Ratings - please read before commenting - Archived

[JohnMcMinn]

What's the reasoning for giving a boxer who loses a close decision some of the winner's points? For example, Jacobs loses to Canelo and his points go from 599.5➞710.0. It was a close decision but a unanimous decision - a clear loss, not a SD or MD. And Canelo actually loses points even though he beats one of the #3 boxer in the division via UD.

[JCS]

What's the reasoning for giving a boxer who loses a close decision some of the winner's points? For example, Jacobs loses to Canelo and his points go from 599.5➞710.0. It was a close decision but a unanimous decision - a clear loss, not a SD or MD. And Canelo actually loses points even though he beats one of the #3 boxer in the division via UD.

Seems obvious, no?

The losing boxer performed better than expected based on the rating difference and vice versa.. so the ratings adjust to reflect this. A boxer with a rating triple his opponent's, is expected to win much more dominantly than 115-113/116-112

[JohnMcMinn]

It makes some sense, it just seems odd that the winning boxer would lose points for a UD victory.

[John]

It makes some sense, it just seems odd that the winning boxer would lose points for a UD victory.

If Saul Alvarez squeeked a narrow 12 round UD over Clifford McPherson http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/327502 should he still be rated at #1 ?

[JohnMcMinn]

If Saul Alvarez squeeked a narrow 12 round UD over Clifford McPherson http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/327502 should he still be rated at #1 ?

No, but McPherson is rated 1,284. Alvarez would be expected to shutout or KO him. Jacobs is #3 and a close decision would be expected. I'm just wondering why a UD results in lost points, that's all. It seems by this logic, for example, Golovkin should lose points for KOing Rolls given their ratings disparity. I'm not suggesting a change or anything, just trying to understand the reasoning behind this.

[jamamb]

closer then computerally expected result based on the point disparity

[John]

The reasoning is simple, it makes the algorithm more accurate. We test the factors so they improve the prediction rate.

[Manrae]

closer then computerally expected result based on the point disparity

That's the problem. The point disparity overrides the ranking. Canelo, like any other #1 fighter can only fight what's available. The unreal standards placed on fighters' performances against even top 3 boxers is unfair.

[JCS]

That's the problem. The point disparity overrides the ranking. Canelo, like any other #1 fighter can only fight what's available. The unreal standards placed on fighters' performances against even top 3 boxers is unfair.

But he's still #1 by a wide margin..

[JohnMcMinn]

But he's still #1 by a wide margin..

This is my point though. Canelo had 1129 more points than Jacobs and loses 92 points when he wins a UD. Golovkin had 1363 more points than Steve Rolls but gains points for KOing him. Why should he gain points for KOing such an overmatched opponent? That is an insane points disparity. It's not like one boxer has 20 points and the other has 2 points, we're talking a 1300+ point difference. It seems inconsistent to me, and I don't see why a KO should affect the result. That's what I'm trying to understand.

[computerrank]

This is my point though. Canelo had 1129 more points than Jacobs and loses 92 points when he wins a UD. Golovkin had 1363 more points than Steve Rolls but gains points for KOing him. Why should he gain points for KOing such an overmatched opponent? That is an insane points disparity. It's not like one boxer has 20 points and the other has 2 points, we're talking a 1300+ point difference. It seems inconsistent to me, and I don't see why a KO should affect the result. That's what I'm trying to understand.

A UD is not a clear decision per definition. It only means, all judges gave the win to one of the opponents. And this may be by an advantage of one single round. So such a bout is much closer to a draw. A SD with 2 judges favouring cleary one opponent and the 3rd judge only having it close may be a much narrower decision.
And at last, a boxer cannot get at much more than double or triple of his best opponent's points. The rating of a boxer at the end depends on the best opponents available.

[JohnMcMinn]

A UD is not a clear decision per definition. It only means, all judges gave the win to one of the opponents. And this may be by an advantage of one single round. So such a bout is much closer to a draw. A SD with 2 judges favouring cleary one opponent and the 3rd judge only having it close may be a much narrower decision.
And at last, a boxer cannot get at much more than double or triple of his best opponent's points. The rating of a boxer at the end depends on the best opponents available.

Thanks. That explains it pretty well. So in the Golovkin example he gains points because it's a decisive victory and the massive ratings disparity has no effect on the outcome?

[computerrank]

Thanks. That explains it pretty well. So in the Golovkin example he gains points because it's a decisive victory and the massive ratings disparity has no effect on the outcome?

Golovkin example:
Golovkin won no regular points, Rolls lost no regular points.
Golovkin only got addtitonal points. 0.01 for the win. 0.1 for the win against a winner within 18 months. 1 for a win against a winner, who himself defeated a winner within 18 months. And finally up to 40 points, at most the opponent's prebout rating, here 29 points. All see Boxrec ratings description.

Jacobs ecample:
Alvarez lost regular points due to the close result and the big rating difference. Jacobs won these points. About 110 points.
Alvarez won about 20 additional points and so lost only 90 points at all.

[JohnMcMinn]

Golovkin example:
Golovkin won no regular points, Rolls lost no regular points.
Golovkin only got addtitonal points. 0.01 for the win. 0.1 for the win against a winner within 18 months. 1 for a win against a winner, who himself defeated a winner within 18 months. And finally up to 40 points, at most the opponent's prebout rating, here 29 points. All see Boxrec ratings description.

Jacobs ecample:
Alvarez lost regular points due to the close result and the big rating difference. Jacobs won these points. About 110 points.
Alvarez won about 20 additional points and so lost only 90 points at all.

Thank you! That all makes sense now.

[Manrae]

http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/819546

Ranked #50 of top p4p UK boxers of all time.

How?

[JCS]

http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/819546

Ranked #50 of top p4p UK boxers of all time.

How?

That's a pretty sweet one..

[computerrank]

One top career win and nothing else.

I will reconsider the all times formula after my trip through the Baltic countries

Greetings from Riga

[Manrae]

One top career win and nothing else.

I will reconsider the all times formula after my trip through the Baltic countries

Greetings from Riga

Hey, had a chance to look at the all time ranking formula yet?

[computerrank]

One top career win and nothing else.

I will reconsider the all times formula after my trip through the Baltic countries

Greetings from Riga

Hey, had a chance to look at the all time ranking formula yet?

I will return on July 21.

[Manrae]

Hey, had a chance to look at the all time ranking formula yet?

I will return on July 21.

Cool

[Lackeos]

closer then computerally expected result based on the point disparity

That's the problem. The point disparity overrides the ranking. Canelo, like any other #1 fighter can only fight what's available. The unreal standards placed on fighters' performances against even top 3 boxers is unfair.

Saul had a 1728 rating, which was 239 points higher than the current #2 p4p boxer. Which essentially means that there's quite a wide gap between him and other fighters like Lomanchenko, Crawford, Spence, and Usyk (and Pacquiao). In order to maintain that major distance between other top fighters, he needs to post results that are reflective of having a distant lead on the #1 p4p position.

Alvarez won the Jacobs fight by only an average of 2 rounds on the cards. Lomanchenko and Crawford have each won all of their fights since 2014 with "clear decision factors" of 1. Look back at how long it's been since either of them won any fight by only 2 rounds. Alvarez remains hundreds of points ahead of them. Not everyone would agree that he should be.

[Manrae]

Many retired boxers including DeGale, Bellew, Groves and more have suddenly re-appeared in the rankings.
Why?

[computerrank]

Many retired boxers including DeGale, Bellew, Groves and more have suddenly re-appeared in the rankings.
Why?

Seems to be a problem with the new Boxrec release. I forwarded your message to the team.

[Manrae]

Many retired boxers including DeGale, Bellew, Groves and more have suddenly re-appeared in the rankings.
Why?

Seems to be a problem with the new Boxrec release. I forwarded your message to the team.

Cool, hope you enjoyed your time away on vacation

[computerrank]

Seems to be a problem with the new Boxrec release. I forwarded your message to the team.

Cool, hope you enjoyed your time away on vacation

We had a great time :-)

Regarding the ratings, I will wait until the issues with the new Boxrec release will be fixed ...