Ratings - please read before commenting - Archived

[computerrank]

...
Main point is - rating points depend on the weight division of the bout.

What do you mean? All those fights were contested at one weight division, light heavyweight. Charles and his opponents were not cruiserweights back then, even going by BoxRec annual ratings.

Boxrec assigned some of those bouts to Light Heavyweight and some to Heavyweight (e.g. vs Bivins). Points at Heavyweight are much lower than at Light Heavyweight.

[Daedalus]

What do you mean? All those fights were contested at one weight division, light heavyweight. Charles and his opponents were not cruiserweights back then, even going by BoxRec annual ratings.

Boxrec assigned some of those bouts to Light Heavyweight and some to Heavyweight (e.g. vs Bivins). Points at Heavyweight are much lower than at Light Heavyweight.

Ok, so how does Charles beat Bivins on 11/12/46 and barely moves, then beats him again on 3/10/47 and gains 1000? And why does Bivins gain 220 by losing again?
Is it all due to some arbitrary Boxrec wt assignment, why Charles "lost" his LHW points by beating Fitzpatrick, who weighed less than Bivins?

[computerrank]

Boxrec assigned some of those bouts to Light Heavyweight and some to Heavyweight (e.g. vs Bivins). Points at Heavyweight are much lower than at Light Heavyweight.

Ok, so how does Charles beat Bivins on 11/12/46 and barely moves, then beats him again on 3/10/47 and gains 1000? And why does Bivins gain 220 by losing again?
Is it all due to some arbitrary Boxrec wt assignment, why Charles "lost" his LHW points by beating Fitzpatrick, who weighed less than Bivins?

The Bivins bout on 11/12/46 is assigned to Heavyweight and the Bivins bout on 3/10/47 is assigned to Light Heavyweight. So the points level on Heavyweight is much lower for both.
The weights in the first bout were 175/186 lbs and were 170.25/184 for the second. So better both bouts should be assigned to Heavyweight. I will do that.
The weight division assignments are done by the editors - due to historical sources, but may be corrected, knowing the weights.
There are no special weight division points - the boxer has a weight division independed WHR rating and that is converted to the bout weight division by a weight division formula - read the Boxrec Ratings Description.

[computerrank]

double post

[computerrank]

@marcianofan, I will send you a PM, when I will be back home next week.

Great thanks- I promise I don't intend to ask regularly.

I sent you a PM on October 10.

[Daedalus]

Boxrec assigned some of those bouts to Light Heavyweight and some to Heavyweight (e.g. vs Bivins). Points at Heavyweight are much lower than at Light Heavyweight.

Ok, so how does Charles beat Bivins on 11/12/46 and barely moves, then beats him again on 3/10/47 and gains 1000? And why does Bivins gain 220 by losing again?
Is it all due to some arbitrary Boxrec wt assignment, why Charles "lost" his LHW points by beating Fitzpatrick, who weighed less than Bivins?

The Bivins bout on 11/12/46 is assigned to Heavyweight and the Bivins bout on 3/10/47 is assigned to Light Heavyweight. So the points level on Heavyweight is much lower for both.
The weights in the first bout were 175/186 lbs and were 170.25/184 for the second. So better both bouts should be assigned to Heavyweight. I will do that.
The weight division assignments are done by the editors - due to historical sources, but may be corrected, knowing the weights.
There are no special weight division points - the boxer has a weight division independed WHR rating and that is converted to the bout weight division by a weight division formula - read the oxrec Ratings Description.

Thanks for clarifying. I did read the Ratings Description and it didn't jive with the listing. It was also vague until I found the discussion from 3 years ago:

My ratings optimation tests for the weight division relation are from 2005, I found. The rating formula has developed a lot since then. So I tested again.

In 2005 I tested a linear and a square relation. The square relation showed the best results.

Now I also tested a cube relation and found it even fits better. So I will use this relation in the next release.

1 point at cruiserweight will then be equivalent to (200/240)**3 = 0.8333**3 = 0.58 points at heavyweight ( 0.69 points in the current release).

So 1) Is the cube relation still valid for WHR?
2) Why is the HW upper weight arbitrarily set at 240? Why not 225?
3) Why is there a need to convert at all when moving up in weight? Neither the Go paper nor the KGS formula mention any ratings conversion if the players were of different ranks.
3a) I see the point that 175lb Charles taking on 200+lb HWs is at some disadvantage. But was he just (175/240)^3 = 39% of ... whatever his points measured? His experience said no. Even (175/225)^3 = 47% seems low.
3b) But if Charles bulked up to 201, why should his rating take a hit? He's fighting other HWs on equal footing.

[Offthehook]

Jono Caroll was #13 before the bout. He went down to #33. The ranking move shown on the Boxrec page is erroneous.

nope he went down to number 46 straight after the bout, and maxi hughes was ranked 217 before their bout, so carroll should of been a lot lower than that based on who he lost to at the time. As i say theres a lot of people ranked incorrectly, with some fighters given a huge amount of credit for some results, and others not so. Perhaps just rank the top 100 in each weight class properly and by inspection, rather than use a formula, that seems to be inaccurate, to rank everyone.

I noticed Maxi Hughes had a bout after his bout against Caroll.
So without these 2 bouts: Jono Caroll would be #13 and Maxi Hughes would be #142. With the Caroll vs Hughes bout Caroll would be #62 and Hughes would be #60. And with Hughes' last win against Viktor Kotochigov Hughes is #26 and Caroll is back to #33.

I find it, as a boxing fan, a pretty flat algorithm, if we are starting to give guys piggy backs off of what a guy who beat them via UD does in the future. What about a guy whose beating a champion, and losing a fight in the last round, or another fighter who is robbed blind by the judges? Those guys lose a good chunk of their points, when they should have more points, than a guy who loses a UD.

So basically the future points of a fighter will go up, if the fighter they lost to by any means (as i say caroll was beaten by a UD, and it was decisive) wins bigger fights, or fights around their level?

[Daedalus]

nope he went down to number 46 straight after the bout, and maxi hughes was ranked 217 before their bout, so carroll should of been a lot lower than that based on who he lost to at the time. As i say theres a lot of people ranked incorrectly, with some fighters given a huge amount of credit for some results, and others not so. Perhaps just rank the top 100 in each weight class properly and by inspection, rather than use a formula, that seems to be inaccurate, to rank everyone.

I noticed Maxi Hughes had a bout after his bout against Caroll.
So without these 2 bouts: Jono Caroll would be #13 and Maxi Hughes would be #142. With the Caroll vs Hughes bout Caroll would be #62 and Hughes would be #60. And with Hughes' last win against Viktor Kotochigov Hughes is #26 and Caroll is back to #33.

I find it, as a boxing fan, a pretty flat algorithm, if we are starting to give guys piggy backs off of what a guy who beat them via UD does in the future. What about a guy whose beating a champion, and losing a fight in the last round, or another fighter who is robbed blind by the judges? Those guys lose a good chunk of their points, when they should have more points, than a guy who loses a UD.

So basically the future points of a fighter will go up, if the fighter they lost to by any means (as i say caroll was beaten by a UD, and it was decisive) wins bigger fights, or fights around their level?

This is why I'm against the mean score difference per judge part of the algorithm. It's bad enough there are robberies, but even when the "right" boxer wins, they don't get full credit. It happens almost weekly. Just this weekend, 2 judges awarded 6 rounds apiece to Navarrete and Villa, who has closer ties to Top Rank. If it weren't for the 2 knockdowns, the bout would've been a MD instead of UD, robbing Navarrete of an outright win. Since covid, the judges seem more brazen to ensure victory for highly-regarded prospects/contenders. Last week, a judge gave ALL rounds to Magsayo over Haro in an otherwise close fight. The week before, Nery got ALL rounds against effective counterpuncher Alameda. I can keep going all day and not run out of examples. So please, unless the default without scorecards assumes all rounds go to the victor in UD/SD, drop the scoring part!

[JCS]

For MMA, I considered merging split and even majority decisions in with draws... if fights are that close, they're almost always closer to a "draw" than a "win".

In any case, judges get it right more than they get it wrong... so of course, you'd use the scorecards in determining the "weight" of a win.

[margaret thatcher]

Nery didn't get all rounds vs Alameda , there were 8-4 and 7-5 cards, the other judge was 10-2

[Daedalus]

Nery didn't get all rounds vs Alameda , there were 8-4 and 7-5 cards, the other judge was 10-2

Sorry, meant 12-0 from 1 judge, but I was mistaken. Still, point stands that Nery gets a higher-than-deserved "cd" from the formula.

[Daedalus]

For MMA, I considered merging split and even majority decisions in with draws... if fights are that close, they're almost always closer to a "draw" than a "win".

In any case, judges get it right more than they get it wrong... so of course, you'd use the scorecards in determining the "weight" of a win.

Well MMA is kinda different. Most tournaments are by one promoter, as are most of the entrants. So judges are under less pressure to side with a particular fighter. Elite tournaments are rarer in boxing, usually only for the less glamorous divisions with lesser known champions, while the bigger stars/prospects stay with their own promoters to be protected in showcase/hometown cards and get the easy "wins". So how much "weight" do you give those compared to a hard MD/SD in a more neutral fight?

[computerrank]

...
So 1) Is the cube relation still valid for WHR?
2) Why is the HW upper weight arbitrarily set at 240? Why not 225?
3) Why is there a need to convert at all when moving up in weight? Neither the Go paper nor the KGS formula mention any ratings conversion if the players were of different ranks.
3a) I see the point that 175lb Charles taking on 200+lb HWs is at some disadvantage. But was he just (175/240)^3 = 39% of ... whatever his points measured? His experience said no. Even (175/225)^3 = 47% seems low.
3b) But if Charles bulked up to 201, why should his rating take a hit? He's fighting other HWs on equal footing.

1) yes
2) There was steady incline of the average weight of top Heavyweight (top unlimited weight division) bout winners from 1900 to 2010. Starting with 190 lbs in 1900 and before and ending with 240 lbs since 2010.
3) Go and KGS have no weight divisions with different physical abilities. Boxing and other combat sports have.

In former ratings releases I used time period depending reference weights for Heavyweight from 190 to 240 lbs. In current WHR ratings I have is fixed to current value of 240 lbs. But I can again use the time period depending value.

[computerrank]

...
I find it, as a boxing fan, a pretty flat algorithm, if we are starting to give guys piggy backs off of what a guy who beat them via UD does in the future. What about a guy whose beating a champion, and losing a fight in the last round, or another fighter who is robbed blind by the judges? Those guys lose a good chunk of their points, when they should have more points, than a guy who loses a UD.

So basically the future points of a fighter will go up, if the fighter they lost to by any means (as i say caroll was beaten by a UD, and it was decisive) wins bigger fights, or fights around their level?

All Whole-History Ratings of all boxers change with each new bout as each new bout changes the likelihood of all other results.

[computerrank]

Nery didn't get all rounds vs Alameda , there were 8-4 and 7-5 cards, the other judge was 10-2

Sorry, meant 12-0 from 1 judge, but I was mistaken. Still, point stands that Nery gets a higher-than-deserved "cd" from the formula.

A solution might be to use the median score of all judges, not the average.

[JCS]

Nery didn't get all rounds vs Alameda , there were 8-4 and 7-5 cards, the other judge was 10-2

Sorry, meant 12-0 from 1 judge, but I was mistaken. Still, point stands that Nery gets a higher-than-deserved "cd" from the formula.

A solution might be to use the median score of all judges, not the average.

It'd be interesting to see how that affects prediction rates...

[Daedalus]

Nery didn't get all rounds vs Alameda , there were 8-4 and 7-5 cards, the other judge was 10-2

Sorry, meant 12-0 from 1 judge, but I was mistaken. Still, point stands that Nery gets a higher-than-deserved "cd" from the formula.

A solution might be to use the median score of all judges, not the average.

That sounds good. The WBC announced they'll be going to 5 judges next year, at least for championship fights.

[Daedalus]

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.

Yes you pass the eye test in every division. I get 15 rows on my poor laptop and ranks of every one they beat in last 20 fights (Suggestion, put the rank of a top 9 guy they lost to: ex L7. Losing vs quality is important too, and it doesn't take additional space). Titles, top rank beaten, record v top 50 all in one screen. You're the best I've seen at what you provide.

But, no rating (rank only), no P4P, no historical, only top 100, monthly update etc. So I have to work with what's still here too. At least until I can't take it anymore.

[TheBeast]

Ken Pollitt is keeping a VERY close eye on the sport and ranking fighters here:https://www.the13thround.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=39

No one does it best. he is a reference. Catches everything that ain't logical in the sport organisations... He should be the ranking reference in boxing... ranks for TBRB and TTR... The man is a boxing genius and an encyclopedia... worth keeping an eye on too.

[Daedalus]

@Jens, you may not interpret the after bout rating of the last bout as the pre bout rating of the regarded bout.

The correct interpretation is, the WHR rating after a bout is the best rating estimation at time of the bout including all results before and after this bout with decreasing weight and increasing time distance.

So you can not say, a boxer won or lost an amount of points due to a bout result by simply comparing his after bout rating at time of his last bout with the after bout rating of the bout regarded. The after bout rating after the last bout IS NOT the pre bout rating at time for the bout regarded. There is no different rating before the bout at bout time. The after bout rating is the best estimation at bout time. This after bout rating is the the pre bout rating too.

In order to get a measure for the rating impact of a bout result, you can make the calculation without this bout and compare the resulting ratings. So you can test, whether a bout result enhanced a rating or lowered it.

e.g. without Klitschko win -320, without Seferi win +-0, without first Wilder SD -500, without second Wilder TKO -740

This is what I think I want!!! Maybe it will satisfy enough the readers to whom the before/after rating was important.

How should anybody be able to see, how the system works? Where can anyone see, that all the ratings of a boxer is changed after his fights? You changed the system totally, but told nobody. But this means, that all fighters ratings drops after their last fight. That is what people actually SEE. You say, that in reality, they got a lot of points, but where can the users SEE it? Nowhere.

Nobody can understand the ratings now. The users used to get useful information. They could see, how a fighters points rose or fell after a fight. Now they get nothing. A lot of points are added, but nobody can see why or when.

I tell you, the ratings follow the estimated success line of the career. They ascend, around a top win and they ascend before the win. And they fall after that high, even without a definite loss.

You expect the ratings should follow every win and loss with a step up and step down. But the ratings follow a more general line as they intermediate between more than one bout. And the ratings will show the ascending or descending ratings estimation before a big win or before a big loss from a ex post perspective too. There is much more explanatory force regarding a career, when also looking at the fights after a bout. It would be stupid to ignore that.

What I will do. I will show the specific impact of every bout by attaching a second value. Showing a measure of points won or lost.

So, where is it?

Here is a try to show the impact of a bout to the ratings - an additional field in brackets:

Am I missing a setting?

[Daedalus]

Ken Pollitt is keeping a VERY close eye on the sport and ranking fighters here:https://www.the13thround.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=39

No one does it best. he is a reference. Catches everything that ain't logical in the sport organisations... He should be the ranking reference in boxing... ranks for TBRB and TTR... The man is a boxing genius and an encyclopedia... worth keeping an eye on too.

Dunno about that. He currently lists Floyd Mayweather as WBC Emeritus Champion, but no one else. Seems biased.

[TheBeast]

Follow his meticulous work, you will learn to respect how in depth it is. No one comes close to it. And I follow everything going on in a boxing ring.. Ken has no ties to anyone and is as neutral as it gets. He was on the espn board more than 15yrs ago and did that great of a job, now is on TBRB but has been on TTR for 15yrs so everything he has been doing for 15yrs is documented on TTR. He is as great of a boxing observer as the sport will get.

[Daedalus]

Whatever anyone thinks of Computerrank he’s always open to debate and answers question which he isn’t under any obligation to do.

Look throughout this thread and everyone that’s disagreed strongly have either been ignored or “disappeared”/given up. He’s had countless criticism and doesn’t bend to any rules. Also from previous posts he doesn’t even have boxing experience or statistical experience so I’m unsure how this makes him qualified. I appreciate him taking time to contribute to this site however I don’t understand why he never takes criticism on board. His previous ranking system was much better and I don’t have any personal reasons I just sick of seeing fighters mis ranked so badly. But is what it is, computerrank will just continue to do his own thing

The tale of two extremes. Mr. Cobweb kissing butt and praying to the statistics.... and you're just being a tool.

I knew most would hate this new system and called it successfully. After all, Martin and I learned this ~15 years ago when we chased only prediction rate. He did the ratings back then... whereas I foolishly convinced him that prediction rate was the sole key to victory and assisted in the endeavor, only to have everyone hate it... and we eventually reverted back to more of a hybrid system that balanced prediction rate and traditional sensibility. Personally, I learned my lesson from that point on. Tradition and common sense must be observed as primary attributes, while prediction rate helps guide change.

I had assumed CR *was* Martin, or at least thought CR signed a post as Martin. Anyway, so it's back to prediction rate, huh. How does it work?

There's no point in trying to analyze rating movements through a fighter's career... in this system, it'll make almost zero sense. It just doesn't work like the past systems in use here. There's more than just the outcome of the fight in question to consider... but what that opponent's opponents have recently done, etc.

The only thing you can potentially derive from past ratings is when a fighter was perceived to be in their prime.

So we can't even look at it like old Pacquiao at uncertainty-coupled 32% of peak was still so good it was predicted to beat Thurman's inactivity-adjusted 51% of peak?

[Daedalus]

Follow his meticulous work, you will learn to respect how in depth it is. No one comes close to it. And I follow everything going on in a boxing ring.. Ken has no ties to anyone and is as neutral as it gets. He was on the espn board more than 15yrs ago and did that great of a job, now is on TBRB but has been on TTR for 15yrs so everything he has been doing for 15yrs is documented on TTR. He is as great of a boxing observer as the sport will get.

Well, if no one told Ken to keep Floyd's name to this day on the Welterweight ratings' headline post while updating current obscure champions from minor bodies, then he intentionally left it there. So either he's not meticulous as you say or he's playing favorites by not listing the other emeriti. Either way, credibility ->

[computerrank]

So, where is it?

Here is a try to show the impact of a bout to the ratings - an additional field in brackets:

Am I missing a setting?

Nobody was interested in that - it is off.