Ratings - please read before commenting

marcianofan
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 283
Joined: 12 May 2004, 01:12

Re: Jerry Forrest

Post by marcianofan »

computerrank wrote: 03 Dec 2021, 17:52
SportsRatings wrote: 03 Dec 2021, 15:34 It's probably been a while since he beat anyone decent, but he just got draws vs. Zhang and Hunter and still isn't ranked. Does he need to have a win before he's ranked?
Jerry Forrest presents himself as #16 WBC Bridgerweight. Bridgerweights (neither Heavyweight nor Cruiserweight) cannot be ranked in the BoxRec schema, which doesn't know Bridgerweight. None of the other major orgs shares that WBC idea.
I've long been confused about if and/or why that exclusion is really necessary. I agree with the status quo of ignoring Bridgerweight, but is there any particular reason he can't just be ranked wherever he fits in the rankings of the boxrec-recognized weight class in which his most recent fight would belong if not for the existence of bridgerweight (ie in most cases HW, or in a few like Bilal Laggoune, CW)? I'm not quite understanding whether excluding self-or-WBC-styled Bridgerweights is something you decided to do at an Admin or editorial level, or if it's a matter of the system not recognizing their weight class because none is assigned on the bout sheet. If it's the former, I'd ask that the decision be reconsidered. If the latter, could that not be fixed just by specifying the most logical "real" division in the bout details?

It just seems to me that Jerry Forrest is a heavyweight by any but the random WBC standard, and his being excluded from the heavyweight rankings means the heavyweight rankings are, to some extent, incorrect. I actually did an excel file a few hours ago where I copy and pasted the current heavy and cruiser rankings, and inserted the fighters listed as WBC Bridgerweights rankees on the WBC webstie, using the rankings points each guy appears to have had in the division as of his last fight. It looks like the top 10 are still solid and unchanged, but by the time you get down to the #50 heavyweight, Nathan Gorman....he really ought to be #60 after inserting #13 Oscar Rivas, #23 Evgeny Romanov, #25 Lukasz Rozanski, #30 Jerry Forrest, #31 Alen Babic, #34 Andrey Fedosov, #49 Shigabudin Aliev, #52 Ruslan Fayfer, #54 Petar Milas, and #57 Joey Tambe Djeko (subject to any time-related decay their points might have seen since last fights), To me, when roughly 15% of the top 50 or 60 heavyweights are hidden, and lower-ranked fighters are glorified in their place just because of some random WBC nonsense they might be giving lip service to, that significantly lowers the value of the rankings as they are, and sorta cries out for any remedy that can be made to function.

It's probably a lot more difficult to address from a coding/policy/practical perspective than I realize, but I'm just wondering, I guess, if you see it as a problem worth addressing. I just think that Boxrec behaving as if bridgerweight doesn't exist is good, but that making it look like the fighters themselves don't exist as a consequence of that is very, very bad.

Oh...PS- do you happen to know what Forrest's points at heavyweight would have had him ranked before the fight, if he'd been rankable as a heavyweight?
JCS
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 5913
Joined: 17 Dec 2004, 13:27

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by JCS »

The Bridgerweight thing makes zero sense. Rank them as Heavyweights. The end.
marcianofan
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 283
Joined: 12 May 2004, 01:12

Could inactivity standards be made adjustable?

Post by marcianofan »

I doubt this is the first time this has ever been brought up, but the increased inactivity from COVID (even though it's close to being back to normal) got me thinking:
Would it be reasonably plausible to implement an option to view the rankings with different inactivity standards applied?

So in other words, along with the dropdown lists for divisions, stances, countries, etc., there might be one for what number of inactive months would filter a fighter from the rankings. And ideally, perhaps a checkbox where we could choose to override the exclusion for fighters with a currently-scheduled fight listed on the schedule. I generally adopt the 12-month standard in my own mind as a general rule, but at the same time, it seems a bit overly rigid to drop a fighter on day 366, even if he's had a fight scheduled for day #370 that's been signed for 2-3 months. I think including fighters like that would tend to give a better practical picture of the division. Just wanted to see if that's doable, and what your thoughts might be, if so.
computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2332
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by computerrank »

Regarding Bridgerweight and Forrest. It isn't a ratings issue - it is politics. Just look at his points in his record. The points are Heavyweight points.
marcianofan
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 283
Joined: 12 May 2004, 01:12

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by marcianofan »

JCS wrote: 03 Dec 2021, 20:36 The Bridgerweight thing makes zero sense. Rank them as Heavyweights. The end.
Yeah that would probably simplify it even more. I mean I do think a guy like Bilal Laggoune who is pretty clearly a cruiserweight ought to be a cruiserweight, but if you don't want to get in the business of scrutinizing each individual fighter's last weigh-in and wanted to base it on self-declaration (ie "Jerry Forrest represents himself as the WBC #16 Bridgerweight), I would certainly rather see Boxrec translate that representation to a real weight class and call both Forrest and Laggoune heavyweights, rather than treat them both as completely alien to any known boxing division.

Plus, it looks like only 3 of the excluded bridgerweights would likely be categorized as cruiserweights anyway....#39 Laggoune, #60 Samuel Kadje, and #79 Isaac Chamberlain.
marcianofan
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 283
Joined: 12 May 2004, 01:12

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by marcianofan »

computerrank wrote: 03 Dec 2021, 20:40 Regarding Bridgerweight and Forrest. It isn't a ratings issue - it is politics. Just look at his points in his record. The points are Heavyweight points.
Could you expand on the political problem to help us understand? Is it that you would offend the WBC by calling their Bridgerweight top contenders mostly heavyweight fringe contenders and journeymen? And if so, do they really react any better to de-ranking those same fighters entirely?

Or is it that you're trying to stick it to the WBC so as to encourage them to drop the experiment?

If it's the latter, I guess I would acknowledge it's a noble goal, but the cost in terms of confusion for people who just want a rock-solid set of rankings to look at seems a bit steep to me.

Can the site not just decide to rise above and/or ignore the WBC politics and get those fighters back in the ratings mix where they objectively belong?
computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2332
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by computerrank »

This thread is only the right place for discussing issues and ideas regarding the ratings algorithm.

The right place for discussing issues with weight divisions, additional listing options and politics is here
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=94835
marcianofan
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 283
Joined: 12 May 2004, 01:12

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by marcianofan »

computerrank wrote: 03 Dec 2021, 20:55 This thread is only the right place for discussing issues and ideas regarding the ratings algorithm.

The right place for discussing issues with weight divisions and politics is here
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=94835
Thanks. I did actually try to post there first, but it is showing up as "locked." Figured the two topics were sufficiently interrelated that I might be okay here under that circumstance. Is the lock unintentional?
computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2332
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by computerrank »

marcianofan wrote: 03 Dec 2021, 20:58
computerrank wrote: 03 Dec 2021, 20:55 This thread is only the right place for discussing issues and ideas regarding the ratings algorithm.

The right place for discussing issues with weight divisions and politics is here
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=94835
Thanks. I did actually try to post there first, but it is showing up as "locked." Figured the two topics were sufficiently interrelated that I might be okay here under that circumstance. Is the lock unintentional?
I see - I will try to get an answer.
computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2332
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by computerrank »

computerrank wrote: 03 Dec 2021, 21:04
marcianofan wrote: 03 Dec 2021, 20:58
computerrank wrote: 03 Dec 2021, 20:55 This thread is only the right place for discussing issues and ideas regarding the ratings algorithm.

The right place for discussing issues with weight divisions and politics is here
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=94835
Thanks. I did actually try to post there first, but it is showing up as "locked." Figured the two topics were sufficiently interrelated that I might be okay here under that circumstance. Is the lock unintentional?
I see - I will try to get an answer.
The lock was intended, because every poster in a thread gets an email, whenever a post is added. And that was a lot of mails for such a long thread.

But now the solution is. The old thread is archived read-only. But a new thread with same title was created for open discussion ... :TU:
Manrae
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 267
Joined: 28 Nov 2002, 18:57

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by Manrae »

Before Tank-Cruz this past Saturday, Tank-Barrios was a 5 star bout

One day after Tank-Cruz, it was downgraded to 4 stars

Why did the Cruz bout affect Barrios?
computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2332
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by computerrank »

Manrae wrote: 10 Dec 2021, 06:01 Before Tank-Cruz this past Saturday, Tank-Barrios was a 5 star bout

One day after Tank-Cruz, it was downgraded to 4 stars

Why did the Cruz bout affect Barrios?
Before the Cruz bout Davis had 390 points, Barrios had 45.9 points at time of the Barrios bout. After the close win Cruz win Davis has only 284.6 points and Barrios has only 42.81 points at time of the Barrios bout. The limit is 47.4 points for both opponents in a 5 star bout. So the bout rating dropped.
Manrae
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 267
Joined: 28 Nov 2002, 18:57

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by Manrae »

computerrank wrote: 10 Dec 2021, 06:28
Manrae wrote: 10 Dec 2021, 06:01 Before Tank-Cruz this past Saturday, Tank-Barrios was a 5 star bout

One day after Tank-Cruz, it was downgraded to 4 stars

Why did the Cruz bout affect Barrios?
Before the Cruz bout Davis had 390 points, Barrios had 45.9 points at time of the Barrios bout. After the close win Cruz win Davis has only 284.6 points and Barrios has only 42.81 points at time of the Barrios bout. The limit is 47.4 points for both opponents in a 5 star bout. So the bout rating dropped.
But why does the Cruz bout affect Barrios?
computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2332
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by computerrank »

Manrae wrote: 10 Dec 2021, 09:02
computerrank wrote: 10 Dec 2021, 06:28
Manrae wrote: 10 Dec 2021, 06:01 Before Tank-Cruz this past Saturday, Tank-Barrios was a 5 star bout

One day after Tank-Cruz, it was downgraded to 4 stars

Why did the Cruz bout affect Barrios?
Before the Cruz bout Davis had 390 points, Barrios had 45.9 points at time of the Barrios bout. After the close win Cruz win Davis has only 284.6 points and Barrios has only 42.81 points at time of the Barrios bout. The limit is 47.4 points for both opponents in a 5 star bout. So the bout rating dropped.
But why does the Cruz bout affect Barrios?
All results of a boxer affect all bout ratings of his opponents, of the opponents of their opponents etc. Past bouts affect the ratings in later bouts and later bouts affect the ratings in earlier bouts.

So the close win of Davis against a lower rated opponent Cruz dropped the estimation of Davis' own rating. But he was the opponent of Cruz in an earlier bout. As Davis is now rated lower, the estimation for his rating at time of his Cruz bout is now lower too. As Davis' rating at time of the Cruz bout is estimated lower now, Barrios' rating at that time is estimated also lower now, as he lost to lower rated opponent now.

Every result affects each of the opponents' ratings at bout time in the chain of boxers and opponents. But the size of the influence decreases with the difference of time and with the number of bouts in between.
Manrae
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 267
Joined: 28 Nov 2002, 18:57

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by Manrae »

computerrank wrote: 10 Dec 2021, 10:37
Manrae wrote: 10 Dec 2021, 09:02
computerrank wrote: 10 Dec 2021, 06:28 Before the Cruz bout Davis had 390 points, Barrios had 45.9 points at time of the Barrios bout. After the close win Cruz win Davis has only 284.6 points and Barrios has only 42.81 points at time of the Barrios bout. The limit is 47.4 points for both opponents in a 5 star bout. So the bout rating dropped.
But why does the Cruz bout affect Barrios?
All results of a boxer affect all bout ratings of his opponents, of the opponents of their opponents etc. Past bouts affect the ratings in later bouts and later bouts affect the ratings in earlier bouts.

So the close win of Davis against a lower rated opponent Cruz dropped the estimation of Davis' own rating. But he was the opponent of Cruz in an earlier bout. As Davis is now rated lower, the estimation for his rating at time of his Cruz bout is now lower too. As Davis' rating at time of the Cruz bout is estimated lower now, Barrios' rating at that time is estimated also lower now, as he lost to lower rated opponent now.

Every result affects each of the opponents' ratings at bout time in the chain of boxers and opponents. But the size of the influence decreases with the difference of time and with the number of bouts in between.
I see, thanks
Benbox
Super Flyweight
Posts: 1
Joined: 30 Jul 2020, 20:57

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by Benbox »

Issac Chamberlain i can’t see where or if at all he ranked in cruiserweight uk / European or world. He’s active .

Ps thanks for best website ..I’m
on it everyday.
computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2332
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by computerrank »

Benbox wrote: 20 Dec 2021, 13:50 Issac Chamberlain i can’t see where or if at all he ranked in cruiserweight uk / European or world. He’s active .

Ps thanks for best website ..I’m
on it everyday.
BoxRec doesn't rate boxers, who decided to be listed as Bridgerweights (see WBC rankings).
computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2332
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

BoxRec Annual Rating - updated

Post by computerrank »

The BoxRec Annual Rating are updated - and now include the 2021 bouts.

https://boxrec.com/media/index.php/BoxR ... al_Ratings
Manrae
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 267
Joined: 28 Nov 2002, 18:57

Re: BoxRec Annual Rating - updated

Post by Manrae »

computerrank wrote: 08 Jan 2022, 12:55 The BoxRec Annual Rating are updated - and now include the 2021 bouts.

https://boxrec.com/media/index.php/BoxR ... al_Ratings
https://boxrec.com/media/index.php/BoxR ... ht_Annuals

2021... Callum Smith is ranked @ heavyweight
margaret thatcher
Bantamweight
Posts: 33198
Joined: 22 Jul 2019, 15:43

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by margaret thatcher »

callum smith, #1 light heavy in the world and #9 heavyweight in the world, turned into an absolute beast lately :yay:
computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2332
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

Re: BoxRec Annual Rating - updated

Post by computerrank »

Manrae wrote: 09 Jan 2022, 03:18
computerrank wrote: 08 Jan 2022, 12:55 The BoxRec Annual Rating are updated - and now include the 2021 bouts.

https://boxrec.com/media/index.php/BoxR ... al_Ratings
https://boxrec.com/media/index.php/BoxR ... ht_Annuals

2021... Callum Smith is ranked @ heavyweight
I see :witzend: - I found some other irregularities - will look into that

OK - found bug - is corrected now and updated on BoxRec Annual Ratings
Manrae
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 267
Joined: 28 Nov 2002, 18:57

Re: BoxRec Annual Rating - updated

Post by Manrae »

computerrank wrote: 09 Jan 2022, 03:23
Manrae wrote: 09 Jan 2022, 03:18
computerrank wrote: 08 Jan 2022, 12:55 The BoxRec Annual Rating are updated - and now include the 2021 bouts.

https://boxrec.com/media/index.php/BoxR ... al_Ratings
https://boxrec.com/media/index.php/BoxR ... ht_Annuals

2021... Callum Smith is ranked @ heavyweight
I see :witzend: - I found some other irregularities - will look into that

OK - found bug - is corrected now and updated on BoxRec Annual Ratings
Good work

I have a question...
https://boxrec.com/en/proboxer/618621

Is his ranking also a bug or is he legitimately #21 @ bantam (118)?
computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2332
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

Re: BoxRec Annual Rating - updated

Post by computerrank »

Manrae wrote: 11 Jan 2022, 22:53 ... I have a question...
https://boxrec.com/en/proboxer/618621

Is his ranking also a bug or is he legitimately #21 @ bantam (118)?
That is correct. He last defeated higher rated Edwin Palomares. So he now is rated higher than Palomares by winner above loser rule.
Manrae
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 267
Joined: 28 Nov 2002, 18:57

Re: BoxRec Annual Rating - updated

Post by Manrae »

computerrank wrote: 12 Jan 2022, 11:26
Manrae wrote: 11 Jan 2022, 22:53 ... I have a question...
https://boxrec.com/en/proboxer/618621

Is his ranking also a bug or is he legitimately #21 @ bantam (118)?
That is correct. He last defeated higher rated Edwin Palomares. So he now is rated higher than Palomares by winner above loser rule.
I see, thanks
margaret thatcher
Bantamweight
Posts: 33198
Joined: 22 Jul 2019, 15:43

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by margaret thatcher »

callum smith #1 lhw in the world, chris jr #1 mw in the world, we just need to get fury and okolie at #1 and we'll have taken over :yay:
Post Reply