Ratings - please read before commenting - Archived

[Manrae]

Craig Hudson #85 heavyweight. How do you defend that ranking?

I will not defend it. There will be a further restriction in the required connectness to proved boxers and he might be down to #515.

Code: Select all

     1    1 Heavyweight          659461 Anthony Joshua                      UK  143.3883  124.3410 1452458931 1442458931
     2    2 Heavyweight          468841 Deontay Wilder                      US   77.0325   68.3948 1422459001 1422459001
     3    3 Heavyweight          479205 Tyson Fury                          UK   61.6580   56.0923 1462459001 1452459001
     4    4 Heavyweight          569964 Dillian Whyte                       UK   55.8942   51.9860 1432459022 1422459022
     5    5 Heavyweight          318081 Alexander Povetkin                  RU   54.1429   49.4762 1432458931 1422458756
     6    6 Heavyweight          498837 Jarrell Miller                      US   49.6025   45.7838 1422458987 1412458987
     7    7 Heavyweight          528949 Luis Ortiz                          CU   46.7159   43.2570 1412459092 1402459092
     8    8 Heavyweight          511850 Kubrat Pulev                        BG   46.4209   42.1643 1412458966 1402458966
     9   11 Heavyweight          512994 Adam Kownacki                       PL   33.7735   26.3020 1422459057 1412458917
    10   10 Heavyweight          629462 Dominic Breazeale                   US   33.6624   27.2175 1392459022 1382458609
    11    9 Heavyweight          613846 Joseph Parker                       NZ   29.9556   29.0825 1402459015 1392459015
    12   17 Heavyweight          503964 Oscar Rivas                         CO   23.5132   18.9069 1382459049 1372459049
    13   18 Heavyweight          811429 Joe Joyce                           UK   22.6185   18.7458 1392459085 1382459001
    14   13 Heavyweight          813758 Filip Hrgovic                       HR   21.7210   21.1833 1372459008 1362459008
    15   20 Heavyweight          575332 Agit Kabayel                        DE   21.1828   18.5351 1362459092 1342458777
    16   12 Heavyweight          381739 Dereck Chisora                      UK   20.7144   21.2673 1382459022 1372458875
    17   15 Heavyweight          475159 Christian Hammer                    DE   19.2841   19.9866 1392459092 1382458924
    18   25 Heavyweight          631078 Charles Martin                      US   18.7255   16.1221 1402459106 1392458917
    19   19 Heavyweight          489762 Andy Ruiz Jr                        US   18.7052   18.6510 1392458854 1382458854
    20   14 Heavyweight          451505 Robert Helenius                     FI   18.2606   20.0207 1392458938 1382458938
    21   16 Heavyweight          703923 Sergey Kuzmin                       RU   18.0823   19.1057 1352459099 1342459099
    22   40 Heavyweight          473857 Artur Szpilka                       PL   17.7045   11.3454 1392458980 1372457684
    23   21 Heavyweight          640268 Michael Hunter                      US   17.4288   18.4213 1392458994 1382458994
    24   22 Heavyweight          238766 Johann Duhaupas                     FR   16.8313   18.1570 1412458784 1402458649
    25   24 Heavyweight          643611 Hughie Fury                         UK   16.6267   17.2066 1362458966 1362458798
    26   23 Heavyweight           14883 Tomasz Adamek                       PL   16.5680   17.7743 1372458945 1372458777
    27   26 Heavyweight          489046 Lucas Browne                        AU   15.9927   15.0362 1422459092 1412459092
*   28   58 Heavyweight          804221 Efe Ajagba                          NG   15.7021    8.1083 1352459099 1342459022
    29   27 Heavyweight          529630 Bryant Jennings                     US   15.1907   14.7685 1362459049 1352458896
    30   37 Heavyweight          355273 Carlos Takam                        FR   13.9892   11.6159 1372459022 1362458469
    31   34 Heavyweight          768670 Evgeny Romanov                      RU   13.9338   12.9878 1372459084 1372459084
    32   36 Heavyweight          212248 Chris Arreola                       US   13.8382   11.9962 1382459106 1372459001
*   33   78 Heavyweight          651121 Otto Wallin                         SE   13.8266    6.6178 1352458777 1342458413
    34   47 Heavyweight          309799 Mariusz Wach                        PL   13.4084   10.0167 1372458980 1362458378
    35   44 Heavyweight          387871 Eric Molina                         US   13.3882   10.1642 1382459077 1372458546
    36   29 Heavyweight          219370 Andrey Fedosov                      RU   13.0187   13.6563 1372458952 1362458952
    37   31 Heavyweight           79357 Alexander Dimitrenko                DE   12.7779   13.5734 1352458896 1352458657
    38   28 Heavyweight          280342 Marco Huck                          DE   12.5581   14.2919 1372458833 1362458833
    39   43 Heavyweight          733157 Simon Kean                          CA   12.3761   10.4147 1312459106 1302458833
    40   45 Heavyweight          584916 Trevor Bryan                        US   12.2893   10.0908 1362458889 1362458650
    41   32 Heavyweight          655566 Tom Schwarz                         DE   12.0632   13.2609 1312459092 1302459092
    42   35 Heavyweight          594388 Kyotaro Fujimoto                    JP   11.4805   12.3895 1342458934 1342458793
    43   30 Heavyweight          741417 Petar Milas                         HR   11.4358   13.5854 1372458945 1372458945
    44   33 Heavyweight          763287 Mladen Miljas                       CA   11.2103   13.1237 1412459092 1412458636
    45   56 Heavyweight          621653 Gerald Washington                   US   10.8898    8.4576 1352459057 1352458056
    46   49 Heavyweight           32364 Samuel Peter                        US   10.4795    9.0780 1402459084 1392455815
    47   52 Heavyweight          739980 Nathan Gorman                       UK   10.2910    8.8000 1312459022 1312458959
    48   42 Heavyweight          713216 Tyrone Spong                        NL   10.2008   10.4589 1312459021 1302459021
    49   39 Heavyweight          787430 Daniel Dubois                       UK   10.1574   11.4304 1332459098 1332458945
    50   46 Heavyweight          574621 Dillon Carman                       CA    9.7463   10.0375 1342459084 1342458945
    51   61 Heavyweight          727779 Oleksandr Teslenko                  CA    9.2900    7.8195 1312459001 1302458805
    52   68 Heavyweight          324806 Bermane Stiverne                    US    9.2591    7.1314 1362459085 1362457888
    53   38 Heavyweight          545749 Erkan Teper                         DE    9.2359   11.4441 1362458938 1352458598
    54   63 Heavyweight          327656 Joey Abell                          US    9.1881    7.5469 1362458777 1362458553
    55   48 Heavyweight          716569 Jermaine Franklin                   US    8.9451    9.5784 1312458860 1302458860
    56   41 Heavyweight          630710 David Allen                         UK    8.8793   11.1825 1312458980 1302458980
    57   53 Heavyweight          775950 Ali Eren Demirezen                  TR    8.4052    8.7295 1382458938 1372458938
    58   77 Heavyweight          760653 Kristian Prenga                     AL    7.6476    6.6722 1312459015 1302458749
    59   59 Heavyweight          481634 Adam Braidwood                      CA    7.2124    8.0782 1302458833 1292458784
*   60  141 Heavyweight          664288 Adrian Granat                       SE    6.8263    4.1179 1342458777 1332458224
    61   54 Heavyweight          512687 Joey Dawejko                        US    6.8254    8.7061 1332459099 1322459099
    62   50 Heavyweight          314868 Alexander Ustinov                   RU    6.5217    8.9526 1372458994 1362458630
*   63  333 Heavyweight          692149 Zhilei Zhang                        CN    6.2616    2.9652 1342458937 1332458322
*   64  173 Heavyweight           23704 Amir Mansour                        US    6.1867    3.4769 1332459099 1322458377
    65   51 Heavyweight          483755 David Price                         UK    6.0865    8.8213 1342459022 1332459022
    66   55 Heavyweight          682283 Alexander Frank                     DE    5.9245    8.6779 1302459008 1302459008
    67   65 Heavyweight          734408 Lukasz Rozanski                     PL    5.9129    7.5401 1352458980 1342458707
    68   80 Heavyweight          396836 Tshibuabua Kalonga                  CD    5.7753    6.5132 1322458959 1312458959
    69   57 Heavyweight          426451 Edmund Gerber                       DE    5.6812    8.4557 1372458813 1362458735
    70   64 Heavyweight          814335 Frank Sanchez Faure                 CU    5.6679    7.5444 1302459042 1292459042
    71   90 Heavyweight          795843 Tony Yoka                           FR    5.6081    5.8404 1302458840 1292458840
*   72  334 Heavyweight          188315 BJ Flores                           US    5.3800    2.8009 1352458889 1342457776
    73  130 Heavyweight          261205 Alex Leapai                         AU    5.1931    4.3041 1352458882 1352457167
    74   93 Heavyweight          646375 Ytalo Perea                         EC    5.1850    5.6981 1282459021 1282459021
    75   84 Heavyweight          718566 Niall Kennedy                       IE    5.1573    6.3474 1302459106 1302458959
*   76  163 Heavyweight          497435 Mario Daser                         DE    5.1324    3.7659 1362458805 1352458237
    77  107 Heavyweight          817769 Arslanbek Makhmudov                 RU    5.0632    4.9242 1302459106 1292458994
    78   72 Heavyweight          834487 Bakhodir Jalolov                    UZ    5.0597    6.8698 1302459105 1292459008
    79  120 Heavyweight          651723 Evgenios Lazaridis                  GR    4.9319    4.4557 1292459092 1282458826
    80   60 Heavyweight          325134 Sam Sexton                          UK    4.9311    8.0385 1352458798 1352458580
    81   89 Heavyweight          813592 Ivan Dychko                         KZ    4.8813    5.9533 1342458853 1332458748
*   82  337 Heavyweight          374937 Andriy Rudenko                      UA    4.8189    2.2862 1342459092 1332458294
*   83  168 Heavyweight          352748 Victor Emilio Ramirez               AR    4.8125    3.6198 1342459071 1342457845
    84   81 Heavyweight          632393 Robert Alfonso                      CU    4.7429    6.5108 1352459077 1352458931
    85   62 Heavyweight          698932 George Arias                        DO    4.5741    7.6799 1312459092 1302459092
*   86  515 Heavyweight          625234 Craig Hudson                        CA    4.5136    0.0128 1292458917 1282456823
    87  118 Heavyweight          698269 Kamil Sokolowski                    UK    4.3889    4.5114 1282459092 1272459092
    88   99 Heavyweight          550312 Izuagbe Ugonoh                      PL    4.3680    5.2844 1292458811 1282458811
*   89  335 Heavyweight          489720 Carlos Negron                       PR    4.3369    2.6000 1302459022 1292456291
    90    0 Heavyweight          492977 Chris Cruz                          US    4.2375    0.0055 1292458882 1290000000
    91   87 Heavyweight          343636 Travis Kauffman                     US    4.2129    6.1484 1292459001 1292458827
    92  162 Heavyweight          679276 Jonathan Rice                       US    4.1916    3.7707 1292459057 1282458938
*   93  414 Heavyweight          616873 Gregory Corbin                      US    4.0029    0.5679 1322459106 1312458329
    94  151 Heavyweight          816268 Kem Ljungquist                      DK    3.8931    4.0277 1292459050 1292459050
    95   71 Heavyweight          696821 Leandro Daniel Robutti              AR    3.8053    6.8792 1302459000 1292458825
    96  114 Heavyweight          702784 Demsey McKean                       AU    3.7908    4.7670 1302459106 1292458580
    97   73 Heavyweight          173416 Kevin Johnson                       US    3.7719    6.8281 1312459022 1312458588
    98   86 Heavyweight          510397 Arnold Gjergjaj                     CH    3.7480    6.2418 1302459015 1302459015
*   99  332 Heavyweight           15726 Dominick Guinn                      US    3.7461    2.9991 1312459064 1302456634
*  100  408 Heavyweight          673904 Jean Pierre Augustin                US    3.7327    0.7177 1292459106 1282458448

A new release? When can we expect this to drop?

[Sat166]

calculator is definitely broke when david tua isnt even on top 50 if they cant even put wilder in the top 50 but actives like Tomasz Adamek#45, marco huck#50 and Anthony Joshua#27 who are ranked right below Tyson furys 22nd spot on ATG. Pathetic

[computerrank]

calculator is definitely broke when david tua isnt even on top 50 if they cant even put wilder in the top 50 but actives like Tomasz Adamek#45, marco huck#50 and Anthony Joshua#27 who are ranked right below Tyson furys 22nd spot on ATG. Pathetic

- David Tua with wins against #11 in 2002 and draw with #6 in 2003
- Adamek with wins against #4 Light Hevyweight in 2005, #2 and #3 Cruiserweight in 2008, #6 at Heavyweight in 2012
- Huck with wins all Cruiserweight against #5 in 2007, #5 in 2009, #5 in 2010, #5 in 2013 and #5 in 2016
- Joshua with wins against #7 in 2016, #1 (p4p #6) in 2017, #3 in 2018
- Fury with wins against #5 in 2014, #2 draw in 2018

[Duran1970]

To whom it may concern,....
Where in the fvck is George Dixon?
Is it just me or am I missing something here?
All time bantam feather rankings don't have em anywhere as well as p4p..????
Am I looking in the right spots? I'm fairly new to this site.. maybe I'm misreading.. wouldn't be the first time..

[JohnMcMinn]

I’m also having a hard time wrapping my head around the latest update.

For example, how is Marvin Hagler vs Cocoa Kid a 1-Star fight despite Kid having record of 0-8?

[JCS]

I’m also having a hard time wrapping my head around the latest update.

For example, how is Marvin Hagler vs Cocoa Kid a 1-Star fight despite Kid having record of 0-8?

Because it's Marvin fkn Hagler.. ??

Talk about nitpicking.. my god.

[Lackeos]

Martin, would it help if we used log function when displaying points, eg ...

Downside: it'd be impossible for anyone to independently verify ratings changes or understand the published formula. A fighter's real rating would be 20, and a user would think it was 400. Then, their attempts at reproducing rating change math would never come out right. Then the amount of ratings questions would multiply 10-fold, and the only way anyone could respond to those questions would be "dude, you're seeing the log of the rating, multiplied by 100."

I feel like it'd be better to just revert to the formula that was in place before the ratings collapse. A rating system is ridiculous when 80% of the ranked members have a rating of 0. I think this new system was created to fix bottomfeeders who were still winning a point from 0-rated opponents when the bottomfeeder had a rating of like 13. I think I'd have just changed the formula so that a 13-rated fighter can't win points from a 0-rated fighter. No one with a rating greater than 1 or 2 should be able to win points off of a 0-rated fighter, and no one with a rating above like 4 or 5 should be able to win points off of a 1-rated fighter.

[computerrank]

Martin, would it help if we used log function when displaying points, eg ...

Downside: it'd be impossible for anyone to independently verify ratings changes or understand the published formula. A fighter's real rating would be 20, and a user would think it was 400. Then, their attempts at reproducing rating change math would never come out right. Then the amount of ratings questions would multiply 10-fold, and the only way anyone could respond to those questions would be "dude, you're seeing the log of the rating, multiplied by 100."

I feel like it'd be better to just revert to the formula that was in place before the ratings collapse. A rating system is ridiculous when 80% of the ranked members have a rating of 0. I think this new system was created to fix bottomfeeders who were still winning a point from 0-rated opponents when the bottomfeeder had a rating of like 13. I think I'd have just changed the formula so that a 13-rated fighter can't win points from a 0-rated fighter. No one with a rating greater than 1 or 2 should be able to win points off of a 0-rated fighter, and no one with a rating above like 4 or 5 should be able to win points off of a 1-rated fighter.

80 percent of all active opponents do not comply with the very basic Boxrec ratings requirements to render extra points to a winner
- be connected by a win or close loss within 18 months to a connected opponent
- have defeated an opponent with a win against a winner
- have no recent loss against a not connected opponent

So only success against the other 20 percent will generate points.

You cannot give points for meaningless bouts.

[computerrank]

I’m also having a hard time wrapping my head around the latest update.

For example, how is Marvin Hagler vs Cocoa Kid a 1-Star fight despite Kid having record of 0-8?

He was 0-8, but there was a MD, which got him some fractions of points.

[JohnMcMinn]

I understand that there is some reasoning behind it but it just makes no sense to me how a boxer with zero wins or even draws can earn a star rating. Seems like a flaw in the system. Things like this plus all of the comments already posted above are why users are having issues with the ratings system IMO.

[computerrank]

I understand that there is some reasoning behind it but it just makes no sense to me how a boxer with zero wins or even draws can earn a star rating. Seems like a flaw in the system. Things like this plus all of the comments already posted above are why users are having issues with the ratings system IMO.

Independent of the rating itself, I defined for bouts:
- 5 stars for lower rated opponent in top 100
- 4 stars, if in top 300
- 3 stats, if in top 900
- 2 stars, if in top 2700
- 1 star, if in top 8100

With about 22000 currently active boxers.

The categories could be defined with other limits.

[JohnMcMinn]

Thanks for the reply. Does that mean that both opponents have to be in the top 8100 to be a 1 star bout? If that's the case, then I still feel like the example I cited is flawed. It seems to me that a boxer shouldn't be able to earn a star rating based on not achieving anything in the ring (zero wins or draws). Maybe there would be a way of weighting more MD loss points to a boxer who at least has a win on his record?

I also strongly agree with Jens S's comments about the points system. Since so many boxers now have fractional points it appears that thousands of fighters have 0 points. As someone who keeps up with current ratings and also looks at historical ratings, that makes it very difficult to follow the development of a boxer's career.

[computerrank]

Thanks for the reply. Does that mean that both opponents have to be in the top 8100 to be a 1 star bout? If that's the case, then I still feel like the example I cited is flawed. It seems to me that a boxer shouldn't be able to earn a star rating based on not achieving anything in the ring (zero wins or draws). Maybe there would be a way of weighting more MD loss points to a boxer who at least has a win on his record?

I also strongly agree with Jens S's comments about the points system. Since so many boxers now have fractional points it appears that thousands of fighters have 0 points. As someone who keeps up with current ratings and also looks at historical ratings, that makes it very difficult to follow the development of a boxer's career.

As I answered to Jens, boxers should only have points, when they earned them. The problem is, 80 percent of all boxers never were matched in a bout with approved opponents.
To get connected, you have to
- win a bout against an opponent with a win
- there is a state system, where boxers start in state 0
- you step up by a win against equal or higher stated opponent, who is connected by a win or a close loss to another connected opponent within 18 months
- you drop down after a loss
- you don't get points for the state itself, the state is an enabler
- you earn extra points for defeating a connected opponent in state 1 or higher
- before every rating all connections between boxers are recalculated from scratch

[Jens S]

As I read your answer, you wrote, that you were going to change the ratings so 50 % would have a point. Now you won't do it anyway? But I honestly really don't think, I got an answer. Why the sudden and extreme change in the level of points? Has Boxrec been wrong for a decade or so? It seems more like a personal opinion to me, than anything else. And it gives lack of transparency and therefore lack of credibility.

I would like to quote you:
"You cannot give points for meaningless bouts".
As you say, Boxrec gives fractional points. So you do give points

There are some meaningless fights, and I know, that you are aware of that. Bogus fights in Eastern Europe, that hardly can be called sparring. It''s more like shadowboxing. I know that Boxrec has demanded videos of fights from suspicious areas as verification. Thanks! A great step which I appreciate. But fights building up fighters or even fights at a lower level are not meaningless. It is a wrong way to look at boxing.

I think the owners of Boxrec should take a step back and look at what Boxrec is about, what the rankings should show, and who they are for. Is the idea of Boxrec not to give transparency in boxing? Instead of bogus rankings from governing bodies we get computerrankings based on results (which of course is not an exact science, but gives a very good idea of the strength of the boxers). Isn't the basis of Boxrec the users? Isn't it fulfilling their need of information, that makes the site great? Why keep information back from the users? If you really insist on only giving the fighters fractional points, then why not make them public?

I also think, that you should announce on the front page of Boxrec, every time you chance the ratings. In Denmark, where I live, there arose a feud between two promotors/managers, because you changed the ratings. One of them claimed that his fighter was the higher rated (which was correct at the time). A few days later, the other came out publicly calling the other one a liar, because his fighter was ranked higher (which was correct that day). Only because of a screendump was it possible to verify the first claim. That is not good for anybody. Not the promotors/managers, nor boxing or Boxrec.

But let me show you some things from the rankings:
http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/664616
Joe Jones (8-0, 7 KO) beats a guy with one point. He knocks out Rex Harris (4-5-2, 2 KO) in the third round. After that fight we have two fighters with no points. Joe Jones (Now 9-0, 8 KO) then gets knocked out by Shawndell Terell Winters (9-1, 8 KO) in the fifth round. Still no points.

Now lets look at Jonas Madsen versus Andreas Lynggaard:
http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/736932
Two fighters with both 0 points fights to a SD. Jonas Madsen moves to 2 points. So a close win over a opponent with fewer points give more.

That really seems weird. But maybe there is an explanation.

But this seems inexplicable:
Sarah Mahfoud (6-0, 3 KO) versus Stephanie Ducastel (8-4-2, 2 KO):
http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/786389
Ducastel has fought a draw with Jelena Mrdjenovic - the best in the division - just 16 months before. And Ducastel came in with two points. Sarah Mahfoud came in with 0 points, but won every single round against a fighter with 2 points on all three scorecards - 80-72. She only moves from 0 to 1 point.

In the same division:
http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/718233
Licia Boudersa (3-1-1, 0 KO) versus Elodie Bouchlaka (1-0-2, 0 KO)
None of Licia Boudersas opponents has ever had a point before or after.
None of Elodie Bouchlakas opponents has ever had a point before or after - except Boudersa.
Boudersa wins 79-73, 78-75 and 78-74. A fairly clear win, but not a shutout as Mahfoud did in her fight against Ducastel.
They were both at 0 points. Still Boudersa moved from 0 to 2 points.

How can this happen??? Mahfoud clearly fought better opponents before her fight than Boudersa, she had better results - all wins, she beat a clearly better fighter, and she did it more convincingly. Yet she didn't even get the same amount of points. No, she got less.

There is something wrong in the system!

About the stars - there are problems too.

http://boxrec.com/en/ratings?offset=7750
The fighter ranked 7790 has half a star. The fighter ranked 7977 has one star. So the higher ranked fighter has half a star less. He is ranked 187 spots above.

Here it is the same in a weight division
Look a number 695, Larry Smith. He has a full star. Jarvis Shephard at number 672 has half a star.
http://boxrec.com/en/ratings?offset=650 ... ddleweight
The same story here:
http://boxrec.com/en/ratings?offset=450 ... therweight

How can this happen?

Now if such things had happened in the rankings of WB-something - how would you look upon it? Transparency and comprehensibility is needed in boxing. That also goes for Boxrec.

Best regards

Jens S

PS. Duran1970: Hall of Famer, all time great, four time world champion George Dixon is ranked 194 at the all time featherweight:
http://boxrec.com/en/ratings?r_go=&yrR% ... offset=150

[Manrae]

As I read your answer, you wrote, that you were going to change the ratings so 50 % would have a point. Now you won't do it anyway? But I honestly really don't think, I got an answer. Why the sudden and extreme change in the level of points? Has Boxrec been wrong for a decade or so? It seems more like a personal opinion to me, than anything else. And it gives lack of transparency and therefore lack of credibility.

I would like to quote you:
"You cannot give points for meaningless bouts".
As you say, Boxrec gives fractional points. So you do give points

There are some meaningless fights, and I know, that you are aware of that. Bogus fights in Eastern Europe, that hardly can be called sparring. It''s more like shadowboxing. I know that Boxrec has demanded videos of fights from suspicious areas as verification. Thanks! A great step which I appreciate. But fights building up fighters or even fights at a lower level are not meaningless. It is a wrong way to look at boxing.

I think the owners of Boxrec should take a step back and look at what Boxrec is about, what the rankings should show, and who they are for. Is the idea of Boxrec not to give transparency in boxing? Instead of bogus rankings from governing bodies we get computerrankings based on results (which of course is not an exact science, but gives a very good idea of the strength of the boxers). Isn't the basis of Boxrec the users? Isn't it fulfilling their need of information, that makes the site great? Why keep information back from the users? If you really insist on only giving the fighters fractional points, then why not make them public?

I also think, that you should announce on the front page of Boxrec, every time you chance the ratings. In Denmark, where I live, there arose a feud between two promotors/managers, because you changed the ratings. One of them claimed that his fighter was the higher rated (which was correct at the time). A few days later, the other came out publicly calling the other one a liar, because his fighter was ranked higher (which was correct that day). Only because of a screendump was it possible to verify the first claim. That is not good for anybody. Not the promotors/managers, nor boxing or Boxrec.

But let me show you some things from the rankings:
http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/664616
Joe Jones (8-0, 7 KO) beats a guy with one point. He knocks out Rex Harris (4-5-2, 2 KO) in the third round. After that fight we have two fighters with no points. Joe Jones (Now 9-0, 8 KO) then gets knocked out by Shawndell Terell Winters (9-1, 8 KO) in the fifth round. Still no points.

Now lets look at Jonas Madsen versus Andreas Lynggaard:
http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/736932
Two fighters with both 0 points fights to a SD. Jonas Madsen moves to 2 points. So a close win over a opponent with fewer points give more.

That really seems weird. But maybe there is an explanation.

But this seems inexplicable:
Sarah Mahfoud (6-0, 3 KO) versus Stephanie Ducastel (8-4-2, 2 KO):
http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/786389
Ducastel has fought a draw with Jelena Mrdjenovic - the best in the division - just 16 months before. And Ducastel came in with two points. Sarah Mahfoud came in with 0 points, but won every single round against a fighter with 2 points on all three scorecards - 80-72. She only moves from 0 to 1 point.

In the same division:
http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/718233
Licia Boudersa (3-1-1, 0 KO) versus Elodie Bouchlaka (1-0-2, 0 KO)
None of Licia Boudersas opponents has ever had a point before or after.
None of Elodie Bouchlakas opponents has ever had a point before or after - except Boudersa.
Boudersa wins 79-73, 78-75 and 78-74. A fairly clear win, but not a shutout as Mahfoud did in her fight against Ducastel.
They were both at 0 points. Still Boudersa moved from 0 to 2 points.

How can this happen??? Mahfoud clearly fought better opponents before her fight than Boudersa, she had better results - all wins, she beat a clearly better fighter, and she did it more convincingly. Yet she didn't even get the same amount of points. No, she got less.

There is something wrong in the system!

About the stars - there are problems too.

http://boxrec.com/en/ratings?offset=7750
The fighter ranked 7790 has half a star. The fighter ranked 7977 has one star. So the higher ranked fighter has half a star less. He is ranked 187 spots above.

Here it is the same in a weight division
Look a number 695, Larry Smith. He has a full star. Jarvis Shephard at number 672 has half a star.
http://boxrec.com/en/ratings?offset=650 ... ddleweight
The same story here:
http://boxrec.com/en/ratings?offset=450 ... therweight

How can this happen?

Now if such things had happened in the rankings of WB-something - how would you look upon it? Transparency and comprehensibility is needed in boxing. That also goes for Boxrec.

Best regards

Jens S

PS. Duran1970: Hall of Famer, all time great, four time world champion George Dixon is ranked 194 at the all time featherweight:
http://boxrec.com/en/ratings?r_go=&yrR% ... offset=150

Wow, I'm impressed!

[Boxing Prospect]

Can't help but feel this is flawed. Example the Rookie of the Year and BoxingM Battle Royale tournaments messing with things with novice winners having wins over novice winners who have wins against novice winners... Unless I've totally misunderstood

[computerrank]

@jens - a long message - I will respond in parts

As I read your answer, you wrote, that you were going to change the ratings so 50 % would have a point. Now you won't do it anyway? But I honestly really don't think, I got an answer. Why the sudden and extreme change in the level of points? Has Boxrec been wrong for a decade or so? It seems more like a personal opinion to me, than anything else. And it gives lack of transparency and therefore lack of credibility.

RESPONSE

It would need a multiplication of 100 to show a point for 50 percent of all boxers. But it makes no sense to show a scale of 1 to 100000.

There was no intention to make a change in level of points. This was a result. Above I described in detail the state system to get connected and to get additional points.

The Boxrec was always quite good for the top rated boxers.. But we had to learn, it allowed boxers to get points, although there were no achievements behind. An extreme example was Ali Raymi from Yemen, who climbed up into the top 10 at Minimumweight.

So I step by step eliminated such weaknesses.

Regarding the points in the system:
- points are redistributed by every bout. No points come in or get out of the system by this basic rating process
- but points get out of the system by career end, by point reductions due to inactivity or missing opponent quality
- so additional points must be fed into the system
- this happens, when a boxer defeats an opponent, who is connected to other connected boxers in the described way. As these additional points come from off, they should be in the scale of the lower visibility. So they are currently limited to 2.5 points.

[computerrank]

@jens

I also think, that you should announce on the front page of Boxrec, every time you chance the ratings. In Denmark, where I live, there arose a feud between two promotors/managers, because you changed the ratings. One of them claimed that his fighter was the higher rated (which was correct at the time). A few days later, the other came out publicly calling the other one a liar, because his fighter was ranked higher (which was correct that day). Only because of a screendump was it possible to verify the first claim. That is not good for anybody. Not the promotors/managers, nor boxing or Boxrec.

RESPONSE

I always communicated a change in the Boxrec forums. But it is a good idea, to indicate a change on the main page.

[computerrank]

@jens

But let me show you some things from the rankings:
http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/664616
Joe Jones (8-0, 7 KO) beats a guy with one point. He knocks out Rex Harris (4-5-2, 2 KO) in the third round. After that fight we have two fighters with no points. Joe Jones (Now 9-0, 8 KO) then gets knocked out by Shawndell Terell Winters (9-1, 8 KO) in the fifth round. Still no points.

RESPONSE

They were not connected and only distributed the points. Harris from 0.61 to 0.38, Jones from 0.09 to 0.31. Winters from 0.30 to 0.44.

[computerrank]

@jens

Now lets look at Jonas Madsen versus Andreas Lynggaard:
http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/736932
Two fighters with both 0 points fights to a SD. Jonas Madsen moves to 2 points. So a close win over a opponent with fewer points give more.

RESPONSE

Lynggaard was connected and gave him 2 points.

[computerrank]

@jens

But this seems inexplicable:
Sarah Mahfoud (6-0, 3 KO) versus Stephanie Ducastel (8-4-2, 2 KO):
http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/786389
Ducastel has fought a draw with Jelena Mrdjenovic - the best in the division - just 16 months before. And Ducastel came in with two points. Sarah Mahfoud came in with 0 points, but won every single round against a fighter with 2 points on all three scorecards - 80-72. She only moves from 0 to 1 point.

RESPONSE

Ducastel was connected, but she was not in state 1. So Mahfoud got no additional points.

It could be considered to make a change in the algorithm here. Perhaps a connection bout should additionally set the state to 1, if the opponent is at least in state 1. Mrdjenovic was higher, so Ducastel could be set to state 1.

This would Mahfoud give additional points.

Interesting ...

[computerrank]

@jens

In the same division:
http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/718233
Licia Boudersa (3-1-1, 0 KO) versus Elodie Bouchlaka (1-0-2, 0 KO)
None of Licia Boudersas opponents has ever had a point before or after.
None of Elodie Bouchlakas opponents has ever had a point before or after - except Boudersa.
Boudersa wins 79-73, 78-75 and 78-74. A fairly clear win, but not a shutout as Mahfoud did in her fight against Ducastel.
They were both at 0 points. Still Boudersa moved from 0 to 2 points.

RESPONSE

Bouchlakas was connected at that time.

[computerrank]

@jens

http://boxrec.com/en/ratings?offset=7750
The fighter ranked 7790 has half a star. The fighter ranked 7977 has one star. So the higher ranked fighter has half a star less. He is ranked 187 spots above.

RESPONSE

I can reproduce this. Some ratings below 0.006 points may be affected. The will be fixed in the next version.

The rating limits were fixed, when the release was activated with ranking. The exact ranking so may change a bit from day to day.

[computerrank]

@jens

PS. Duran1970: Hall of Famer, all time great, four time world champion George Dixon is ranked 194 at the all time featherweight:
http://boxrec.com/en/ratings?r_go=&yrR% ... offset=150

RESPONSE

He won against tops and lost to #10 and 15. The only clear year was 1898.

And the rating level was lower. Maybe to missing the records.

[pugilisticspecialist]

I think people complaining about the new rating system need to look at the bigger picture.
Release 38 is objectively better than release 37 at predicting bout outcomes, which is the primary role of BoxRec.
The new system might be less "aesthetic", but that's just the price you have to pay for improved predictiveness.