Ratings - please read before commenting - Archived

JCS · Post by **JCS** » 23 Oct 2007, 13:42

computerrank wrote:
JCS wrote:
computerrank wrote:... would make some 40 points difference for Povetkin ... perhaps
Larry Donald's rating also dropped before Povetkin's win against him.

40 points can mean a dozen ranking spots or more.

Why not implement gradual penalties? They are undoubtedly more accurate and less anomalous in appearance.
... 40 points would make 1 or 2 ranks for Povetkin, if he should win.

The basic reason, why the penalty comes after 18 months completed is - a boxer's rating should be tangled only, as far as he has missed valid opposition within this period - to the last day.

Otherwise the implicit requirement would be to box this level of opposition in a shorter time period - and this is not intended.

And in addition - we would have daily sliding ratings - which are not accepted too, as we now.

Set-backs after periods for missing opposition quality or inactivity are quite usual in common ABC rankings too.

Perhaps this inactive boxer would be penalized by the ABCs after long activity, but if they were to prove themselves after the inactivity.. the penalty would be totally erased. I realize we do some corrections upon returning from inactivity.. but I'm not sure they are enough.

Furthermore, organizations don't do daily shifts for penalties because it is not feasible as a human would have to perform these tasks.

My main problem is the cliff-like drop that I explained. At the very least, I believe there should be a gradual slope from 18-24 months to soften those just around the cut-off.

Povetkin didn't get the credit he deserved for beating Donald, as Donald's rating was pummeled by inactivity.

JCS · Post by **JCS** » 24 Oct 2007, 15:15

Hill #123 vs Arslan #10 on BoxRec ratings..

but IBO has Hill #12 vs Arslan #13.. Which is more realistic.

I mean.. inactivity or not, title or not.. whatever. Hill HAS to be in the Top 100.. At least!!

m1kee50 · Post by **m1kee50** » 24 Oct 2007, 15:19

JCS wrote:Hill #123 vs Arslan #10 on BoxRec ratings..

but IBO has Hill #12 vs Arslan #13.. Which is more realistic.

I mean.. inactivity or not, title or not.. whatever. Hill HAS to be in the Top 100.. At least!!

I guess you are only going to get penalised for losing to a man who hasnt fought in ten years.... I agree its a bit harsh, but its the vagaries of a computerised impartial system, at least everyone suffers the same penalities here, I dont know how the IBO organise themselves

JCS · Post by **JCS** » 24 Oct 2007, 15:25

MIKEE wrote:
JCS wrote:Hill #123 vs Arslan #10 on BoxRec ratings..

but IBO has Hill #12 vs Arslan #13.. Which is more realistic.

I mean.. inactivity or not, title or not.. whatever. Hill HAS to be in the Top 100.. At least!!
I guess you are only going to get penalised for losing to a man who hasnt fought in ten years.... I agree its a bit harsh, but its the vagaries of a computerised impartial system, at least everyone suffers the same penalities here, I dont know how the IBO organise themselves

IBO almost certainly has a human affecting the results. Their "blocking" looks too good for a computerized system. (Example: The Briggs/Lyakhovich situation)

This gets back to what I was saying though... in that a fighter should be given a great deal of the penalty back when they come off of inactivity and prove themselves. Martin implemented my ideas concerning adjustments in a situation like Maske/Hill.. but I think Hill got tagged by some other penalty recently. He was around #60.

Lennox · Post by **Lennox** » 26 Oct 2007, 11:42

IBO ratings are all done on a formula JCS. Human input is for division changes, some injury losses have apparently been over-ridden.

JCS · Post by **JCS** » 26 Oct 2007, 11:51

Lennox wrote:IBO ratings are all done on a formula JCS. Human input is for division changes, some injury losses have apparently been over-ridden.

That counts as human input.

Lennox · Post by **Lennox** » 26 Oct 2007, 11:56

JCS wrote:
Lennox wrote:IBO ratings are all done on a formula JCS. Human input is for division changes, some injury losses have apparently been over-ridden.
That counts as human input.

Yes, I agree

Lennox · Post by **Lennox** » 31 Oct 2007, 14:47

Chris Byrd at 56 and behind Peter Okello. Boxrec needs a new computer.

JCS · Post by **JCS** » 31 Oct 2007, 14:49

Lennox wrote:Chris Byrd at 56 and behind Peter Okello. Boxrec needs a new computer.

That is quite harsh.

I'm working on a modified system in my spare time. Hope to have results in a few days, maybe I'll change Martin's mind on these tremendous penalties.

JCS · Post by **JCS** » 02 Nov 2007, 19:34

I think I need a new computer too. Here's my first stab at a computer ranking..

HW

1 Wladimir Klitschko
2 Ruslan Chagaev
3 Nikolay Valuev
4 Samuel Peter
5 Sultan Ibragimov
6 Alexander Povetkin
7 Calvin Brock
8 Oleg Maskaev
9 Lamon Brewster
10 Matt Skelton

Byrd at #20... Although I gotta figure out why Golota is at #13 :)

Duddy is at #38.. so I know something is working right.

sockdolager · Post by **sockdolager** » 02 Nov 2007, 22:11

JCS wrote:I think I need a new computer too. Here's my first stab at a computer ranking..

HW

1 Wladimir Klitschko
2 Ruslan Chagaev
3 Nikolay Valuev
4 Samuel Peter
5 Sultan Ibragimov
6 Alexander Povetkin
7 Calvin Brock
8 Oleg Maskaev
9 Lamon Brewster
10 Matt Skelton

Byrd at #20... Although I gotta figure out why Golota is at #13 :)

Duddy is at #38.. so I know something is working right.

At HW?

The Irish Assassin · Post by **The Irish Assassin** » 02 Nov 2007, 22:13

sockdolager wrote:
JCS wrote:I think I need a new computer too. Here's my first stab at a computer ranking..

HW

1 Wladimir Klitschko
2 Ruslan Chagaev
3 Nikolay Valuev
4 Samuel Peter
5 Sultan Ibragimov
6 Alexander Povetkin
7 Calvin Brock
8 Oleg Maskaev
9 Lamon Brewster
10 Matt Skelton

Byrd at #20... Although I gotta figure out why Golota is at #13 :)

Duddy is at #38.. so I know something is working right.
At HW?

He's that good, he is ranked in a division he doesn't even fight in!! I TOLD YOU HE DOESN'T SUCK

He should fight Mora.

JCS · Post by **JCS** » 02 Nov 2007, 22:24

sockdolager wrote:
JCS wrote:I think I need a new computer too. Here's my first stab at a computer ranking..

HW

1 Wladimir Klitschko
2 Ruslan Chagaev
3 Nikolay Valuev
4 Samuel Peter
5 Sultan Ibragimov
6 Alexander Povetkin
7 Calvin Brock
8 Oleg Maskaev
9 Lamon Brewster
10 Matt Skelton

Byrd at #20... Although I gotta figure out why Golota is at #13 :)

Duddy is at #38.. so I know something is working right.
At HW?

Sorry. MW :)

m1kee50 · Post by **m1kee50** » 03 Nov 2007, 03:03

JCS wrote:
Lennox wrote:Chris Byrd at 56 and behind Peter Okello. Boxrec needs a new computer.
That is quite harsh.

I'm working on a modified system in my spare time. Hope to have results in a few days, maybe I'll change Martin's mind on these tremendous penalties.

Is that before or after he got sparked by a novice?

JCS · Post by **JCS** » 05 Nov 2007, 14:51

Martin,

http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?hu ... &cat=boxer

How can this guy be ranked above 100+ others? Indicative of an underlying problem? I think so.

JCS · Post by **JCS** » 05 Nov 2007, 14:56

Cobwebcat wrote:Question for JCS.

In the all time rankings how many fighters have a perfect record (all wins, no draws) plus a rating above 450.

I'm guessing only:

Marciano
Mayweather
Calzaghe
Hatton
Ottke
Cotto

and do you have their current all time rating?

Ta

EDIT: I'll check later.

computerrank · Post by **computerrank** » 05 Nov 2007, 14:56

JCS wrote:Martin,

http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?hu ... &cat=boxer

How can this guy be ranked above 100+ others? Indicative of an underlying problem? I think so.

Looks strange ... where did he get his 3 points from?

JCS · Post by **JCS** » 05 Nov 2007, 15:00

computerrank wrote:
JCS wrote:Martin,

http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?hu ... &cat=boxer

How can this guy be ranked above 100+ others? Indicative of an underlying problem? I think so.
Looks strange ... where did he get his 3 points from?

You tell me. :) I don't see how he got points. Even if he got any, why would he retain them?

I'll see if I can determine this shortly.

JCS · Post by **JCS** » 05 Nov 2007, 15:40

The 3 points are not earned through the bouts. It must be something you're doing on the output.

I wonder if it is something you do during weight equalization?

JCS · Post by **JCS** » 05 Nov 2007, 16:52

Cobwebcat wrote:
JCS wrote:
Cobwebcat wrote:Question for JCS.

In the all time rankings how many fighters have a perfect record (all wins, no draws) plus a rating above 450.

I'm guessing only:

Marciano
Mayweather
Calzaghe
Hatton
Ottke
Cotto

and do you have their current all time rating?

Ta
450 is way, way too low of a number to use.

However, ironically enough, 1450 produces the exact list you gave me.

FMJ - 1653
Calzaghe - 1537
Ottke - 1481
Marciano - 1520
Hatton - 1558
Cotto - 1473

Dropping to 1400 adds 3 more

Juan Diaz - 1405
Samson Dutch Boy Gym - 1416
Ivan Calderon 1403
Thanks for that JCS.

Something strange though...before the all time values vanished they said:

Marciano 1425
Mayweather 1116
Calzaghe 753
Hatton 724
Ottke 516
Cotto 498

Hence why I used 450...what's changed?

Oops Sorry. I grabbed those values from an old database.

JCS · Post by **JCS** » 05 Nov 2007, 17:21

Martin,

I believe this boxer is getting 3 points in the equal_rating_for_division function just before the database update.

JCS · Post by **JCS** » 05 Nov 2007, 20:11

JCS wrote:
computerrank wrote:
JCS wrote:Martin,

http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?hu ... &cat=boxer

How can this guy be ranked above 100+ others? Indicative of an underlying problem? I think so.
Looks strange ... where did he get his 3 points from?
You tell me. :) I don't see how he got points. Even if he got any, why would he retain them?

I'll see if I can determine this shortly.

Martin,

On Version M. This boxer goes in as 0.38 points.

JCS · Post by **JCS** » 05 Nov 2007, 20:37

Cob,

Give me some time. The test server is really slow.

JCS · Post by **JCS** » 05 Nov 2007, 20:45

Cobwebcat wrote:I wonder how the computer using Boxrec ratings before every fight would be fairing in your prediction competition?

Pretty good, but not excellent. PTBF requires a bit more foresight than the current ratings are configured to consider or reflect.

JCS · Post by **JCS** » 05 Nov 2007, 21:01

Cob, here's your list.

Mayweather - 1117
Calzaghe - 754
Ottke - 517
Marciano - 1426
Hatton - 723
Cotto - 498

I've been tinkering with a rating system of my own.. here's my Top 20 Heavyweights

Code: Select all

Wladimir Klitschko                                                          380
Ruslan Chagaev                                                              277
Nikolay Valuev                                                              242
Samuel Peter                                                                185
Oleg Maskaev                                                                176
Tony Thompson                                                               156
Alexander Povetkin                                                          154
Sultan Ibragimov                                                            149
Matt Skelton                                                                142
Eddie Chambers                                                              133
Vladimir Virchis                                                            122
Hasim Rahman                                                                116
Lamon Brewster                                                              111
Calvin Brock                                                                111
Chris Byrd                                                                  107
Juan Carlos Gomez                                                           100
John Ruiz                                                                   99
Shannon Briggs                                                              89
Luan Krasniqi                                                               87
Michael Sprott                                                              87