Ratings - please read before commenting - Archived

[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

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

No idea what you are trying to say.

I'm still baffled with peoples' obsession with the rating points.. especially the movement.

[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 ?????

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

Explain then?

[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.

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.

Now almost everyone is losing a point. I have a feeling that it was originally artificially wound ???

[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 ????

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.

It's more like manual ratings where each fighter is treated individually, and not one formula at all.

[mike1989]

Did you look at the rankings?

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

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

No idea what you are trying to say.

I'm still baffled with peoples' obsession with the rating points.. especially the movement.

he has 79.52 points in the rating, and 60.19 points in his track record. In the movement of rating points and the meaning of statistics.

[Daedalus]

I'm still baffled with peoples' obsession with the rating points.. especially the movement.

Why is it surprising? BoxRec names itself "Boxing's Official Record Keeper" and puts out ratings. Nowhere except in this forum is it explained how or why ratings on the boxer's individual page can differ from the divisional rankings, even on the day a fight happened.
Nowhere except in this thread, not in Remi's paper, nor your site, is an explanation or even examples of how a fighter can win and yet lose points.
There are numerous other issues with WHR. Of course I'm not yet suggesting take out the ratings, but as long as it remains as is, there will be complaints. Be thankful there aren't more.

[JCS]

I'm still baffled with peoples' obsession with the rating points.. especially the movement.

Why is it surprising? BoxRec names itself "Boxing's Official Record Keeper" and puts out ratings. Nowhere except in this forum is it explained how or why ratings on the boxer's individual page can differ from the divisional rankings, even on the day a fight happened.
Nowhere except in this thread, not in Remi's paper, nor your site, is an explanation or even examples of how a fighter can win and yet lose points.
There are numerous other issues with WHR. Of course I'm not yet suggesting take out the ratings, but as long as it remains as is, there will be complaints. Be thankful there aren't more.

Most people won't understand it... some people will try to steal it and a few in the sport may try to game it. That's my two cents.

You do better than expected, you gain points. You do worse, you lose points. Your previous opponents doing better or worse can affect your points the same way. You go inactive, you lose points. Points adjust with division changes. That's basically it.

[Daedalus]

I'm still baffled with peoples' obsession with the rating points.. especially the movement.

Why is it surprising? BoxRec names itself "Boxing's Official Record Keeper" and puts out ratings. Nowhere except in this forum is it explained how or why ratings on the boxer's individual page can differ from the divisional rankings, even on the day a fight happened.
Nowhere except in this thread, not in Remi's paper, nor your site, is an explanation or even examples of how a fighter can win and yet lose points.
There are numerous other issues with WHR. Of course I'm not yet suggesting take out the ratings, but as long as it remains as is, there will be complaints. Be thankful there aren't more.

Most people won't understand it... some people will try to steal it and a few in the sport may try to game it. That's my two cents.

You do better than expected, you gain points. You do worse, you lose points. Your previous opponents doing better or worse can affect your points the same way. You go inactive, you lose points. Points adjust with division changes. That's basically it.

You must be so bored you don't even read the questions/concerns, and just spit out propaganda and general talking points that don't address any specific issue. What does that serve?

[margaret thatcher]

people in this thread get salty towards boxrec don't they

[computerrank]

I'm still baffled with peoples' obsession with the rating points.. especially the movement.

Why is it surprising? BoxRec names itself "Boxing's Official Record Keeper" and puts out ratings. Nowhere except in this forum is it explained how or why ratings on the boxer's individual page can differ from the divisional rankings, even on the day a fight happened.
Nowhere except in this thread, not in Remi's paper, nor your site, is an explanation or even examples of how a fighter can win and yet lose points.
There are numerous other issues with WHR. Of course I'm not yet suggesting take out the ratings, but as long as it remains as is, there will be complaints. Be thankful there aren't more.

I spent answers to WHR points moves over and over,which are caused by the WHR basis as described (mathematically) in Remi Coulom's paper, But I fear only few people at all seem to be able to understand those basics. It is simply seeding the boxers with 3 dummy prior bouts and then moving their ratings at bout time (all their bouts and all bouts of their opponents etc) until the sum of all deviations is minimal. (maximum likelihood). All ratings at all bout times change with each change in any bout. There is no simple points difference calculation for one bout.

[JCS]

people in this thread get salty towards boxrec don't they

It's fascinating in a peculiar way....

[Daedalus]

I'm still baffled with peoples' obsession with the rating points.. especially the movement.

Why is it surprising? BoxRec names itself "Boxing's Official Record Keeper" and puts out ratings. Nowhere except in this forum is it explained how or why ratings on the boxer's individual page can differ from the divisional rankings, even on the day a fight happened.
Nowhere except in this thread, not in Remi's paper, nor your site, is an explanation or even examples of how a fighter can win and yet lose points.
There are numerous other issues with WHR. Of course I'm not yet suggesting take out the ratings, but as long as it remains as is, there will be complaints. Be thankful there aren't more.

I spent answers to WHR points moves over and over,which are caused by the WHR basis as described (mathematically) in Remi Coulom's paper, But I fear only few people at all seem to be able to understand those basics. All ratings at all bout times change with each change in any bout.

Remi's paper is good for only 1 thing, the actual algorithm. Its 1 example, the "remarkable" case of CrazyStone consistently winning and gaining points rapidly, isn't strange at all. What would be, and what most people focus on the db, is fighters winning but losing points.
I understand your frustration at having to repeat yourself. But who wants to, for example, dig 17 pages to 161 of this thread just to know how the cube of Heavyweight upper weight reference works?
Look at Jason's site. It has a faq with the formula details: http://www.fightmatrix.com/faq/
And another article with examples: http://www.fightmatrix.com/2020/06/23/w ... lo-glicko/
Yes, gross oversimplifications, but they're accessible and transparent, and few complain. The old formula used to be on the Ratings Description page. Put a real-life example on there of how someone beat a top boxer and lost points, which is due to inactivity etc. Then explain that the points seen that day are different now because of... connections. That way, you avoid 90-95% future questions of this nature. And if some are too lazy, you can then truly say, read the faq.

[jujigatame]

Am I crazy or did Ramirez just jump Josh Taylor for #1 at 140? How'd that happen?

[Daedalus]

Am I crazy or did Ramirez just jump Josh Taylor for #1 at 140? How'd that happen?

WHR says Prograis lost points so is no longer boosting Taylor's career as much. Please don't ask why without reading this thread.

[JCS]

Prograis won by stoppage.. it'd be interesting if that somehow cost Taylor points...unless he got hit with some penalty which got passed onto Taylor, which would be odd.

[computerrank]

Prograis won by stoppage.. it'd be interesting if that somehow cost Taylor points...unless he got hit with some penalty which got passed onto Taylor, which would be odd.

I simulated the situation without Prograis' last bout:



Prograis is 7 points lower, but Taylor is #1 and 30 points higher. Surprising.

I will look into the changed WHR impact of Taylor bouts to his current rating in both cases.

[computerrank]

Not surprising, when analyzed.

Prograis was 224 before his last win against an unsufficient opponent after a year. Then Prograis dropped to 192.

Taylor dropped to 172 after his very unsufficient win against his last opponent. He was only #1 due to the Boxrec winner-ahead-loser rule with his win against Prograis. That kept him ahead of Prograis at 228 before Prograis' weak win.

Now with Prograis dropped, Taylor dropped too.

I am no friend of that winner-ahead-loser rule. I would prefer pure WHR ratings, which would have:

Ramirez 224
Prograis 194
Zepeda 192
Taylor 172

[JCS]

You could argue that Taylor should drop... as Prograis dropped.. and that is his best win. Personally, I think the winner ahead of loser rule should only apply in dominant wins... unless there is a way to "break" that block.

Then again, ratings aside.. I'm not sure I see any reason that Prograis should be ranked above Taylor.

Movement aside, I'm OK with Taylor above Prograis. Neither one has done anything to hurt their rating since they fought.

[Daedalus]

Not surprising, when analyzed.
...
I am no friend of that winner-ahead-loser rule. I would prefer pure WHR ratings, which would have:

Ramirez 224
Prograis 194
Zepeda 192
Taylor 172

Let's look at their results over at least 35-pt opponents:
Ramirez (Postol 78, Hooker 92, Zepeda 233)
Prograis (Flanagan 88, Indongo 69, lost to Taylor)
Zepeda (Baranchyk 48, Pedraza 112, lost to Ramirez, Flanagan)
Taylor (Prograis 303, Baranchyk 98, Postol 116, Davies 50)

What's not surprising is the Defender of the System prefers Prograis, who's done relatively nothing, over the superior Taylor he lost to.

[margaret thatcher]

Taylor obviously should be ahead of Prograis, a legit loser pretty much never should be higher if neither has done anything notable since their fight, I like the winner ahead of loser rule, the way it works in reality the loser extremely rarely deserves to be higher so soon after their fight

[computerrank]

Should start within the hour:
Devin Haney (5-star fighter) vs. Yuriorkis Gamboa (4-star fighter)
Listed as a "no-star" fight.

Thanks

[Offthehook]

completely off topic, but a lot of tanzinian fighters seem to have their records partially missing.

Any reason for this?

[computerrank]

completely off topic, but a lot of tanzinian fighters seem to have their records partially missing.

Any reason for this?

This is not a ratings issue. It is a record issue. You should ask in this forum:

viewforum.php?f=1

[margaret thatcher]

Dom Breazeale has been inactive for almost 18 months but is still ranked and listed as active, was the 12 months of inactivity = inactive thing changed

[computerrank]

Dom Breazeale has been inactive for almost 18 months but is still ranked and listed as active, was the 12 months of inactivity = inactive thing changed

Inactivity is suspended due to COVID19.