Ratings - please read before commenting

[JCS]

The Bridgerweight thing makes zero sense. Rank them as Heavyweights. The end.

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ...

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

[Manrae]

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]

callum smith, #1 light heavy in the world and #9 heavyweight in the world, turned into an absolute beast lately

[computerrank]

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 - I found some other irregularities - will look into that

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

[Manrae]

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 - 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]

... 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]

... 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]

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

[VSports]

I'm sure this is just an anomaly but this struck me as very odd:

My fighter, 861672, recently scored a TKO1 against 716182 but is ranked still ranked 4 spots behind him. Trying to make sense of it.