Hmm, I've actually never thought about it until now...
) I can see him potentially beating everyone. Castano and Hurd would be bad match-ups though...
- Yet when Thurman came back from surgery, not retirement, against a solid fringe contender, Lopez, and he lost points instead of restitution!computerrank wrote: ↑08 Oct 2019, 16:23You already mentioned the 2 points:BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote: ↑08 Oct 2019, 11:46 - RE Current welter ratings: Boxrec currently has both Porter and Danny Garcia over Thurman who beat both of them with only one loss to an all time great compared to their multiple losses. That's intuitively wrong, so further:
#2 Spence
#3 Manny
#4 Porter
#5 Danny Garcia
#6 Yordenis Ugas with 4 freaking losses
#7 Thurman
And by the current point totals it looks like their fights had no bearing on their prefight rankings, but I don't recall the prefight rankings.
The highlighted above is a collective grouping of the same era in the same point in time with 2 identical official boxing results, Split Decisions for Spence vs Porter and Manny vs Thurman, yet completely different point outcomes by your formula:
Manny loses significant points while Thurman gains significant points
https://boxrec.com/en/event/788305/2353535
Spence gains nominal points while Porter gains nominal points.
https://boxrec.com/en/event/792079/2374294
Porter with two losses, one against Thurman started vs Spence with 771.3 points whereas Thurman who was undefeated and actually beat Porter could only start vs Manny with a scrawny 483.4 points.
Probably I'll hear some blah-blah about Thurman being inactive for 2 years, but he did have a comeback rust remover in January 2019 before fighting Manny, so all I can add is "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark."
Intuition is funny thing that we are born with at various levels. It makes drivers having a green light go sailing through an intersection without a care while grooving to their headphones, yet meanwhile just outside their distracted vision disaster comes barreling down on them, a drunk driver. The intuitive driver knows he best not press his luck and either jams the brakes or buries the throttle to escape, but it's amazing the number of people who suffer tragic consequences in thinking all is well because they have the legal right away.
- Thurmann lost half of his points due to his inactivity
- The loss of Thurman was closer so he won points and Pacquiao lost some less due to his additional points
- The loss of Porter was wider to he won less points and Spence won some too due to his additional points
- Yet when Thurman came back from surgery, not retirement, against a solid fringe contender, Lopez, and he lost points instead of restitution!BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote: ↑10 Oct 2019, 13:26- Yet when Thurman came back from surgery, not retirement, against a solid fringe contender, Lopez, and he lost points instead of restitution!computerrank wrote: ↑08 Oct 2019, 16:23
You already mentioned the 2 points:
- Thurmann lost half of his points due to his inactivity
- The loss of Thurman was closer so he won points and Pacquiao lost some less due to his additional points
- The loss of Porter was wider to he won less points and Spence won some too due to his additional points
Are you making some kinda formula rationalization of the incomprehensible?
In both Manny/Thurman and Spence/Porter 681 points were scored, Manny with 5 Pts over Thurman and Spence with 7 over Porter, a scrawny 2 pt difference representing 0.003% difference.
I chose this example because of the near identical twin official results with drastically different boxrec outcomes.
Btw, all know I'm a big Manny fan, but also a fan of the classy Spence, Porter, and Thurman, so I ain't wearing rose tinted glasses. Those were FOY level performances.
The formula boxrec used here is terribly flawed and anyone can see that.
Currently I use 3 Brier results for prediction evaluation - win, loss, draw.Cobwebcat wrote: ↑09 Oct 2019, 18:32 ...
When you measure the predictability do you use the Ranked Probability Score? Most football rankings test themselves this way so a system that says team A will beat team B with a probability of 67% will score better than one that predicts team A will win with a probability of 55% (if team A wins) rather than them scoring equally in that they both predicted the winner correctly. I don’t know if it’s different for boxing but it seems RPS is the way forward when comparing systems in football. It’s not about whether you picked the winner but how confident you were in the prediction.
I’m sure you know this already but I was just curious if either your current system or the WH let you test the predictability this way. The Brier methodology seems to not be as well regarded these days.
No idea so far ...Cobwebcat wrote: ↑10 Oct 2019, 16:54They look heavily weighted towards recent fighters strangely. What do you think?computerrank wrote: ↑10 Oct 2019, 16:15 Here you can find the WHole_history all time ratings:
http://151.boxrec.com/~martin/ratings_at.php
Top fighters lose less these days.. maybe the effect is amplified by the nature of this system.....
computerrank wrote: ↑10 Oct 2019, 16:15 Here you can find the WHole_history all time ratings:
http://151.boxrec.com/~martin/ratings_at.php
In the current rating system I calculate the sum of annual top wins against annual top ranked opponents. This is completely different.
So, for the retired/inactive boxers, are you using their end of career rating for the all time rankings?computerrank wrote: ↑11 Oct 2019, 01:28In the current rating system I calculate the sum of annual top wins against annual top ranked opponents. This is completely different.
I simply take the career top rating currently for the Whole-History ratings. Maybe the top rating decreases when the boxer declines at the end of the career, So the active boxers on top of their career are in favour.
But according to the all time ratings you posted for heavyweights a few pages back, the numbers are different. Ali is at least in the 500's. Did something change?
Yes. In order to avoid the Ali Raymi effect , the bouts are weighted by opponents' connectedness to the community of winners.
... Jack Johnson is NOT in the top 100 of All-Time Heavyweights...I honestly don't have any critique of the current ratings, it seems like a step in the right direction
No, you're looking at the current all-time ratings