Lennox wrote: ↑13 Aug 2019, 11:51
They take the champions up to 5 out. They take out their intercontinental champion then they are the same, but they are produced monthly so would be the same for that one day until updated.
They are not the same.
Now I'm really curious. IBO's wikipedia entry says
From 2014 the organization now uses Boxrec, the independent boxing records keeping and computerized rankings website for IBO's rankings.
But the citation (IBO's website) doesn't explicitly mention Boxrec anywhere. The rankings are pretty similar once the champions are culled out but there are differences. In heavyweight IBO has Whyte ahead of Povetkin, and Pulev ahead of Ortiz, for example, swaps that haven't changed on Boxrec since the beginning of the month.
computerrank wrote: ↑13 Aug 2019, 14:07
They are not the same.
Now I'm really curious. IBO's wikipedia entry says
From 2014 the organization now uses Boxrec, the independent boxing records keeping and computerized rankings website for IBO's rankings.
But the citation (IBO's website) doesn't explicitly mention Boxrec anywhere. The rankings are pretty similar once the champions are culled out but there are differences. In heavyweight IBO has Whyte ahead of Povetkin, and Pulev ahead of Ortiz, for example, swaps that haven't changed on Boxrec since the beginning of the month.
IBO uses the Boxrec database, but applies their own formula.
Now I'm really curious. IBO's wikipedia entry says
But the citation (IBO's website) doesn't explicitly mention Boxrec anywhere. The rankings are pretty similar once the champions are culled out but there are differences. In heavyweight IBO has Whyte ahead of Povetkin, and Pulev ahead of Ortiz, for example, swaps that haven't changed on Boxrec since the beginning of the month.
IBO uses the Boxrec database, but applies their own formula.
Ah, thank you. That makes sense given the language in Wikipedia.
Do they pay for this access? Do you know how much? (I know you probably can't answer that, but I'm curious!)
Last night's Figueroa vs. Chacon fight was another indicator to me that something is a bit awry. I watched the fight because Chacon was ranked #15 by BoxRec so I thought Figueroa was getting a good opponent. But the fight was a brutal mismatch. When I went back to BoxRec to check how Chacon got his ranking, he went all the way from 55 points to 121 points by beating 2 guys who each had around 35 points each. This feels like another loophole case where a mediocre fighter has achieved a high ranking by fighting nobodies.
jujigatame wrote: ↑25 Aug 2019, 10:40
Last night's Figueroa vs. Chacon fight was another indicator to me that something is a bit awry. I watched the fight because Chacon was ranked #15 by BoxRec so I thought Figueroa was getting a good opponent. But the fight was a brutal mismatch. When I went back to BoxRec to check how Chacon got his ranking, he went all the way from 55 points to 121 points by beating 2 guys who each had around 35 points each. This feels like another loophole case where a mediocre fighter has achieved a high ranking by fighting nobodies.
At least we won't have to deal w/ Lennox on this one. His system had Chacon at #13.
I don't really know how the hell Lennox's system works but it always seems vague and handwavey to me. Although maybe all systems are to some extent.
About Chacon, the 2 wins in question were:
1) Chacon (55 pts) TKOs Reynoso (35 pts) and goes up to 101 points. I get that a TKO is the most dominant sort of win, but The fact that he gained more than his opponent's entire point total is crazy.
2) Chacon (90 pts, not sure why he went down, maybe some penalty?) beats Cusolito (37 pts) by a 7-3 type decision, and goes up to 121 points. A fight where the underdog only has about 40% of the favorite's points would usually be considered a borderline mismatch. Winning a borderline mismatch by a 7-3 decision doesn't seem like the sort of fight you should be gaining many points from, let alone 31, which again is close to the opponent's entire point total.
jujigatame wrote: ↑25 Aug 2019, 10:53
I don't really know how the hell Lennox's system works but it always seems vague and handwavey to me. Although maybe all systems are to some extent.
About Chacon, the 2 wins in question were:
1) Chacon (55 pts) TKOs Reynoso (35 pts) and goes up to 101 points. I get that a TKO is the most dominant sort of win, but The fact that he gained more than his opponent's entire point total is crazy.
2) Chacon (90 pts, not sure why he went down, maybe some penalty?) beats Cusolito (37 pts) by a 7-3 type decision, and goes up to 121 points. A fight where the underdog only has about 40% of the favorite's points would usually be considered a borderline mismatch. Winning a borderline mismatch by a 7-3 decision doesn't seem like the sort of fight you should be gaining many points from, let alone 31, which again is close to the opponent's entire point total.
The rating description page is quite lengthy now.. but I recall some kind of tier-based system, where boxers graduate into new tiers when they beat boxers in a higher tier. This "tier" isn't necessarily based on rating.... but once a new tier is reached, I believe the boxer gets quite a rating boost as if they were previously suppressed..
jujigatame wrote: ↑25 Aug 2019, 10:53
I don't really know how the hell Lennox's system works but it always seems vague and handwavey to me. Although maybe all systems are to some extent.
About Chacon, the 2 wins in question were:
1) Chacon (55 pts) TKOs Reynoso (35 pts) and goes up to 101 points. I get that a TKO is the most dominant sort of win, but The fact that he gained more than his opponent's entire point total is crazy.
2) Chacon (90 pts, not sure why he went down, maybe some penalty?) beats Cusolito (37 pts) by a 7-3 type decision, and goes up to 121 points. A fight where the underdog only has about 40% of the favorite's points would usually be considered a borderline mismatch. Winning a borderline mismatch by a 7-3 decision doesn't seem like the sort of fight you should be gaining many points from, let alone 31, which again is close to the opponent's entire point total.
Certainly not vague or handwavey, its been going 28 years. It is based on points, you get lots if you beat good fighters and very little for fighting poor opposition. Your wins or losses are linked to fighters you fight, recent results get most weight, you need to stay COMPLIANT that is very important in the ratings. Depending how high you are ranked determines the level of compliance required....if you are number 1 and you keep fighting fighters ranked 99 you lose points, if you are number 70 and fight people ranked 99 you gain points.
Chacon was number 13 because he has won 3 top 50 fights in the last year, in the scheme of things that is absolutely fantastic, not many fighters have 3 top 50 wins in a year (one goes out this month)
I don't think the "top 50" metric has any value. In some divisions at some times, top 50 might be very meaningful. In some divisions it might mean absolutely nothing. There's no sense in giving a fighter credit for beating #50 without giving him nearly the same credit for beating #51.
I'd also question how either Cusolito or Reynoso would have been considered top 50. Although maybe that's nitpicking since at that level there are a lot of fighters that are somewhat interchangeable in terms of ability.
jujigatame wrote: ↑25 Aug 2019, 10:53
I don't really know how the hell Lennox's system works but it always seems vague and handwavey to me. Although maybe all systems are to some extent.
About Chacon, the 2 wins in question were:
1) Chacon (55 pts) TKOs Reynoso (35 pts) and goes up to 101 points. I get that a TKO is the most dominant sort of win, but The fact that he gained more than his opponent's entire point total is crazy.
2) Chacon (90 pts, not sure why he went down, maybe some penalty?) beats Cusolito (37 pts) by a 7-3 type decision, and goes up to 121 points. A fight where the underdog only has about 40% of the favorite's points would usually be considered a borderline mismatch. Winning a borderline mismatch by a 7-3 decision doesn't seem like the sort of fight you should be gaining many points from, let alone 31, which again is close to the opponent's entire point total.
Certainly not vague or handwavey, its been going 28 years. It is based on points, you get lots if you beat good fighters and very little for fighting poor opposition. Your wins or losses are linked to fighters you fight, recent results get most weight, you need to stay COMPLIANT that is very important in the ratings. Depending how high you are ranked determines the level of compliance required....if you are number 1 and you keep fighting fighters ranked 99 you lose points, if you are number 70 and fight people ranked 99 you gain points.
Chacon was number 13 because he has won 3 top 50 fights in the last year, in the scheme of things that is absolutely fantastic, not many fighters have 3 top 50 wins in a year (one goes out this month)
I sound like a broken record.. but I don't see how you can push compliance unless the boxing world observes your rankings as truth. That seems awful presumptuous.
Furthermore.. again.. using "Top X" for your own ratings as fuel for your argument doesn't help validate your results one iota. Maybe those fighters Chacon beat shouldn't have been Top 50...
jujigatame wrote: ↑25 Aug 2019, 16:52
I don't think the "top 50" metric has any value. In some divisions at some times, top 50 might be very meaningful. In some divisions it might mean absolutely nothing. There's no sense in giving a fighter credit for beating #50 without giving him nearly the same credit for beating #51.
I'd also question how either Cusolito or Reynoso would have been considered top 50. Although maybe that's nitpicking since at that level there are a lot of fighters that are somewhat interchangeable in terms of ability.
50 is a winner 51 is not a winner. Boxing is a sport, sports are won by the narrowest decisions. But yes I can see where you are coming from. The positions of Cusolito or Reynoso are because they have beaten rated fighters. Its just a simple man that beat the man. If you follow it on a regular basis it is much easier to understand the movements but you are right that 50 in some divisions means more in others. You can only beat what is in front of you. Most fights are against non top 100 opposition.
Lennox wrote: ↑25 Aug 2019, 16:23
Certainly not vague or handwavey, its been going 28 years. It is based on points, you get lots if you beat good fighters and very little for fighting poor opposition. Your wins or losses are linked to fighters you fight, recent results get most weight, you need to stay COMPLIANT that is very important in the ratings. Depending how high you are ranked determines the level of compliance required....if you are number 1 and you keep fighting fighters ranked 99 you lose points, if you are number 70 and fight people ranked 99 you gain points.
Chacon was number 13 because he has won 3 top 50 fights in the last year, in the scheme of things that is absolutely fantastic, not many fighters have 3 top 50 wins in a year (one goes out this month)
I sound like a broken record.. but I don't see how you can push compliance unless the boxing world observes your rankings as truth. That seems awful presumptuous.
Furthermore.. again.. using "Top X" for your own ratings as fuel for your argument doesn't help validate your results one iota. Maybe those fighters Chacon beat shouldn't have been Top 50...
I worked with John McClain and the requirements of the Association of Boxing commissions they set out what the felt should be LAW. They basically said everyone in the top 15 should maintain his ranking by fighting another in that top 15 in a period of 18 months. If you took the top 15s plus champions of the WBC,WBA, WBO AND IBF you had about 35-45 fighters as many fighters were just uniquely ranked. If you then factor those parameters into an independent top 50 our rule became if you were in the top 35 you had to make a compliant fight within 18 months against a rated opponent, we pushed the bar to 50. Whilst we have 18 month compliance for that band we also have other levels of compliance at top 10, top 20. Most people did consider them to be the truth up to 1999 or the nearest you could get to the truth but they were unknown outside of the trade. In some countries the independent ranking was widely used, other countries zero usually the more corrupt ones although those countries were where I sold the most subscriptions.
Chacon's three top fifty wins were against fighters that were in the rankings because they had wins against rated fighters.
The justification is always there.
Lennox wrote: ↑26 Aug 2019, 02:18
50 is a winner 51 is not a winner.
I have no idea what this means.
I am trying to emphasise that in sport wins, losses can be extremely close, 1 run, a 90 minute goal, a missed up a narrow points win. If you drive at 31mph you are speeding at 30mph you are okay. Almost everything has barriers. A computer system has to be set up with bars, parameters and rules. Somewhere is the LINE.
I watched the Chacon fight, yes he was outclassed by a good young fighter who looked much bigger. Chacon is old, our system drops him quite a lot now in terms of points but not lots of places. he lost by KO and he is in age decline at 38. He has been winning this year and our system respects wins at 100% value regardless of age.
Is there a way to see a boxer's ranking at the time of a certain bout? When I click on 'bout' it shows their current ranking. For example, Canelo is ranked #1 even for his pro debut.
JohnMcMinn wrote: ↑27 Aug 2019, 10:30
Is there a way to see a boxer's ranking at the time of a certain bout? When I click on 'bout' it shows their current ranking. For example, Canelo is ranked #1 even for his pro debut.
No, the ranks at time of bout are not stored in the database.
I am trying to emphasise that in sport wins, losses can be extremely close, 1 run, a 90 minute goal, a missed up a narrow points win. If you drive at 31mph you are speeding at 30mph you are okay. Almost everything has barriers. A computer system has to be set up with bars, parameters and rules. Somewhere is the LINE.
I watched the Chacon fight, yes he was outclassed by a good young fighter who looked much bigger. Chacon is old, our system drops him quite a lot now in terms of points but not lots of places. he lost by KO and he is in age decline at 38. He has been winning this year and our system respects wins at 100% value regardless of age.
Sorry but I find that premise fundamentally flawed, and if it underpins your rating system I think that it impugns its credibility quite a bit.
I may have issues with the specifics of BoxRec's implementation, but at its core I think it's conceptually strong.
Unless a rating system is fully embraced and observed by the sport/game it rates, I think it needs to have as few "cliffs" as possible... instead, gradual decays should be used. But what do I know?
Lennox wrote: ↑27 Aug 2019, 04:44
I am trying to emphasise that in sport wins, losses can be extremely close, 1 run, a 90 minute goal, a missed up a narrow points win. If you drive at 31mph you are speeding at 30mph you are okay. Almost everything has barriers. A computer system has to be set up with bars, parameters and rules. Somewhere is the LINE.
I watched the Chacon fight, yes he was outclassed by a good young fighter who looked much bigger. Chacon is old, our system drops him quite a lot now in terms of points but not lots of places. he lost by KO and he is in age decline at 38. He has been winning this year and our system respects wins at 100% value regardless of age.
Sorry but I find that premise fundamentally flawed, and if it underpins your rating system I think that it impugns its credibility quite a bit.
I may have issues with the specifics of BoxRec's implementation, but at its core I think it's conceptually strong.
It reflects man that beat the man. If you think that is the wrong way to do it, then fine. Boxrec ratings are terrible as reflected in the positions you can see, you find fighters that have lost ahead of their conqueror because they win a meaningless fight next. You see 8-0 prospects higher than seasoned fighters. The formula is wrong but yes occasinally they will post a better ranking for someone than PBO.
JCS wrote: ↑27 Aug 2019, 21:52
Unless a rating system is fully embraced and observed by the sport/game it rates, I think it needs to have as few "cliffs" as possible... instead, gradual decays should be used. But what do I know?
JCS wrote: ↑27 Aug 2019, 21:52
Unless a rating system is fully embraced and observed by the sport/game it rates, I think it needs to have as few "cliffs" as possible... instead, gradual decays should be used. But what do I know?
Sorry but I find that premise fundamentally flawed, and if it underpins your rating system I think that it impugns its credibility quite a bit.
I may have issues with the specifics of BoxRec's implementation, but at its core I think it's conceptually strong.
It reflects man that beat the man. If you think that is the wrong way to do it, then fine. Boxrec ratings are terrible as reflected in the positions you can see, you find fighters that have lost ahead of their conqueror because they win a meaningless fight next. You see 8-0 prospects higher than seasoned fighters. The formula is wrong but yes occasinally they will post a better ranking for someone than PBO.
BoxRec also follows the "man who beat the man" rule. I'm sorry but once you start choosing arbitrary cutoffs and tiers the whole concept starts to become intellectually indefensible.
BoxRec is, at its core, a heavily modified ELO system, which I think is the only way to go about creating a computerized ranking system.
The day somebody that knows more than me about boxing tells me Boxrec ratings are better I will pack in.
So far that has never happened. The only people that say they are don't have a deep enough knowledge of fighters past the top 20 or understand like a matchmaker would.
Boxrec from the outset have tried to copy what I do.
You get upsets in all sports but in Boxing when you beat the champion you are the champion, now whilst that might make less difference at the #30-#31 Level, it is in MY opinion still important that for a period of time the winner ranks above the loser. In Boxrec the loser can have another fight a week later and go past the boxer that just beat him. That would not happen in any of the sanctioning bodies ratings.
The Independent World Boxing Rankings (PBO) align fighters in clusters based on Man that beat the Man. There is a points system behind it all, there are various levels of compliance (quality fights expected within a time frame). If you fail compliance you move down each month until you reach a level where you are compliant (each tier is stronger) Age, consective losses, knockouts are all factors that can accelerate downward movements. If you move down the ratings sometimes you have no cushion (a fighter you have beat).
If you study the rankings and observe the last 20 fights you can see just how pathetic some resumes are after 20 fights. The PBO exposes everything that is vile about the sport. Unfortunately it is in not in the interests of many to reform it.
It is without doubt the best way to rank fighters, there are very few out of position and everyone can be justified by a result that happened. It does not mean that ALWAYS number 40 will beat number 50 and it is not designed to have the top 100 in the exact order. It is a snapshot in time of what has happened. Clever matchmakers will search for higher ranked fighters that they have 'eyed' that they see flaws and know their fighter can beat.
You can make a subjective top 10 better by a collection of opinion but never would get a better top 100. You can ever see that the Boxrec forum heavyweight top 10 is pretty good but from 11-15 too many argue. Hrgovic should not really be in the top 15 yet based on achievements, but he was voted in.
What no one ever does is find lots of fighters miles out of position, occasionally they spot one like Chacon, he probably is a long way out of position based on the Figueroa fight but he looked tiny in comparison but he had previously justified his position by beating decent top 50 regional fighters, you can say top 50 does not mean much, but it does mean more than beating top 200 fighters or top 300 ones. Most 30-0 fighters have not had many top 100 fights. It is all there to see with PBO I don't know how often you look but there is a lot of information there, if you want to make money betting bet draws when both fighters are within a few ranks between the 15 to 50 zone.
All I have to say is that you have a bit of a superiority complex and bringing up what the sanctioning bodies do does not help your case in the slightest. The fundamental strength of the BoxRec system is that it knows sanctioning bodies are worthless, and that arbitrary cutoffs (in terms of "top 50" or "top 100") are not meaningful because their quality is highly variable depending on weight class and time period.
I'm not prepared to say that your rankings or BoxRec's are superior right now, because I haven't examined yours in detail. It's possible the rankings they create right now are better. But what I am saying is that your system is fundamentally flawed in a way BoxRec's is not.
