BoxRec

JCS wrote:KO round consideration was factored into the old prediction system.

Not everything in the old predictive system was bad. Just the results were kooky. Intuitively, I'd say the round consideration should have an influence, but a very small one. If I have two identical fighters that I'm promoting and building up, and one of them stops Julius Francis in the 7th of 8 rounds round and the other one in the 1st, I'd know who I'd rank higher.

However, this consideration is worth only about 1-2% compared to the level of the opponents in general. I dont want no hyped fighter who fights a bunch of bums with 2-13 records and is scoring KO1 and KO2 to get ahead in the ratings. But if I want to compare two of these over-hyped fighters and one is scoring KO1s and the other KO4 and KO6, then again, I'd know who I rank higher.

It was a very small effect... It varied 1% per round with the center point being round 5 or so.

England, Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland deserve their own Ratings. You can still collectively rate them as UK or Great Britain fighters, but as they are definate seperate countries and not states, provinces or territories they should enjoy the privilege of their own distinct ratings aswell... afterall there is now an English National title belt!

Cobwebcat wrote:Rankings should be interesting after the PM v DLH....Which weight do they go in for a start. PM must be at least No2 P4P now...

De La Hoya had 600 points only before ...

Change in bout star rating:

no star - worst boxer not rated (new)
1 star - worst boxer rated (new)
2 stars - worst boxer >=50 points (no change)
3 stars - worst boxer >=100 points (no change)
4 stars - worst boxer >= 250 points (no change)
5 starts - worst boxer >=500 points (no change)

Question: Why has ODLH been moved back to Light-middle? Shouldnt he remain at welter until his next bout or till one year has passed?

MatthewS wrote:Question: Why has ODLH been moved back to Light-middle? Shouldnt he remain at welter until his next bout or till one year has passed?

He lost the step-down welterweight bout. Recently he more successfully boxed at light middleweight - so he is assumed to be more competitive at light middleweight.

computerrank wrote:

MatthewS wrote:Question: Why has ODLH been moved back to Light-middle? Shouldnt he remain at welter until his next bout or till one year has passed?

He lost the step-down welterweight bout. Recently he more successfully boxed at light middleweight - so he is assumed to be more competitive at light middleweight.

OIC... is that done for all fighters or just the memorable ones?

computerrank wrote:Change in bout star rating:

no star - worst boxer not rated (new)
1 star - worst boxer rated (new)
2 stars - worst boxer >=50 points (no change)
3 stars - worst boxer >=100 points (no change)
4 stars - worst boxer >= 250 points (no change)
5 starts - worst boxer >=500 points (no change)

When one of the fighters does not have a ranking, it ignores them when allocating a rating, correct? I'm looking at the Holt vs Hopkins card tonight: http://www.boxrec.com/show_display.php?show_id=563732

Asterix wrote:

computerrank wrote:Change in bout star rating:

no star - worst boxer not rated (new)
1 star - worst boxer rated (new)
2 stars - worst boxer >=50 points (no change)
3 stars - worst boxer >=100 points (no change)
4 stars - worst boxer >= 250 points (no change)
5 starts - worst boxer >=500 points (no change)

When one of the fighters does not have a ranking, it ignores them when allocating a rating, correct? I'm looking at the Holt vs Hopkins card tonight: http://www.boxrec.com/show_display.php?show_id=563732

Please look at the schedule to see the 5 stars ...

http://www.boxrec.com/schedule.php?coun ... &SUBMIT=Go

MatthewS wrote:

computerrank wrote:

MatthewS wrote:Question: Why has ODLH been moved back to Light-middle? Shouldnt he remain at welter until his next bout or till one year has passed?

He lost the step-down welterweight bout. Recently he more successfully boxed at light middleweight - so he is assumed to be more competitive at light middleweight.

OIC... is that done for all fighters or just the memorable ones?

AFAIK, boxers are rated in the weight category which they and their team have decided best to campaign in.

Bob Arum interview in Philippine Star Monday, December 15, 2008

The fight against Dela Hoya should be the first and last for Pacquiao at 147, and even his trainer Freddie Roach said 140 is the perfect weight for the Pinoy superstar.

http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?Ar ... egoryId=69

computerrank wrote:

Asterix wrote:

computerrank wrote:Change in bout star rating:

no star - worst boxer not rated (new)
1 star - worst boxer rated (new)
2 stars - worst boxer >=50 points (no change)
3 stars - worst boxer >=100 points (no change)
4 stars - worst boxer >= 250 points (no change)
5 starts - worst boxer >=500 points (no change)

When one of the fighters does not have a ranking, it ignores them when allocating a rating, correct? I'm looking at the Holt vs Hopkins card tonight: http://www.boxrec.com/show_display.php?show_id=563732

Please look at the schedule to see the 5 stars ...

http://www.boxrec.com/schedule.php?coun ... &SUBMIT=Go

You didn't answer the question.

Asterix wrote: When one of the fighters does not have a ranking, it ignores them when allocating a rating, correct? I'm looking at the Holt vs Hopkins card tonight: http://www.boxrec.com/show_display.php?show_id=563732

.. this was the answer as the bout with Holt - so inactive - showed up with 5 stars.

not rated meens

- for active boxers the explicit text 'not rated' in the records = less than 1 current rating point
- for inactive boxers less than 1 point in their background current rating

I have read, and read, and read.

Despite the logic of the system, it clearly doesn't produce the correct results. Manny Pac is not 5th p-4-p, nor is he the no 1 Jnr Welter having never fought there.

I'm not arguing against the ratings, or how they're produced. I am, however, suggesting that they are utterly pointless.

sharpei_louis wrote:I have read, and read, and read.

Despite the logic of the system, it clearly doesn't produce the correct results. Manny Pac is not 5th p-4-p, nor is he the no 1 Jnr Welter having never fought there.

I'm not arguing against the ratings, or how they're produced. I am, however, suggesting that they are utterly pointless.

You do understand that a fighter has a point total, regardless of what division he is in, or where he has fought, correct? As long as that fighter is active, a point total will be calculated. If Pacquiao was placed at Heavyweight, he would have a point total, and probably be ranked in the Top 50.

The system depends on norms, and it also depends on its viewers thinking outside the box just a bit on determining why things are how they are.

JCS wrote:

sharpei_louis wrote:I have read, and read, and read.

Despite the logic of the system, it clearly doesn't produce the correct results. Manny Pac is not 5th p-4-p, nor is he the no 1 Jnr Welter having never fought there.

I'm not arguing against the ratings, or how they're produced. I am, however, suggesting that they are utterly pointless.

You do understand that a fighter has a point total, regardless of what division he is in, or where he has fought, correct? As long as that fighter is active, a point total will be calculated. If Pacquiao was placed at Heavyweight, he would have a point total, and probably be ranked in the Top 50.

The system depends on norms, and it also depends on its viewers thinking outside the box just a bit on determining why things are how they are.

I understand, but my question is what is the point of producing ratings that don't have any bearing on what is happening? I'm as prepared as the next man to think outside the box, but why? What is the point of the ratings? If the viewer has to apply this much lateral thinking I'd suggest they already have their own ratings. The point of a ratings system, and a computerised one is, as far as I am concerned, to show the layperson an accurate perspective of the state of play in the sport. The boxrec doesn't achieve this, and IMO that renders it a futile system.

Who's to say what accurately portrays what is happening in boxing?

If you want to argue that Pacquiao should be placed back at Lightweight, then please do so. Otherwise, I'm not sure how far you're going to get with this.

I don't want to 'get anywhere' with it, just thinking out loud.

If your pov is 'who is to say what accurately portrays what is happening in boxing', then what is the point of having any ratings? A rating in itself is an attempted quantification of a situation, my point exactly is this - in having a ratings system it appears that boxrec is attempting to portray what is happening. If there are obvious deficiencies (ie placing a boxer at a weight he has never fought) it seems persuasive to me that the system is fatally flawed.

You don't need to take a dictatorial tone, I am merely expressing my opinion about the ratings. If this isn't allowed, I'll leave no problem; that kind of removes any need for a forum full stop.

Placing Manny at 140 is something an editor did...

But why? I assume because a) it appeared likely that he will fight there, and b) someone else stated that it was the only way to make the pound for pound ratings work - is that true?

I'd suggest if this is the case, selecting a panel and having a more qualitative, elected, pound for pound list. I don't overly disagree with the placement of Pac at LWW, but would suggest that a boxer should appear in the category he last fought.

sharpei_louis wrote:But why? I assume because a) it appeared likely that he will fight there, and b) someone else stated that it was the only way to make the pound for pound ratings work - is that true?

I'd suggest if this is the case, selecting a panel and having a more qualitative, elected, pound for pound list. I don't overly disagree with the placement of Pac at LWW, but would suggest that a boxer should appear in the category he last fought.

I'd guess A and B are both reasonable conclusions.

The forum offers a P4P list, but I doubt it would ever make it to the main page.
http://forum.boxrec.com/viewtopic.php?t=55566

Thanks for hearing me out! I'm not as much of an arse as I may have come across.

Obviously the pound for pound ratings are a little funky, but I feel the weight divisional ratings are very good.

They're still alright, but they were a lot better a few months ago.

jujigatame wrote:They're still alright, but they were a lot better a few months ago.

Yeah, I think the promoter bias should be dropped. It has made the ratings less realistic.