Ratings - please read before commenting - Archived

joeboxer · Post by **joeboxer** » 18 May 2006, 17:02

please go back to the old ratings. these new ones dont make sense. guys who have won a lot against weak opposition are rated way too high. Dimitrenko 5th at heavy?

jujigatame · Post by **jujigatame** » 18 May 2006, 17:03

Yes, that's how boxing rankings have been done since the dawn of the sport. There might be an up and comer who is on a good win streak and would be favored to beat the top guys in the division, but that doesn't mean you rank him above those guys until he actually does it. It really seems like you're trying to build a computerized betting system or something here.

Grey · Post by **Grey** » 18 May 2006, 17:12

Eh, whatever, there's a fine line between objectivity and sanity, and frankly I think these ratings are going to make the site a laughing stock instead of your goal generating intelligent debate.

Lennox · Post by **Lennox** » 18 May 2006, 17:13

jujigatame wrote:Yes, that's how boxing rankings have been done since the dawn of the sport. There might be an up and comer who is on a good win streak and would be favored to beat the top guys in the division, but that doesn't mean you rank him above those guys until he actually does it. It really seems like you're trying to build a computerized betting system or something here.

I have been arguing that very point for the last month Jujitame. Computer, JCS & JohnShep seem convinced the only way to produce a computer ranking is to create a best prediction system... it is not boxing ratings, im not even convinced this set of ranking/ order would do what they say, I dont think it will be better at predicting than IBO ratings over a long term because those boxers are in a good order from 1-100, but I guess we can do an evaluation study and count the upsets as before.

Lennox · Post by **Lennox** » 18 May 2006, 17:18

GreyMinus wrote:Eh, whatever, there's a fine line between objectivity and sanity, and frankly I think these ratings are going to make the site a laughing stock instead of your goal generating intelligent debate.

I agree totally

Grey · Post by **Grey** » 18 May 2006, 17:35

http://cataumet.net/gboxrec/boxrecratings.htm

Also, I'll be keeping track.

JCS · Post by **JCS** » 18 May 2006, 18:00

GreyMinus wrote:http://cataumet.net/gboxrec/boxrecratings.htm

Also, I'll be keeping track.

In some situations this won't be entirely accurate because of tune-ups fights causing some fighters to be ranked in wrong divisions..

As fighters move divisions their rating points change slightly.. So their rating points would be adjusted on-the-fly at the time of the bout if in fact a fighter's weight division did not match that of the bout.

In other words, if fighters are at different divisions pre-fight and they are within 50 points or so.. I would say its not a fair test... because you don't know what the system will do their points at fight time.

Furthermore, I think the HW division is so fucked up you might as well put any notable fight in there regardless of ranking difference. 30 ranking spots in Heavy isn't that big of a deal outside the Top 25. That probably applies for most weight divisions.

Grey · Post by **Grey** » 18 May 2006, 18:14

JCS83MD wrote:
GreyMinus wrote:http://cataumet.net/gboxrec/boxrecratings.htm

Also, I'll be keeping track.
In some situations this won't be entirely accurate because of tune-ups fights causing some fighters to be ranked in wrong divisions..

As fighters move divisions their rating points change slightly.. So their rating points would be adjusted on-the-fly at the time of the bout if in fact a fighter's weight division did not match that of the bout.

In other words, if fighters are at different divisions pre-fight and they are within 50 points or so.. I would say its not a fair test... because you don't know what the system will do their points at fight time.

Furthermore, I think the HW division is so fucked up you might as well put any notable fight in there regardless of ranking difference. 30 ranking spots in Heavy isn't that big of a deal outside the Top 25. That probably applies for most weight divisions.

Since I'm an editor I can temporarily move fighters to the same divison and I'll rate them accordingly, don't worry.

Heh yeah the heavyweight division is a crapshoot, but I'll keep it to a difference of 30.

JCS · Post by **JCS** » 18 May 2006, 18:16

GreyMinus wrote:
JCS83MD wrote:
GreyMinus wrote:http://cataumet.net/gboxrec/boxrecratings.htm

Also, I'll be keeping track.
In some situations this won't be entirely accurate because of tune-ups fights causing some fighters to be ranked in wrong divisions..

As fighters move divisions their rating points change slightly.. So their rating points would be adjusted on-the-fly at the time of the bout if in fact a fighter's weight division did not match that of the bout.

In other words, if fighters are at different divisions pre-fight and they are within 50 points or so.. I would say its not a fair test... because you don't know what the system will do their points at fight time.

Furthermore, I think the HW division is so fucked up you might as well put any notable fight in there regardless of ranking difference. 30 ranking spots in Heavy isn't that big of a deal outside the Top 25. That probably applies for most weight divisions.
Since I'm an editor I can temporarily move fighters to the same divison and I'll rate them accordingly, don't worry.

Heh yeah the heavyweight division is a crapshoot, but I'll keep it to a difference of 30.

Should be interesting.

And don't get me wrong.. Even though I assisted in some recent ratings updates etc, there is still room for improvement...

Freiheit · Post by **Freiheit** » 18 May 2006, 19:20

Why are some fighters rated (much) higher than fighters the lost two in their latest fight?

computerrank · Post by **computerrank** » 19 May 2006, 01:18

Freiheit wrote:Why are some fighters rated (much) higher than fighters the lost two in their latest fight?

There is no logner a side rule, which ensures a winner to be rated higher than a loser. So the winnner, who was rated much lower than the loser may be still rated lower after this win.

This means a single loss / win does not mean all.

The side rule now effected the predicition rate.

computerrank · Post by **computerrank** » 19 May 2006, 01:23

GreyMinus wrote:http://cataumet.net/gboxrec/boxrecratings.htm

Also, I'll be keeping track.

May 18, 2006

Julio Diaz (#7) vs. Ricky Quiles (#31) UD12

Notes: This is for the IBF Interim lightweight title, 12 rounds. Quiles is rated #1 by the IBF, Diaz is #3.

Vladim Tokarev (#4) vs. Felix Cora (#12) TKO4

Notes: This is for the NABF Cruiserweight title, either 10 or 12 rounds, I'm not exactly sure. Cora is rated #10 WBC and #11 IBF. Tokarev is rated #11 WBA and #12 WBO. Boxrec favors the Russian in this one.

Jason Estrada (#114) vs. Robert Wiggins (#138) UD10

Notes: This is a ten rounder and a big step up for Estrada, who Boxrec has above Wiggins, despite only having five professional wins.

jujigatame · Post by **jujigatame** » 19 May 2006, 01:25

So your betting system was successful tonight. Congratulations.

Grey · Post by **Grey** » 19 May 2006, 02:04

Indeed, 3 for 3!

Let's see if the streak continues

computerrank · Post by **computerrank** » 19 May 2006, 06:33

I detected the old version after the daily update today and sent a message to John. Maybe an error in the daily update procedure ...

JCS · Post by **JCS** » 19 May 2006, 08:56

jujigatame wrote:So your betting system was successful tonight. Congratulations.

Isn't it amazing?

JCS · Post by **JCS** » 19 May 2006, 08:56

GreyMinus wrote:Indeed, 3 for 3!

Let's see if the streak continues

Gotta keep that site updated.

jujigatame · Post by **jujigatame** » 19 May 2006, 16:06

JCS83MD wrote:
jujigatame wrote:So your betting system was successful tonight. Congratulations.
Isn't it amazing?

Yea, it's a pretty cool betting system you've got here.

JCS · Post by **JCS** » 19 May 2006, 16:13

jujigatame wrote:
JCS83MD wrote:
jujigatame wrote:So your betting system was successful tonight. Congratulations.
Isn't it amazing?
Yea, it's a pretty cool betting system you've got here.

Word

jujigatame · Post by **jujigatame** » 19 May 2006, 16:49

Yea, too bad they're trying to pass it off as a set of coherent rankings.

Post by **John** » 19 May 2006, 18:35

jujigatame wrote:Yea, too bad they're trying to pass it off as a set of coherent rankings.

who ever claimed they were rankings ???

JCS · Post by **JCS** » 19 May 2006, 18:37

JohnShep wrote:
jujigatame wrote:Yea, too bad they're trying to pass it off as a set of coherent rankings.
who ever claimed they were rankings ???

You beat me to it!

jujigatame · Post by **jujigatame** » 19 May 2006, 22:31

So now we're going to get into a semantic debate on the difference between ratings and rankings?

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 19 May 2006, 22:33

and the difference between rantings and ravings

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 19 May 2006, 22:42

Serious Question....would it be possible to show the "all time rating" of retired boxers? Or maybe even not so retired?

For example If you pull up a name of a current boxer you can quickly find out where he is rated these days. Could that be made to happen for the "All time ratings" as well?

Example..

Tommy Loughran
Sex Male
Nationality US American
Hometown Philadelphia, PA
Division Light Heavyweight
All time Rating #6
Date of Birth 1902-11-29
Date of Death 1982-07-07
Age at Death 79
Reach 73 inches
Height 5' 11½
W 94 (17 ko's) (+ 18 news) | L 24 (+ 6 news) | D 10 (+ 2 news) | Total 174

Could that field be added? I think it would be a great addition if it is possible. In this case Roy Jones is #10 Could he have both fields filled? One for his "current" status and one for his "all time" status?

For example:

Roy Jones Jr
Sex Male
Nationality US American
Alias Junior
Birth Name Roy Levesta Jones
Global ID 001758
Federal ID FL020903
Hometown Pensacola, FL, USA
Birthplace Pensacola, FL, USA
Rated at Light Heavyweight
World Rank 20 / 586
All time Ranking #10
Date of Birth 1969-01-16
Age 37
Reach 74”
Stance Orthodox
Height 5' 11
Trainer Alton Merkerson
Manager James Prince
W 49 (38 ko's) | L 4 | D 0 | Total 53