Zhang beating Joyce probably overcame that defeat, no?
But shouldn't he still be behind Hrgovic? Maybe I have to go read the FAQ again...
Winner above loser:
For the last 18 months a winner of a fight is kept above the loser.
To me that sounds like the winner (Hrgovic) is kept above the loser (Zhang) for 18 months
It should probably say, "this can be overcome by the loser having success in the future over a higher-rated opponent" ?
I really thought that if Zhang moved up due to future results, Hrgovic would move up along with him to stay ahead; or that Zhang's "ceiling" would be Hrgovic for 18 months
Thanks SportsRatings, I added this to the BoxRec Ratings Description
How is it possible to have Shields #15 and Taylor as #2 n Cameron #1 smdh I have lost so much respect for Boxrec. It's obvious why it's like that and it's not no rating's system yea rite it's humans and their disturbed minds.
1262978 wrote: ↑03 Jun 2023, 23:36
How is it possible to have Shields #15 and Taylor as #2 n Cameron #1 smdh I have lost so much respect for Boxrec. It's obvious why it's like that and it's not no rating's system yea rite it's humans and their disturbed minds.
Missing competition in the higher weight divisions ...
1262978 wrote: ↑03 Jun 2023, 23:36
How is it possible to have Shields #15 and Taylor as #2 n Cameron #1 smdh I have lost so much respect for Boxrec. It's obvious why it's like that and it's not no rating's system yea rite it's humans and their disturbed minds.
Beterbiev 24th p4p... He fought Koelling for the IBF, Govzdyk WBC and Smith Jr WBO, All by KO. the only fighter on the list who unifies twice. He KO all his mandatories by KO and all his opponents. I don't know nothing or the algorithm need to be review.
1262973 wrote: ↑10 Jun 2023, 17:25
Stupid question, how do I view number ratings on BoxRec? I have it set to display them on my account settings but all I see is the star rating.
Only special roles can see the rating points currently.
I know we're (sadly) not getting the numerical ratings back but I at least wish we could see the rating progressions on the fighter pages, even if they're in the 0-5 star format. It was super useful to be able to see a fighter's career trajectory and the quality of each of their opponents at the time of the fight.
jujigatame wrote: ↑09 Jul 2023, 22:18
I know we're (sadly) not getting the numerical ratings back but I at least wish we could see the rating progressions on the fighter pages, even if they're in the 0-5 star format. It was super useful to be able to see a fighter's career trajectory and the quality of each of their opponents at the time of the fight.
For me ithe stars are shown, even when I am not logged in.
jujigatame wrote: ↑09 Jul 2023, 22:18
I know we're (sadly) not getting the numerical ratings back but I at least wish we could see the rating progressions on the fighter pages, even if they're in the 0-5 star format. It was super useful to be able to see a fighter's career trajectory and the quality of each of their opponents at the time of the fight.
For me ithe stars are shown, even when I am not logged in.
I see stars, but only 1 set, which I thought was the "bout rating" rather than 1 rating for each fighter. Is that not the correct way to interpret it?
jujigatame wrote: ↑09 Jul 2023, 22:18
I know we're (sadly) not getting the numerical ratings back but I at least wish we could see the rating progressions on the fighter pages, even if they're in the 0-5 star format. It was super useful to be able to see a fighter's career trajectory and the quality of each of their opponents at the time of the fight.
For me ithe stars are shown, even when I am not logged in.
I see stars, but only 1 set, which I thought was the "bout rating" rather than 1 rating for each fighter. Is that not the correct way to interpret it?
gmegibben1 wrote: ↑26 Jun 2023, 13:05
At some stage will regular users be able to see the ratings again?
This is not in the pipeline.
This makes review of non-active, lesser known fighters nearly impossible. Why is this useful feature not being brought back? There is no transparency to the ratings without them.
Even active fighters are trending towards 12+ month layoffs, so we end up with "NA" vs "NA" (especially on PBC cards). At the very least, would you consider increasing inactivity to 15 months?
computerrank wrote: ↑10 Jul 2023, 03:45
For me ithe stars are shown, even when I am not logged in.
I see stars, but only 1 set, which I thought was the "bout rating" rather than 1 rating for each fighter. Is that not the correct way to interpret it?
Yes, the bout ratings are shown.
It would be nice to have the individual fighter ratings for each fight. Even in star form would be good if there are no plans to make the numerical ratings public again. I think it's really important to be able to gauge a fighter's career progression and strength of opposition.
gmegibben1 wrote: ↑26 Jun 2023, 13:05
At some stage will regular users be able to see the ratings again?
This is not in the pipeline.
This makes review of non-active, lesser known fighters nearly impossible. Why is this useful feature not being brought back? There is no transparency to the ratings without them.
Even active fighters are trending towards 12+ month layoffs, so we end up with "NA" vs "NA" (especially on PBC cards). At the very least, would you consider increasing inactivity to 15 months?
Inactivity always was after 12 months before COVID-19 and only was temporarily set to 18 months due to the special situation then.
computerrank wrote: ↑27 Jun 2023, 08:58
This is not in the pipeline.
This makes review of non-active, lesser known fighters nearly impossible. Why is this useful feature not being brought back? There is no transparency to the ratings without them.
Even active fighters are trending towards 12+ month layoffs, so we end up with "NA" vs "NA" (especially on PBC cards). At the very least, would you consider increasing inactivity to 15 months?
Inactivity always was after 12 months before COVID-19 and only was temporarily set to 18 months due to the special situation then.
Is it possible to make a system where fighters with fights booked return-to/stay-in the rankings? To avoid examples like usyk disapearing from the rankings in the week leading up to his fight with DDD....
This makes review of non-active, lesser known fighters nearly impossible. Why is this useful feature not being brought back? There is no transparency to the ratings without them.
Even active fighters are trending towards 12+ month layoffs, so we end up with "NA" vs "NA" (especially on PBC cards). At the very least, would you consider increasing inactivity to 15 months?
Inactivity always was after 12 months before COVID-19 and only was temporarily set to 18 months due to the special situation then.
Is it possible to make a system where fighters with fights booked return-to/stay-in the rankings? To avoid examples like usyk disapearing from the rankings in the week leading up to his fight with DDD....
There are too many no shows with scheduled bouts ...
