Ratings - please read before commenting - Archived

[pugilisticspecialist]

Not a fight makes a boxer, but good continuous results over a time period. Let Diaz confirm his good result and we will see.

That is the worst reasoning I've ever heard. When you beat a man, you've proven you're the better fighter and should be ranked above him rightly. That defeats the whole point of boxing if you can't surpass a guy who has a longer resumé than you even if you beat him.

Spain won the 2010 World Cup, but Switzerland beat them in the group stage.

[DazBoxingFan]

That is the worst reasoning I've ever heard. When you beat a man, you've proven you're the better fighter and should be ranked above him rightly. That defeats the whole point of boxing if you can't surpass a guy who has a longer resumé than you even if you beat him.

Spain won the 2010 World Cup, but Switzerland beat them in the group stage.

Lol how is that a valid argument? Football also has 11 men. Shall we do 11 vs 11 in boxing now? If so Bill gates will be the undisputed champion of the world when he teams up with ggg canelo fury wilder loma Inoue etc

[EvanderHolyCrap]

[/b]

That is the worst reasoning I've ever heard. When you beat a man, you've proven you're the better fighter and should be ranked above him rightly. That defeats the whole point of boxing if you can't surpass a guy who has a longer resumé than you even if you beat him.

I've never known of a boxing tournament where someone loses and stays in the competition so how about you make a relevant comparison before making yourself look stupid?

Spain won the 2010 World Cup, but Switzerland beat them in the group stage.

[EvanderHolyCrap]

[/b]

Spain won the 2010 World Cup, but Switzerland beat them in the group stage.

I've never known of a boxing tournament where someone loses and stays in the competition so how about you make a relevant comparison before making yourself look stupid?

[jerd16]

'But we always said, there is no Boxrec preference for a specific system'

I think its time to practice what you preach. Obdurately supporting a system which has seemed to invite unanimous ridicule and criticism would seem to run contrary to this approach.

The previous rating system, in my opinion, was the most accurate, sensible and reasoned methodology boxrec has ever implemented.

I will try a version, that lets a winner above a loser for 1 year. Let's see ...

Thats just one symptom, not the cause.

I really do think the old system should be revived. As someone mentioned - at least in toggle form.

[computerrank]

I will try a version, that lets a winner above a loser for 1 year. Let's see ...

Thats just one symptom, not the cause.

I really do think the old system should be revived. As someone mentioned - at least in toggle form.

Change: The winners are ranked higher than the losers for a year now, This ranks Robert Helenius higher than Adam Kownacki at Heavyweight - or Joseph Diaz ranks higher than Tevin Farmer at Super Featherweight,

[DazBoxingFan]

Thats just one symptom, not the cause.

I really do think the old system should be revived. As someone mentioned - at least in toggle form.

Change: The winners are ranked higher than the losers for a year now, This ranks Robert Helenius higher than Adam Kownacki at Heavyweight - or Joseph Diaz ranks higher than Tevin Farmer at Super Featherweight,

Why not change it back to the original a week ago? Again there are so many weaknesses in this current one, it makes no sense. You’re just too stubborn to admit and succumb to criticism

[DazBoxingFan]

I will try a version, that lets a winner above a loser for 1 year. Let's see ...

Thats just one symptom, not the cause.

I really do think the old system should be revived. As someone mentioned - at least in toggle form.

It definetly should be revived. This is like a dictatorship lol people unanimously recommend or say something but computerrank does what he pleases making formulas that have no sense and the one time
He got it about right, he makes drastic changes at a time when there’s no fights and no one has fought. The lockdown has most reading, watching tv, eating more etc it has computer rank getting bored and designing formulas that make no sense lol

[DazBoxingFan]

Change: The winners are ranked higher than the losers for a year now, This ranks Robert Helenius higher than Adam Kownacki at Heavyweight - or Joseph Diaz ranks higher than Tevin Farmer at Super Featherweight,

ive been saying this for a long time. The guy seems to do whatever he wants, when he wants, and you can tell from how he talks he doesnt really watch boxing, and if i remember correctly doesnt have a background in any form of stochastic modelling.

He makes one adjustment after that awful update, and thats because of a tonne of pressure but then leaves so many holes still,

For example looking at the 130lb rankings, hes got mpontsha, whose beaten absolutely no one, in south africa, ranked above cuellar, and martinez which are former world champions. Hes got lyon woodstock who fought at english level, ranked above miguel flores, who last fought leo santa cruz for a world title. Hes got archie sharpe and zela barratt, who havent got a win better than martin parlagi, and havenever fought at a level of fonseca, ranked above alex dilmaghani (who is the only british fighter to suddenly fall steeply in the rankings....funny that). zelfa and archie havent fought better competition, and in zelfas case hes largely fought losers, not even journeyman, guys paid to lose, in flipping trilogies! U can throw bowen in there too, as beating maxi hughes and journeyman mccory aint at a higher level either. I dont have a problem with the world level ranking of alex, but theres no fcking way those guys should be ranked above him.

computerrank doesnt accept criticsm well and thinks his formula is very special, so he wont change it until the next update.

I find it amusing as noone asked for this update or agrees itsan improvement. No one has even fought since.

Ratings should be done correctly as it misleads the casuals when they google. Computerrank wont change them, or respond with facts, he will just make a comment and move along. I think his previous rating system was much better, this one absolutely sucks.

ps - leigh wood at number 11 in the world?.....and hes beaten who? - these rankings i could shred all day.

Ratings is important because a lot of mugs google it, they should be accurate, and versions should be improvements, not a regression. Changing one LITTLE ASPECT means nothing, when the whole system is a downgrade......PEOPLE WHO write their car off dont care too much whether they got it cleaned or not that day!

To be fair just looking at them names you mentioned you’re totally right. Dilmagani should be ranked higher, definetly above sharp Barrett and Bowen, where he was at 4 was about right. Yeah mate computerrank doesn’t really listen he just does what he wants. I mean look at the p4p list. Lomachenko at number 9, ranked direct below Anthony Joshua, Crawford at 6 directly ranked below wilder at 5. Oh dearrrrr

[EvanderHolyCrap]

Thats just one symptom, not the cause.

I really do think the old system should be revived. As someone mentioned - at least in toggle form.

Change: The winners are ranked higher than the losers for a year now, This ranks Robert Helenius higher than Adam Kownacki at Heavyweight - or Joseph Diaz ranks higher than Tevin Farmer at Super Featherweight,

You better change this back because if you don't listen to your users there is no point having a rankings system at all on this website. Just do the right thing for once.

[marcianofan]

Spain won the 2010 World Cup, but Switzerland beat them in the group stage.

Lol how is that a valid argument? Football also has 11 men. Shall we do 11 vs 11 in boxing now? If so Bill gates will be the undisputed champion of the world when he teams up with ggg canelo fury wilder loma Inoue etc

That sounds kinda fun, actually...

[DazBoxingFan]

Change: The winners are ranked higher than the losers for a year now, This ranks Robert Helenius higher than Adam Kownacki at Heavyweight - or Joseph Diaz ranks higher than Tevin Farmer at Super Featherweight,

You better change this back because if you don't listen to your users there is no point having a rankings system at all on this website. Just do the right thing for once.

He won’t change it back unfortunately mate he’ll just do as he pleases as always not do the right thing and listen to his users

[Lennox]

He has never understood boxing it is why they are a mess.

www.premierboxingorganisation.com/heavyweight-200

I have never known anyone in the boxing game that think boxrec rankings are better than these, though we only publish a top 100 and are monthly updated.

The facts speak for themselves, its who you have beaten, quality wins over quantity.

If you see a boxer 'out of position' with your eye, there will be a statistical reason. No one will ever put every fighter in the right order for everyone.

[mike1989]

All time rating roster:
the value of 200 annual points is reduced, if the annual rating of #30 in the division is less than 76.3 for men, or less than 3.86 for women
the value of 200 annual p4p points is reduced, if the annual rating of #50 p4p is less than 279 for men, or less than 12.2 for women
Now there is no weight category for which there would be a decrease in the value of 200. Just because the fighters used to fight more often does not make them stronger than our generation of boxers ??????????

[computerrank]

He has never understood boxing it is why they are a mess.

www.premierboxingorganisation.com/heavyweight-200

I have never known anyone in the boxing game that think boxrec rankings are better than these, though we only publish a top 100 and are monthly updated.

The facts speak for themselves, its who you have beaten, quality wins over quantity.

If you see a boxer 'out of position' with your eye, there will be a statistical reason. No one will ever put every fighter in the right order for everyone.

You are the Greatest, Lennox

[DazBoxingFan]

By pass again what everyone’s saying computer rank. Why do you not listen to your users? Dictator.

[computerrank]

All time rating roster:
the value of 200 annual points is reduced, if the annual rating of #30 in the division is less than 76.3 for men, or less than 3.86 for women
the value of 200 annual p4p points is reduced, if the annual rating of #50 p4p is less than 279 for men, or less than 12.2 for women
Now there is no weight category for which there would be a decrease in the value of 200. Just because the fighters used to fight more often does not make them stronger than our generation of boxers ??????????

The ratings description will be updated. Currently you see the old one.

[DazBoxingFan]

All time rating roster:
the value of 200 annual points is reduced, if the annual rating of #30 in the division is less than 76.3 for men, or less than 3.86 for women
the value of 200 annual p4p points is reduced, if the annual rating of #50 p4p is less than 279 for men, or less than 12.2 for women
Now there is no weight category for which there would be a decrease in the value of 200. Just because the fighters used to fight more often does not make them stronger than our generation of boxers ??????????

The ratings description will be updated. Currently you see the old one.

So does this mean you’ll return to the previous rating system and listen to your users? If so well done, it’s much better and democracy prevails.

[jerd16]

The ratings description will be updated. Currently you see the old one.

So does this mean you’ll return to the previous rating system and listen to your users? If so well done, it’s much better and democracy prevails.

I think it means the opposite.

[computerrank]

So does this mean you’ll return to the previous rating system and listen to your users? If so well done, it’s much better and democracy prevails.

I think it means the opposite.

The WHR current divisional ratings are objectively better than the old ratings. So Boxrec will stay with them.
The p4p ratings and the all-time ratings are just for fun. They will be tweaked later.

[marcianofan]

I think it means the opposite.

The WHR current divisional ratings are objectively better than the old ratings. So Boxrec will stay with them.
The p4p ratings and the all-time ratings are just for fun. They will be tweaked later.

If they were objectively better, I would think at least one of the boxrec faithful would see merit in them. You are the only one who thinks they are anything better than terrible, apparently. I’m sorry, but you are losing me more and more with every post. If they are objectively better, then everyone except you who looks at them and has an opinion must be incredibly stupid. So thanks for that.

[JCS]

I think it means the opposite.

The WHR current divisional ratings are objectively better than the old ratings. So Boxrec will stay with them.
The p4p ratings and the all-time ratings are just for fun. They will be tweaked later.

When you gauge prediction rate with WHR historically.. are bouts chronologically ahead of the bout in question already factored in?

[computerrank]

The WHR current divisional ratings are objectively better than the old ratings. So Boxrec will stay with them.
The p4p ratings and the all-time ratings are just for fun. They will be tweaked later.

When you gauge prediction rate with WHR historically.. are bouts chronologically ahead of the bout in question already factored in?

For prediction only prior bouts are considered. So there is no feedback from the future.

[marcianofan]

Another problem that was fixed as part of tweaking the previous rankings, but which has been re-exacerbated by the new ones is the lack of resolution in the numbers. Even with 3 decimal places, there is once again no visible points difference between the #697 heavyweight and the #1152 heavyweight, and only .001 difference between 697 and the lowest-ranked fighter, #1210. So once again, nearly half of the active fighters are indistinguishable from each other. even if the ratings don’t reflect the results of fights the way they used to and the way they should, the scale could still be improved to be more meaningful and useful without it changing your algorithm, as you did the last time there was a massive cascade in the numbers.

[jerd16]

I think it means the opposite.

The WHR current divisional ratings are objectively better than the old ratings. So Boxrec will stay with them.
The p4p ratings and the all-time ratings are just for fun. They will be tweaked later.

Q1: 'Objectively better' Is that in your assessment only?
Q2: Will you implement a toggle so we can at least have the option between these and the seemingly more popular, and in my assessment 'objectively' better, previous ratings?