Ratings - please read before commenting - Archived

[margaret thatcher]

shots fired

[computerrank]

Speak for yourself, racist.

......like i say educate yourself....dickhead!

I don't give a f u c k about your "1/2 girlfriend"

What you said was racist, pussy

@Manrae, @Offthehook, stop that talking in this thread, please. Otherwise, I would have to take you out of this thread.

[Manrae]

......like i say educate yourself....dickhead!

I don't give a f u c k about your "1/2 girlfriend"

What you said was racist, pussy

@Manrae, @Offthehook, stop that talking in this thread, please. Otherwise, I would have to take you out of this thread.

Computerrank, I think that the annual ratings were better before when you were using the highest point exchange for the year instead of the last weight that they fought at.

The problem now that I see it, is boxrec's handling with weight classes. The erroneously put fights in the wrong weight classes when they see fighters 1/2lb to 1lb over the weight limit, not realizing that it is actually ALLOWED in non-title fights by all sanctioning bodies.

For example, if I weighed in at 148, it's still a welterweight bout, as long as it's non-title. But boxrec will but the fight at Junior Middleweight.

Who's in charge of that?

[computerrank]

Computerrank, I think that the annual ratings were better before when you were using the highest point exchange for the year instead of the last weight that they fought at.

The problem now that I see it, is boxrec's handling with weight classes. The erroneously put fights in the wrong weight classes when they see fighters 1/2lb to 1lb over the weight limit, not realizing that it is actually ALLOWED in non-title fights by all sanctioning bodies.

For example, if I weighed in at 148, it's still a welterweight bout, as long as it's non-title. But boxrec will but the fight at Junior Middleweight.

Who's in charge of that?

The editors enter the bout division.

You discuss a quite simple case. But how to handle a case, where one boxer's weight is lot more over or under that limits. And it may depend on whether a boxer won or lost with a much lower or higher weight ...

[jujigatame]

shots fired

No, I didn't mean to fire any shots. I was being sincere, dammit!

[Daedalus]

WHR really likes Jack Carroll, who never fought outside Australia or met anyone with over 200 pts, yet it placed him in the top 20 all time pound-for-pound.

Maybe we can find an expert of the 1920s, 1930s Australian boxing scene.. must've been very prolific.

Nah, even his biographer admits "he is rarely mentioned among Australia's greatest ever boxers". Carroll was the biggest regional star in his day, so it's not like he was overlooked by historians. It's just somehow staying local still made him WHR's #7 welterweight of all time.
Sorry, I forgot you're not really a boxing guy.

[Manrae]

Computerrank, I think that the annual ratings were better before when you were using the highest point exchange for the year instead of the last weight that they fought at.

The problem now that I see it, is boxrec's handling with weight classes. The erroneously put fights in the wrong weight classes when they see fighters 1/2lb to 1lb over the weight limit, not realizing that it is actually ALLOWED in non-title fights by all sanctioning bodies.

For example, if I weighed in at 148, it's still a welterweight bout, as long as it's non-title. But boxrec will but the fight at Junior Middleweight.

Who's in charge of that?

The editors enter the bout division.

You discuss a quite simple case. But how to handle a case, where one boxer's weight is lot more over or under that limits. And it may depend on whether a boxer won or lost with a much lower or higher weight ...

Assuming the editors do not receive official bout sheets with results, weight class information, etc
Assuming there's no video evidence of which weight class they fought in
Assuming there's no online news article/coverage of the fight for clarification of which weight they fought in

One would have to simply leave it blank

Also, concerning p4p... is there ANY other algorithm that can be used because the heavyweight division is over represented. Alexander Povetkin is a top 10 heavyweight, no question, but p4p?

[computerrank]

Assuming the editors do not receive official bout sheets with results, weight class information, etc
Assuming there's no video evidence of which weight class they fought in
Assuming there's no online news article/coverage of the fight for clarification of which weight they fought in

One would have to simply leave it blank

Also, concerning p4p... is there ANY other algorithm that can be used because the heavyweight division is over represented. Alexander Povetkin is a top 10 heavyweight, no question, but p4p?

The current top 100 men distribute like that:

Code: Select all

Heavyweight	 	10
Cruiserweight	 	7
Light Heavyweight 	11
Super Middleweight 	5
Middleweight	 	9
Light Middleweight 	5
Welterweight	 	15
Light Welterweight 	8
Lightweight	 	8
Super Featherweight 	7
Featherweight 		4
Super Bantamweight 	1
Bantamweight	 	4
Super Flyweight 	5
Flyweight	 	1

I cannot see, what should be wrong with that.

[Manrae]

Assuming the editors do not receive official bout sheets with results, weight class information, etc
Assuming there's no video evidence of which weight class they fought in
Assuming there's no online news article/coverage of the fight for clarification of which weight they fought in

One would have to simply leave it blank

Also, concerning p4p... is there ANY other algorithm that can be used because the heavyweight division is over represented. Alexander Povetkin is a top 10 heavyweight, no question, but p4p?

The current top 100 men distribute like that:

Code: Select all

Heavyweight	 	10
Cruiserweight	 	7
Light Heavyweight 	11
Super Middleweight 	5
Middleweight	 	9
Light Middleweight 	5
Welterweight	 	15
Light Welterweight 	8
Lightweight	 	8
Super Featherweight 	7
Featherweight 		4
Super Bantamweight 	1
Bantamweight	 	4
Super Flyweight 	5
Flyweight	 	1

I cannot see, what should be wrong with that.

Alexander Povetkin p4p top 10, should raise major concern...

[JCS]

P4P on Boxrec is more of an "Absolute" than a P4P that the magazines have/had.

For curiosity... I ran a calculation using the BoxRec ratings...

I took the boxers' ratings and compared it to the boxer ranked in the spot that was equal (or closest) to the amount of total fighters in the division divided by 100.

For example.. in Tyson Fury's case, he has 1025 points. There are 1408 boxers in the division at the moment.. so I compared his rating to the #14 ranked boxer. His rating is 20.7x greater than that boxer. I did this for all top boxers relative to their current division and this is what I came up with..

1 Saul Alvarez
2 Gennadiy Golovkin
3 Tyson Fury
4 Errol Spence Jr
5 Teofimo Lopez
6 Naoya Inoue
7 Terence Crawford
8 Jermall Charlo
9 Manny Pacquiao
10 Deontay Wilder
11 Josh Warrington
12 Callum Smith
13 Mairis Briedis
14 Vasyl Lomachenko
15 Anthony Joshua
16 Miguel Berchelt
17 Daniel Jacobs
18 Chris Eubank Jr
19 Shawn Porter
20 Gervonta Davis
21 Rey Vargas
22 Josh Taylor
23 Keith Thurman
24 Jose Carlos Ramirez
25 Jermell Charlo


Personally, I think that is a pretty good list. It isn't perfect, but I think it paints a better picture.

Granted, it is somewhat artificial.... once a boxer moves divisions, his "P4P" rating will shift and could shift dramatically..... I have something like this for my MMA site, but call it Division Dominance... I have a separate P4P rating which is very comparable to the actual rating, but there's no divisional adjustments.

[Daedalus]

For example.. in Tyson Fury's case, he has 1025 points. There are 1408 boxers in the division at the moment.. so I compared his rating to the #14 ranked boxer. His rating is 20.7x greater than that boxer. I did this for all top boxers relative to their current division and this is what I came up with..

Relative rating ratio within a division used as placement in P4P. Impressive work! I wonder if this can be applied to all-time rankings...

Granted, it is somewhat artificial.... once a boxer moves divisions, his "P4P" rating will shift and could shift dramatically.....

Yup, happened to Usyk. Or, if Loma slims back down to a more natural 130lbs, he'll rise in your list.

[computerrank]

...
Personally, I think that is a pretty good list. It isn't perfect, but I think it paints a better picture.

Granted, it is somewhat artificial.... once a boxer moves divisions, his "P4P" rating will shift and could shift dramatically..... I have something like this for my MMA site, but call it Division Dominance... I have a separate P4P rating which is very comparable to the actual rating, but there's no divisional adjustments.

It is for divisional dominance, yes.

But for example Light Heavyweight is not represented there, although it's level is quite high. But there are no dominating boxers.

So it more about what your personal preferences are: absolute level like WHR or divisional dominance or defeating top boxers or staying undefeated or major titles ...

[JCS]

But for example Light Heavyweight is not represented there, although it's level is quite high. But there are no dominating boxers.

Boxers mainly box within their divisions.. especially for top ranked boxers... so this speaks to there being no Top P4P boxers within that division.

In my DD setup, I take a little bit of info from surrounding divisions.. to help smooth things out.

[Daedalus]

...
Personally, I think that is a pretty good list. It isn't perfect, but I think it paints a better picture.

... I have a separate P4P rating which is very comparable to the actual rating, but there's no divisional adjustments.

But for example Light Heavyweight is not represented there, although it's level is quite high. But there are no dominating boxers.

If by high level, you mean the top 10-20 LHWs have on average more points than guys in other weights, maybe someone can check that. However, LHWs aren't on JCS' list because unlike other sites, Boxrec still has Kovalev on top and WHR thinks none of the other elites have a good enough career to rise above him.
Why don't you run a hypothetical Bivol-Beterbiev fight and see if the winner gets in? If not, then let's just chalk it up to parity within the division.

[JCS]

My example was simple and quick. If I had query access to the DB, I'd experiment a bit more....

At some point, the depth of a division becomes less of a factor..... I think it is a bit unfair to compare the #1 @ 105 to the #3 boxer... while the top boxers at popular weights were compared to guys outside the Top 20, even though 105 has 1/8th the amount of boxers.... there are still 300+ boxers in the division. This is probably something that could benefit from a bit more logic.

There's still the issue of the sudden division change damaging a boxer's ranking... so perhaps a mechanism that'd still compare Usyk's rating to the Cruiserweight landscape until he spends sufficient time at Heavyweight is probably another thing to think about.

"P4P" is the kind of ranking where you just mess w/ it until it feels right.

[Daedalus]

At some point, the depth of a division becomes less of a factor..... I think it is a bit unfair to compare the #1 @ 105 to the #3 boxer... while the top boxers at popular weights were compared to guys outside the Top 20, even though 105 has 1/8th the amount of boxers.... there are still 300+ boxers in the division. This is probably something that could benefit from a bit more logic.

Why not combine 105 with 108 boxers? What's 3 lbs compared the 40 lb difference bet HW and cruiser?

[mike1989]

What happens to the ratings? I wrote earlier that the current rating formula gives a negative result for points. Almost all fights end with a negative point value of the fighters.

[mike1989]

This fight was Jared Anderson's debut:
https://boxrec.com/en/event/795355/2400541
his opponent's current rating was 0.01 points, and Anderson's rating after the fight was 8,520 points ??? The question is how ?????

[Daedalus]

This fight was Jared Anderson's debut:
https://boxrec.com/en/event/795355/2400541
his opponent's current rating was 0.01 points, and Anderson's rating after the fight was 8,520 points ??? The question is how ?????

Don't know if that happened, but it's 8.52 pts now. Why he got so much, I don't know either.

[mike1989]

https://boxrec.com/en/event/817046/2558094
in this fight, Kamposos's point before the fight was 64.69 points after 60.19 points; point Selby before the fight 120.9 points after the fight 77.76 points. Kamposos won the fight and his current rating is below the defeated Selby. How ????

[JCS]

https://boxrec.com/en/event/817046/2558094
in this fight, Kamposos's point before the fight was 64.69 points after 60.19 points; point Selby before the fight 120.9 points after the fight 77.76 points. Kamposos won the fight and his current rating is below the defeated Selby. How ????

Did you look at the rankings?

https://boxrec.com/en/ratings?role=prob ... ightweight

[JCS]

This fight was Jared Anderson's debut:
https://boxrec.com/en/event/795355/2400541
his opponent's current rating was 0.01 points, and Anderson's rating after the fight was 8,520 points ??? The question is how ?????

The fights after that? do you guys understand WHR yet?

[Daedalus]

What happens to the ratings? I wrote earlier that the current rating formula gives a negative result for points. Almost all fights end with a negative point value of the fighters.

If you mean both lose points no matter the results, it's because the points get spread out over both fighters' careers. Then there's decay for previous inactivity or penalty for lack of quality opponents etc etc. The rating formula is too complex and needs a supercomputer or 2 just to show you how each bout impacted an individual boxer's rating on the day it happened.

[Daedalus]

https://boxrec.com/en/event/817046/2558094
in this fight, Kamposos's point before the fight was 64.69 points after 60.19 points; point Selby before the fight 120.9 points after the fight 77.76 points. Kamposos won the fight and his current rating is below the defeated Selby. How ????

Ratings and rankings are different in WHR. The formula thinks Kambosos hasn't done enough in his career to have more ratings points than Selby. However, I think BoxRec has a policy so that the winner is placed over the loser for a year in the divisional rankings. So Selby has 77.76 points at this point in his career and should be 7th behind Kambosos' 79.52 but somehow is listed 9th with 59.15 pts.
Why WHR switches their points, I have no idea. I would've thought Kambosos would just get some bonus points. Seems very unfair to me that Selby is getting penalized twice for losing. And not only that. It's misleading the public if they try to calculate odds of future Selby bouts within the year using the rankings list.

[mike1989]

https://boxrec.com/en/event/817046/2558094
in this fight, Kamposos's point before the fight was 64.69 points after 60.19 points; point Selby before the fight 120.9 points after the fight 77.76 points. Kamposos won the fight and his current rating is below the defeated Selby. How ????

Did you look at the rankings?

https://boxrec.com/en/ratings?role=prob ... ightweight

https://boxrec.com/en/proboxer/646781
and then what ???