started higher, once he got to and beat Gjergjaj he'd be damn close to where he was before Bellew.

Everybody needs to get a grip and realize Heavyweight pretty much sucks.

its not really a hw sucks issue when there are clear cases of guys being rated above more deserving guys. like youve just said that haye got up to like 340 from 70 for beating gjerjag, yet a guy like whyte beats chisora,browne, and parker and finds himself with like 150 less then that!

hw aint great but no way is bellew the 4 hw. its fine, computerized systems cant be perfect and i think boxrec is still good overall, but its defo a bad rating and really stands out

Your reply really doesn't make any sense... Haye went from 341 to 70 BEFORE beating Gjergjaj (and de Mori).. it seems your problem is with the opponents and other boxers in the HW division.. so pretty much everyone BUT Haye and Bellew.

[jujigatame]

Haye may have been a faded version of himself but he was no worse than anyone Miller or Breazeale have fought.

[BigBenHo]

Tony Bellend if he chooses to fight an uninjured top 50 HW, then is around top 30.

He certainly isnt top 20 as this would involve him being able to beat Chisora or Parker. Both body Bellend.

[Lennox]

I mean.. here we go again.

Are the particulars of your system published? You can have a really great rating system if you move some boxers by hand you know.. especially ones like Bellew.

I will take that as a compliment that you think its tampered with.
Bellew beat a fighter ranked 17 (Haye 1st time) then he beat a fighter ranked 19 (Haye 2nd time) he moved to be ranked 19 after the first fight then 11 after the second fight.
It is fairly easy to see how boxers rise in our ratings (look at the numbers)
Fighters move down without losing when they have not made compliant fights.

Not suggesting it is tampered with -- maybe this is how you handle things, but since you have a particular "call out", I'd like to understand how exactly you (or your system) place fighters who move into a new division. Otherwise, you could very well be ranking these boxers where you see fit on a case-by-case basis, which I suppose is fine.... but you should probably admit that.

They take a % of their points when the move up a division. 100% in the flyweights, but in general 75% of their points. Up to Cruiser and Up to Heavyweight is much different as there are huge weight changes. Compliance of a fighter is also important. From Cruiserweight to Heavweight maybe only the first 22 would make the top 100. Other divisions it can be as many as 80 would make the next division.

[JCS]

I will take that as a compliment that you think its tampered with.
Bellew beat a fighter ranked 17 (Haye 1st time) then he beat a fighter ranked 19 (Haye 2nd time) he moved to be ranked 19 after the first fight then 11 after the second fight.
It is fairly easy to see how boxers rise in our ratings (look at the numbers)
Fighters move down without losing when they have not made compliant fights.

Not suggesting it is tampered with -- maybe this is how you handle things, but since you have a particular "call out", I'd like to understand how exactly you (or your system) place fighters who move into a new division. Otherwise, you could very well be ranking these boxers where you see fit on a case-by-case basis, which I suppose is fine.... but you should probably admit that.

They take a % of their points when the move up a division. 100% in the flyweights, but in general 75% of their points. Up to Cruiser and Up to Heavyweight is much different as there are huge weight changes. Compliance of a fighter is also important. From Cruiserweight to Heavweight maybe only the first 22 would make the top 100. Other divisions it can be as many as 80 would make the next division.

So you adhere to a points-based system but don't actually publish their points? Questionable practice.

And the rules you have..... 100% here... 75% there... the problem I have with arbitrary & convenient parameters like that (and even some here) is that they're laid out in such a measured fashion.. it's almost as if the system was made with the thinking that the sport and the fighters within it are making matchmaking and career decisions with the system in mind. I suppose there's an argument that could be the case here.. but only for the recent past and current.... surely not with your system though.

Given your very basic explanation, I'd say the divisional movement here is much more mathematically pure and appropriate for a non-official rating system.

[Lennox]

Well I am not going to give you the formula, but if you think Boxrec have it better good luck to you.

I have been compiling the ratings for a lot longer than Boxrec have. Nothing will be perfect and they don't even need to be the exact position of the boxers on ability. They need to be the position as to what has actually happened. Boxrec once argued that the ratings should be a prediction tool.

The ratings are fairly simple, fighters move in tags, if you have beaten me you will be ranked above me (for a period of time).

[JCS]

Well I am not going to give you the formula, but if you think Boxrec have it better good luck to you.

I have been compiling the ratings for a lot longer than Boxrec have. Nothing will be perfect and they don't even need to be the exact position of the boxers on ability. They need to be the position as to what has actually happened. Boxrec once argued that the ratings should be a prediction tool.

The ratings are fairly simple, fighters move in tags, if you have beaten me you will be ranked above me (for a period of time).

Yes, I think it was I at least in part, that drove the prediction-only effort.. because it is the only way you exclude subjectivity, which is what people often have a problem with. That was abandoned shortly after... obviously people were not satisfied with the efforts.

I'm not saying which system is better, I honestly haven't studied yours and studying yours is more difficult, as you don't publish a hint of info on the point-specific level. I simply said that the divisional movement here, makes more sense for a non-official system.