Page 47 of 180
Posted: 21 Apr 2008, 02:56
by m1kee50
Can someone tell me what Mayweathers total points gained at 147 is, and same for Cotto?
Posted: 21 Apr 2008, 06:53
by computerrank
MatthewS wrote:Can someone tell me what Mayweathers total points gained at 147 is, and same for Cotto?
What do you mean with "total points gained at 147"?
Both are rated at Welterweight currently.
Posted: 21 Apr 2008, 09:56
by m1kee50
computerrank wrote:MatthewS wrote:Can someone tell me what Mayweathers total points gained at 147 is, and same for Cotto?
What do you mean with "total points gained at 147"?
Both are rated at Welterweight currently.
I mean, he had a points value when he left 140, and one fight at 154 notwithstanding, has accumulated points by fighting at 147.
I would like to know who according to the system, has done achieved more in a relative sense, Cotto or PBF?
Posted: 21 Apr 2008, 09:59
by JCS
MatthewS wrote:computerrank wrote:MatthewS wrote:Can someone tell me what Mayweathers total points gained at 147 is, and same for Cotto?
What do you mean with "total points gained at 147"?
Both are rated at Welterweight currently.
I mean, he had a points value when he left 140, and one fight at 154 notwithstanding, has accumulated points by fighting at 147.
I would like to know who according to the system, has done achieved more in a relative sense, Cotto or PBF?
It's not really that cut and dry..
Posted: 21 Apr 2008, 10:01
by m1kee50
JCS wrote:MatthewS wrote:computerrank wrote:
What do you mean with "total points gained at 147"?
Both are rated at Welterweight currently.
I mean, he had a points value when he left 140, and one fight at 154 notwithstanding, has accumulated points by fighting at 147.
I would like to know who according to the system, has done achieved more in a relative sense, Cotto or PBF?
It's not really that cut and dry..
oh god, ive asked a silly question again! what was the value after the last fight at 140, i can see the current rating on the site
Posted: 21 Apr 2008, 11:41
by computerrank
At year's end of 2005 Mayweather had 1750 points at Light Welterweight and Cotto had 812 points.
Posted: 21 Apr 2008, 11:58
by m1kee50
computerrank wrote:At year's end of 2005 Mayweather had 1750 points at Light Welterweight and Cotto had 812 points.
ty, so subtracting that from their current points, is it fair to say that Mayweather has not collected as many points as Cotto, therefore, relative to his previous standing, Cotto has advanced further/achieved more?
Posted: 21 Apr 2008, 12:01
by JCS
MatthewS wrote:computerrank wrote:At year's end of 2005 Mayweather had 1750 points at Light Welterweight and Cotto had 812 points.
ty, so subtracting that from their current points, is it fair to say that Mayweather has not collected as many points as Cotto, therefore, relative to his previous standing, Cotto has advanced further/achieved more?
Cotto has advanced more than Mayweather, but Mayweather was already at that higher echelon.
Due to this, you can't really determine who has accomplished more in that period of time... you can only say that Cotto has closed the gap.
Posted: 21 Apr 2008, 12:41
by m1kee50
JCS wrote:MatthewS wrote:computerrank wrote:At year's end of 2005 Mayweather had 1750 points at Light Welterweight and Cotto had 812 points.
ty, so subtracting that from their current points, is it fair to say that Mayweather has not collected as many points as Cotto, therefore, relative to his previous standing, Cotto has advanced further/achieved more?
Cotto has advanced more than Mayweather, but Mayweather was already at that higher echelon.
Due to this, you can't really determine who has accomplished more in that period of time... you can only say that Cotto has closed the gap.
but seeing as you gain more points by defeating fighters nearer your level if below you, and further from your level if above you....
doesnt that mean that we can say that Cotto has, by gaining more points than Mayweather, fought a better quality of
relative opposition than Mayweather in the same interval?
Posted: 21 Apr 2008, 12:49
by JCS
MatthewS wrote:JCS wrote:MatthewS wrote:
ty, so subtracting that from their current points, is it fair to say that Mayweather has not collected as many points as Cotto, therefore, relative to his previous standing, Cotto has advanced further/achieved more?
Cotto has advanced more than Mayweather, but Mayweather was already at that higher echelon.
Due to this, you can't really determine who has accomplished more in that period of time... you can only say that Cotto has closed the gap.
but seeing as you gain more points by defeating fighters nearer your level if below you, and further from your level if above you....
doesnt that mean that we can say that Cotto has, by gaining more points than Mayweather, fought a better quality of
relative opposition than Mayweather in the same interval?
I suppose you can say that. Then again, we all know the DLH fight should've been a unanimous decision. Furthermore, how many fighters are actually out there, near the same point level as Floyd for him to gain from?
Posted: 21 Apr 2008, 13:08
by Asterix
JCS wrote:I suppose you can say that. Then again, we all know the DLH fight should've been a unanimous decision. Furthermore, how many fighters are actually out there, near the same point level as Floyd for him to gain from?
Miguel Angel Cotto, Antonio Margarito, Shane Mosley. They're not near his point level, but they are the nearest challengers.
If he beat Cotto everyone would shut up. Same with Hatton fighting Witter.
Posted: 21 Apr 2008, 15:36
by m1kee50
JCS wrote:MatthewS wrote:JCS wrote:
Cotto has advanced more than Mayweather, but Mayweather was already at that higher echelon.
Due to this, you can't really determine who has accomplished more in that period of time... you can only say that Cotto has closed the gap.
but seeing as you gain more points by defeating fighters nearer your level if below you, and further from your level if above you....
doesnt that mean that we can say that Cotto has, by gaining more points than Mayweather, fought a better quality of
relative opposition than Mayweather in the same interval?
I suppose you can say that. Then again, we all know the DLH fight should've been a unanimous decision. Furthermore, how many fighters are actually out there, near the same point level as Floyd for him to gain from?
Cotto, Mosley, Magarito are all above the level of competition that he has faced, they arent at his level, but they are better than he has got.
Im just saying, because I made the claim that Cotto had done more at 140 and 147 than Mayweather, and was just checking
Posted: 14 May 2008, 18:12
by thismodernlove
Steve Molitor # 21 pound for pound. Right on the money!
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 27 May 2008, 21:30
by JCS
I believe he retired and is running for a position in the US Senate.
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 08 Jun 2008, 15:42
by Asterix
Cobwebcat wrote:PBF vanished from all-time lists....
He's here:
http://www.boxrec.com/ratings.php?count ... &SUBMIT=Go
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 11 Jun 2008, 13:55
by JCS
I think there's some issues with the AllTime Ratings
For instance, this guy is #6 at Super Middleweight:
http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?hu ... &cat=boxer
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 12 Jun 2008, 02:45
by computerrank
... there was a change ... I will look ...
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 13 Jun 2008, 09:29
by computerrank
I fixed the bug - the new release is ready for launch.
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 13 Jun 2008, 12:57
by computerrank
... and launched.
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 13 Jun 2008, 13:22
by JCS
computerrank wrote:I fixed the bug - the new release is ready for launch.
Moncrief is still ranked #9. It almost seems like he is being credited for his losses.
Can you run a trace of his all-time progression and post it?
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 13 Jun 2008, 14:13
by computerrank
JCS wrote:computerrank wrote:I fixed the bug - the new release is ready for launch.
Moncrief is still ranked #9. It almost seems like he is being credited for his losses.
Can you run a trace of his all-time progression and post it?
Most of his credit comes from his #1 super middleweight ranking in 1980.
I will trace the achievements of the Boxrec all time super middleweight ranks 5 to 15 and publish the result at this place.
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 13 Jun 2008, 19:13
by Blue
computerrank wrote:JCS wrote:computerrank wrote:I fixed the bug - the new release is ready for launch.
Moncrief is still ranked #9. It almost seems like he is being credited for his losses.
Can you run a trace of his all-time progression and post it?
Most of his credit comes from his #1 super middleweight ranking in 1980.
I will trace the achievements of the Boxrec all time super middleweight ranks 5 to 15 and publish the result at this place.
AFAIK,
The was no Super Middleweight division before 1984. 
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 14 Jun 2008, 01:10
by computerrank
Blue wrote:computerrank wrote:JCS wrote:
Moncrief is still ranked #9. It almost seems like he is being credited for his losses.
Can you run a trace of his all-time progression and post it?
Most of his credit comes from his #1 super middleweight ranking in 1980.
I will trace the achievements of the Boxrec all time super middleweight ranks 5 to 15 and publish the result at this place.
AFAIK,
The was no Super Middleweight division before 1984.
Blue,
this could be a valid factor.
Do you have a valid source for every weight division - I currently go with my interpretation of the BoxRec Wiki:
weight division; first year
$div_name[1]="Minimumweight"; 1990
$div_name[2]="Light Flyweight"; 1980
$div_name[3]="Flyweight";
$div_name[4]="Super Flyweight"; 1980
$div_name[5]="Bantamweight";
$div_name[6]="Super Bantamweight"; 1980
$div_name[7]="Featherweight";
$div_name[8]="Super Featherweight"; 1970
$div_name[9]="Lightweight";
$div_name[10]="Light Welterweight"; 1960
$div_name[11]="Welterweight";
$div_name[12]="Light Middleweight"; 1960
$div_name[13]="Middleweight";
$div_name[14]="Super Middleweight"; 1980
$div_name[15]="Light Heavyweight";
$div_name[16]="Cruiserweight"; 1980
$div_name[17]="Heavyweight";
I would appreciate your perspective.
Thanks and best regards
Martin
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 14 Jun 2008, 07:58
by Asterix
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 14 Jun 2008, 22:01
by Blue
The 1984 Ring Record Book confirms the above info. 