BoxRec

JCS wrote:Martin,

Consider this scenario. Zab Judah remains active, yet keeps losing to much higher rated fighters for the next few years. Since he keeps his opponent quality high, and remains active, he will not lose points, because his opponents are much higher rated. However, he will not have won, so is this correct?

Technically, he could remain at his current position for years, without winning a bout.

Opponent's rating is regarded for opponents's quality in case of

- close decision
- ratings are inside a ratio of 1/4 to 4
- loser's rating is higher than 400% of winner's rating for winner

- So Judah would lose points, if his opponents are rated higher than 400% of his own rating by punishmanet after 18 months
- he would lose points, if their rating is inside this ratio, by standard bout evaluation after the lost bouts

So he would lose points either way?? IF his opponents were all over 400%, but he never won, how much rating would he lose?

Hey guys first of all let me say this is a great site but wat i dont get is how is Clinton Woods rated # 25 P4P like come on guys this is a great site but honestly that is just out to lunch. Why not put Steve Molitor on at # 25 it would be a lot more realistic. like come on guys, CLINTON WOODS. lmao.

just trying to help out

JCS wrote:So he would lose points either way?? IF his opponents were all over 400%, but he never won, how much rating would he lose?

... as these ratings would not count for opposition quality, the result would depend on the rest of the bouts ...

thismodernlove wrote:Hey guys first of all let me say this is a great site but wat i dont get is how is Clinton Woods rated # 25 P4P like come on guys this is a great site but honestly that is just out to lunch. Why not put Steve Molitor on at # 25 it would be a lot more realistic. like come on guys, CLINTON WOODS. lmao.

just trying to help out

As Jason already told you, the p4p ratings are directly bound to the current ratings. They are simply a all divisions current rating.

So Molitor is currently rated as #28 in the p4p list - quite high - but only the top20 are published on the BoxRec page.

computerrank wrote:

JCS wrote:So he would lose points either way?? IF his opponents were all over 400%, but he never won, how much rating would he lose?

... as these ratings would not count for opposition quality, the result would depend on the rest of the bouts ...

So my question is this. If Zab Judah lost by KO to much higher rated boxers, in which he did not lose any points as a result, he would continue to sustain his rating if he remained active.

Is this correct?

JCS wrote:

computerrank wrote:

JCS wrote:So he would lose points either way?? IF his opponents were all over 400%, but he never won, how much rating would he lose?

... as these ratings would not count for opposition quality, the result would depend on the rest of the bouts ...

So my question is this. If Zab Judah lost by KO to much higher rated boxers, in which he did not lose any points as a result, he would continue to sustain his rating if he remained active.

Is this correct?

.. no, he would lose by degrading from missing opponent quality as these superior (rated higher than 400% of his own rating) losses would no be regarded for his opponent quality.

... if there should be no other close decision or win, his assigned best opponent rating would be 0.

I don't get your all-time rankings. Marcelo Leandro da Silva is ranked as the worst super middleweight in the world all-time at number 4778: http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?hu ... &cat=boxer
The guy is 15-0, 11 KO and ranked 279 out of 654 at the present.

At the same time is Eric Crumble 0-31, 0 KO, all losses by way of KO in the first two rounds rated as 2436: http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?hu ... &cat=boxer.

This is a mystery to me???

Jens

Jens S wrote:I don't get your all-time rankings. Marcelo Leandro da Silva is ranked as the worst super middleweight in the world all-time at number 4778: http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?hu ... &cat=boxer
The guy is 15-0, 11 KO and ranked 279 out of 654 at the present.

At the same time is Eric Crumble 0-31, 0 KO, all losses by way of KO in the first two rounds rated as 2436: http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?hu ... &cat=boxer.

This is a mystery to me???

Jens

In the current ratings a boxer can get some additional points for wins - even against an opponent with 0 rating points - as long as his rating doesn't exceed 50 points.

In the all time ratings a boxer only achieves against opponents with ratings greater than 0.

So both Marcelo Leandro and Eric Crumble are at rating 0 in the all time ratings. All boxers at super middleweight ranked higher than 2000 are at this level only - which you cannot see in the published ratings.

The rankings below this level are not significant.

Thanks.

Jens

Why delete the all-time rating values ....

I will remind John again ...

Cobwebcat wrote:Trinidad is wrongly classified as a super middleweight in the all-time list

... he was active around this weight recently ... so he is not regarded as inactive now ...

Martin, your thoughts on the situation at Female Heavyweight? To be expected? I would think McGowan would be #1.

JCS wrote:Martin, your thoughts on the situation at Female Heavyweight? To be expected? I would think McGowan would be #1.

The competition situation in women heavyweight is really extremely weak.

Gowan lost half of here points due to inactivity - and also had only 4 rounders against weak opposition afterwards.

So effectivly there is no significant boxer at all in this divisision now.

Just out of curiosity, can someone explain to me Martin Castillo's ranking? Before he was moved to bantamweight, he was pretty highly ranked at super-fly. Did he get hit with some penalties or did his super-fly points just not carry over too well?

He was set back on 2007-07-21, 18 months after his last strong performance against Alexander Munoz - independently from his division move.

computerrank wrote:

JCS wrote:Martin, your thoughts on the situation at Female Heavyweight? To be expected? I would think McGowan would be #1.

The competition situation in women heavyweight is really extremely weak.

Gowan lost half of here points due to inactivity - and also had only 4 rounders against weak opposition afterwards.

So effectivly there is no significant boxer at all in this divisision now.

... I implemented a fix for this problem. Wins agains winless opponents will not be honored any longer - even in lower rating regions.

I proposed the new release for immediate launch.

computerrank wrote:

computerrank wrote:

JCS wrote:Martin, your thoughts on the situation at Female Heavyweight? To be expected? I would think McGowan would be #1.

The competition situation in women heavyweight is really extremely weak.

Gowan lost half of here points due to inactivity - and also had only 4 rounders against weak opposition afterwards.

So effectivly there is no significant boxer at all in this divisision now.

... I implemented a fix for this problem. Wins agains winless opponents will not be honored any longer - even in lower rating regions.

I proposed the new release for immediate launch.

This one was long overdue. This helps some overrating of the exclusively foreign fighters building up their ratings with soft opposition.

... some moves by some points even in higher regions also go along with this correction ...

There will be a fix to get all boxers with rating 0 in better order.

computerrank wrote:There will be a fix to get all boxers with rating 0 in better order.

Does it really matter at that point? :)

JCS wrote:

computerrank wrote:There will be a fix to get all boxers with rating 0 in better order.

Does it really matter at that point? :)

... some complained for zero state quantum effects ...

JCS wrote:

computerrank wrote:

computerrank wrote: The competition situation in women heavyweight is really extremely weak.

Gowan lost half of here points due to inactivity - and also had only 4 rounders against weak opposition afterwards.

So effectivly there is no significant boxer at all in this divisision now.

... I implemented a fix for this problem. Wins agains winless opponents will not be honored any longer - even in lower rating regions.

I proposed the new release for immediate launch.

This one was long overdue. This helps some overrating of the exclusively foreign fighters building up their ratings with soft opposition.

Is Julio Cesar Chavez fcuked then? Or is that only Females? A lot of the older records are fighters who show up only as 0-2-0 or similar

computerrank wrote:There will be a fix to get all boxers with rating 0 in better order.

... the fix is proposed for launch ...

computerrank wrote:

computerrank wrote:There will be a fix to get all boxers with rating 0 in better order.

... the fix is proposed for launch ...

... and done