Manrae wrote: ↑04 May 2020, 02:47
Hey, I have a question. Might sound broad but, basically... are the ratings of today's boxers inflated because we don't yet have the data of what they might become in the future?
I just wonder why today's boxers' ratings are so high compared to almost all other eras. Especially when top fighters rarely face each other these days...
I switched Wladimir Klitschko's career into the time period of Joe Louis and Sam Langford - and found, Klitschko with his results would have been superior even at those times.
Another result was, top current boxers' on top of their career currently may decrease in future while descending in performance. So I reduce their current career top rating based all time ratings. For all boxers with career top rating before 2005 there is no reduction.
I see. Would you mind posting the top 10 heavyweights from 1900-1920 under the current system?
If it’s too much, would you mind just posting who was ranked #1 at heavyweight between those years?
I switched Wladimir Klitschko's career into the time period of Joe Louis and Sam Langford - and found, Klitschko with his results would have been superior even at those times.
Another result was, top current boxers' on top of their career currently may decrease in future while descending in performance. So I reduce their current career top rating based all time ratings. For all boxers with career top rating before 2005 there is no reduction.
I see. Would you mind posting the top 10 heavyweights from 1900-1920 under the current system?
If it’s too much, would you mind just posting who was ranked #1 at heavyweight between those years?
17615 Harry Wills 35.6032
11273 Jack Dillon 26.6084
11631 Joe Jeannette 21.3909
11622 Sam McVea 20.0468
10604 Georges Carpentier 18.2528
11290 Gunboat Smith 17.0877
10598 Battling Levinsky 15.8300
9022 James J Jeffries 14.0955
10817 Philadelphia Jack O'Brien 12.0620
11318 Kid Norfolk 11.6834
select boxer_a_id, first_name, last_name, format(exp(r_a/10000000),4) as r_a from
(select boxer_a_id, max(cast(r_a_0 as signed) - cast(r_a_1 as signed)) as r_a
from bouts as b join events as e on e.event_id=b.event_id
where date>='1900-01-01' and date<'1920-01-01' and division='Heavyweight'
group by boxer_a_id order by (cast(r_a_0 as signed)-cast(r_a_1 as signed)) desc limit 10) as x
join humans as h on h.human_id=boxer_a_id order by r_a desc
Manrae wrote: ↑04 May 2020, 06:22
I see. Would you mind posting the top 10 heavyweights from 1900-1920 under the current system?
If it’s too much, would you mind just posting who was ranked #1 at heavyweight between those years?
17615 Harry Wills 35.6032
11273 Jack Dillon 26.6084
11631 Joe Jeannette 21.3909
11622 Sam McVea 20.0468
10604 Georges Carpentier 18.2528
11290 Gunboat Smith 17.0877
10598 Battling Levinsky 15.8300
9022 James J Jeffries 14.0955
10817 Philadelphia Jack O'Brien 12.0620
11318 Kid Norfolk 11.6834
select boxer_a_id, first_name, last_name, format(exp(r_a/10000000),4) as r_a from
(select boxer_a_id, max(cast(r_a_0 as signed) - cast(r_a_1 as signed)) as r_a
from bouts as b join events as e on e.event_id=b.event_id
where date>='1900-01-01' and date<'1920-01-01' and division='Heavyweight'
group by boxer_a_id order by (cast(r_a_0 as signed)-cast(r_a_1 as signed)) desc limit 10) as x
join humans as h on h.human_id=boxer_a_id order by r_a desc
Thanks but I meant for each individual year.
For example:
1900 - #1. John Doe
1901 - #1. John Doe
1902- #1. Glass Joe
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1900-04-06 18980 9022 James J Jeffries 14.1
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1901-09-24 1327558 9022 James J Jeffries 10.3
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1902-10-21 19097 1187 Jack Johnson 10.0
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1903-12-11 19106 1187 Jack Johnson 14.6
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1904-04-22 19108 1187 Jack Johnson 14.4
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1905-12-02 19121 1187 Jack Johnson 15.1
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1906-04-16 19125 1187 Jack Johnson 16.5
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1907-11-02 19137 1187 Jack Johnson 16.8
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1908-09-01 92245 11023 Sam Langford 22.0
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1909-11-23 96905 11023 Sam Langford 24.9
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1910-11-10 148577 11023 Sam Langford 35.8
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1911-09-05 92246 11023 Sam Langford 38.8
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1912-08-03 92388 11023 Sam Langford 42.0
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1913-03-15 148585 11023 Sam Langford 31.7
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1914-01-24 92363 11023 Sam Langford 24.8
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1915-05-04 91328 11273 Jack Dillon 25.8
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1916-01-10 92442 11273 Jack Dillon 26.6
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1917-12-16 1104642 17615 Harry Wills 29.4
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1918-11-28 17594 9009 Jack Dempsey 36.7
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1919-07-04 17600 9009 Jack Dempsey 35.9
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1900-04-06 18980 9022 James J Jeffries 14.1
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1901-09-24 1327558 9022 James J Jeffries 10.3
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1902-10-21 19097 1187 Jack Johnson 10.0
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1903-12-11 19106 1187 Jack Johnson 14.6
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1904-04-22 19108 1187 Jack Johnson 14.4
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1905-12-02 19121 1187 Jack Johnson 15.1
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1906-04-16 19125 1187 Jack Johnson 16.5
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1907-11-02 19137 1187 Jack Johnson 16.8
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1908-09-01 92245 11023 Sam Langford 22.0
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1909-11-23 96905 11023 Sam Langford 24.9
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1910-11-10 148577 11023 Sam Langford 35.8
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1911-09-05 92246 11023 Sam Langford 38.8
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1912-08-03 92388 11023 Sam Langford 42.0
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1913-03-15 148585 11023 Sam Langford 31.7
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1914-01-24 92363 11023 Sam Langford 24.8
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1915-05-04 91328 11273 Jack Dillon 25.8
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1916-01-10 92442 11273 Jack Dillon 26.6
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1917-12-16 1104642 17615 Harry Wills 29.4
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1918-11-28 17594 9009 Jack Dempsey 36.7
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1919-07-04 17600 9009 Jack Dempsey 35.9
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1900-04-06 18980 9022 James J Jeffries 14.1
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1901-09-24 1327558 9022 James J Jeffries 10.3
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1902-10-21 19097 1187 Jack Johnson 10.0
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1903-12-11 19106 1187 Jack Johnson 14.6
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1904-04-22 19108 1187 Jack Johnson 14.4
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1905-12-02 19121 1187 Jack Johnson 15.1
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1906-04-16 19125 1187 Jack Johnson 16.5
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1907-11-02 19137 1187 Jack Johnson 16.8
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1908-09-01 92245 11023 Sam Langford 22.0
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1909-11-23 96905 11023 Sam Langford 24.9
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1910-11-10 148577 11023 Sam Langford 35.8
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1911-09-05 92246 11023 Sam Langford 38.8
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1912-08-03 92388 11023 Sam Langford 42.0
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1913-03-15 148585 11023 Sam Langford 31.7
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1914-01-24 92363 11023 Sam Langford 24.8
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1915-05-04 91328 11273 Jack Dillon 25.8
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1916-01-10 92442 11273 Jack Dillon 26.6
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1917-12-16 1104642 17615 Harry Wills 29.4
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1918-11-28 17594 9009 Jack Dempsey 36.7
date bout_id boxer_a_id name rating
1919-07-04 17600 9009 Jack Dempsey 35.9
Thanks!
...Jack Dillon was a light heavyweight, no?
My mistake - the query is a bit tricky and and was wrong :-(( Now again
I looked for the highest annual rating in a Heavyweight bout. Jack Dillon had that in 1915 and in 1916. And yes actually he was a Light Heavyweight. But no Heavyweight boxer had a higher rating in a Heavyweight bout in those years.
Ah, I see.
Out of curiosity, who was #2 during 1915 and 1916?
computerrank wrote: ↑05 May 2020, 18:26
I looked for the highest annual rating in a Heavyweight bout. Jack Dillon had that in 1915 and in 1916. And yes actually he was a Light Heavyweight. But no Heavyweight boxer had a higher rating in a Heavyweight bout in those years.
Ah, I see.
Out of curiosity, who was #2 during 1915 and 1916?
I corrected my last post - top10 for the years tomorrow ...
Hello, I just realized.
Boxrec changed the way he calculates and awards points to boxers. Before, at some point, Muhammad Ali had, after his fight against Floyd Patterson in 1965, 6678 points. Now the reflected score is 759.5
Can someone please explain to me why this change?
And is there a way to get back to seeing boxrec scores as they were before the recent changes?
Sorry if there is something wrong, everything written here I translated in google translator
felinoboxing wrote: ↑06 May 2020, 16:22
Hello, I just realized.
Boxrec changed the way he calculates and awards points to boxers. Before, at some point, Muhammad Ali had, after his fight against Floyd Patterson in 1965, 6678 points. Now the reflected score is 759.5
Can someone please explain to me why this change?
And is there a way to get back to seeing boxrec scores as they were before the recent changes?
Sorry if there is something wrong, everything written here I translated in google translator
- The reason for change was explained in this thread, just read, please.
- No there is no way to see the old ratings.
felinoboxing wrote: ↑06 May 2020, 16:22
Hello, I just realized.
Boxrec changed the way he calculates and awards points to boxers. Before, at some point, Muhammad Ali had, after his fight against Floyd Patterson in 1965, 6678 points. Now the reflected score is 759.5
Can someone please explain to me why this change?
And is there a way to get back to seeing boxrec scores as they were before the recent changes?
Sorry if there is something wrong, everything written here I translated in google translator
I'm no expert, but I'll try to help...
There was a ratings change a month or 2 ago. The new ratings have a better prediction % than the old ratings. The new ratings account for what an opponent does before and after a bout. In my opinion, this is to add 'hindsight' to the ratings of each boxer at the time of their bout. Also, I think it is an attempt to stop rapid increasing and decreasing of ratings based on 1 bout.
Hope this helped, I can't explain any of the math, sorry...
pugilisticspecialist wrote: ↑14 May 2020, 10:38
Inactive fighters should be auto-assigned to the division that they attained their peak rating in.
Hmm, that's not a bad idea.
Basically yes. But there are some pit holes.
Maybe there just is a bout in an outlying division. It would be a bit more complicated, I guess.
I once had that with the old ratings and the audience didn't appreciate it ...
John wrote: ↑14 May 2020, 10:43
Hmm, that's not a bad idea.
Basically yes. But there are some pit holes.
Maybe there just is a bout in an outlying division. It would be a bit more complicated, I guess.
I once had that with the old ratings and the audience didn't appreciate it ...
Since when have you cared about “The audience” . They don’t appreciate a lot of your changes, you had it about as good as you could get it, then changed it... many of “the audience” said how you should had never have changed it... and you ignored.
computerrank wrote: ↑14 May 2020, 12:49
Basically yes. But there are some pit holes.
Maybe there just is a bout in an outlying division. It would be a bit more complicated, I guess.
I once had that with the old ratings and the audience didn't appreciate it ...
Since when have you cared about “The audience” . They don’t appreciate a lot of your changes, you had it about as good as you could get it, then changed it... many of “the audience” said how you should had never have changed it... and you ignored.
Since when have you cared about “The audience” . They don’t appreciate a lot of your changes, you had it about as good as you could get it, then changed it... many of “the audience” said how you should had never have changed it... and you ignored.
DazBoxingFan - - there are differences
Lol just curious.. what’s your background for boxrec either statistically or in boxing terms?
I actually prefer the new system.
Not only is it objectively better at predicting results, it's more "true" to how people rate fighters in real life.
In the real world, people obviously use retrospect to assess results.
For example, Lennox Lewis' victory over Vitali looks way better in hindsight than it seemed at the time. Vitali hadn't done much at that stage of his career but later stacked up enough top wins to be inducted into the Hall of Fame. The old system didn't acknowledge that.
Likewise, guys like Leon Spinks and Buster Douglas doing nothing after winning the title blatantly affects our perception of those nights.
The new system makes it easier to compare eras also.
Previously, the modern guys all looked bad because the matchmaking in the modern era is so much worse than it used to be.
Random heavyweights from the early 1900s who aren't even in the Hall of Fame had higher ratings than any heavyweight from the last 30 years.
Last edited by pugilisticspecialist on 15 May 2020, 18:22, edited 1 time in total.
pugilisticspecialist wrote: ↑14 May 2020, 18:14
I actually prefer the new system.
Not only is it objectively better at predicting results, it's more "true" to how people rate fighters in real life.
In the real world, people obviously use retrospect to assess results.
For example, Lennox Lewis' victory over Vitali looks way better in hindsight than it seemed at the time. Vitali hadn't done much at that stage of his career but later stacked up enough top wins to be inducted in the Hall of Fame. The old system didn't acknowledge that.
Likewise, guys like Leon Spinks and Buster Douglas doing nothing after winning the title blatantly affects our perception of those nights.
The new system makes it easier to compare eras also.
Previously, the modern guys all looked bad because the matchmaking in the modern era is so much worse than it used to be.
Random heavyweights from the early 1900s who aren't even in the Hall of Fame had higher ratings than any heavyweight from the last 30 years.
You’re talking abut past rankings I’m talking about current ones. And the current ones are shocking
- there are differences
