BoxRec

Cobwebcat wrote:

jujigatame wrote:Dude, if you read his last post he just said the home promoter factor is being removed entirely.

So what? If you read back there are numerous subjective weightings. I don't care about one more than another I think it should all be objective. Promoter influence was just the latest example.

What you're describing is impossible. How do you intend on deciding how much a KO/TKO/Decision is worth, or how much strength of opponent should be factored in? A human being has to decide on the numbers and then test them out. How do you think a 100% "objective" system would work? I'm not sure what you're envisioning here.

Objectively, the home promoter advantage probably improved the system. Subjectively, it obviously didn't.

ELO ratings are built for chess. A purely ELO system for boxing would look awful.

Cobwebcat

some informations for you:

The first system I implemented was was based on logistic function prediciton rate (variant of Elo). A rating parameter was introduced only, if the prediction rate increased significantly. The parameter was set to the value showing the highest prediction rate.

Reasons to scrap these ratings:

- Finally I had to notice, that the ratings were no accepted by the boxing business and the audience - although the prediction rate was second to none.
- The problem of launching new boxers was inherent, and never solved to my satisfactory.
- Not enough bouts per boxer and per time period to establish a well defined rating.

The guidelines for the new ratings were:

- Acceptence by the business and audience.
- As simple as possible.
- Boxers starting with 0 points and stepping up by accepted achievements only.
- A winning boxer's rating is always higher than his losing opponent's rating.

What happened, when I introduced a well based and significant parameter like the promoter home advantage with it's full impact to the ratings - you could just see.

I remember the old-style rankings. They were always interesting to look at, but completely different from any traditional notion of a boxing ranking. It gave guys lots of credit for staying busy against no-hopers, so you had results like Shannon Briggs ranked #5 at HW despite beating nothing but bums for a good 7 year period.

The problem with the traditional ELO in boxing and MMA is that it doesn't allow enough separation between no-hopers and the top talent.

Hence, the Briggs situation that juji mentioned.

computerrank wrote:... litte strokes fell big oaks ...

You will find a revival release, next weekend I think ... implementation of promoter home advantage will be withdrawn.

We won't drive off our supporters!

I admire your ability to see reason and listen to other people (even if we sometimes have to bang on the door all night).

Thanks

conan

Maybe Martin was bluffing :)

What a tease!!

The reason? We are all gentlemen, aren't we?

Hollie Dunaway, just presented with her lovely picture on the BoxRec home page, would not be BoxRec #1 light flyweight any longer. So allow her another couple of days ...

computerrank wrote:The reason? We are all gentlemen, aren't we?

Hollie Dunaway, just presented with her lovely picture on the BoxRec home page, would not be BoxRec #1 light flyweight any longer. So allow her another couple of days ...

I was wondering about that. D

computerrank wrote:The reason? We are all gentlemen, aren't we?

Hollie Dunaway, just presented with her lovely picture on the BoxRec home page, would not be BoxRec #1 light flyweight any longer. So allow her another couple of days ...

Sorry Hollie! Next time you're in NYC I'll take you out to dinner to make it up to you!!

Maybe we can Photoshop the 1 into a 2?

computerrank wrote:The reason? We are all gentlemen, aren't we?

Hollie Dunaway, just presented with her lovely picture on the BoxRec home page, would not be BoxRec #1 light flyweight any longer. So allow her another couple of days ...

Jesus!, do I have to solve every problem here! Use the proper algorithm for the guys and the dodgy one for the chicks. Problem solved.

Or put in a "babe" factor into the chicks ratings. I dont think anyone will protest too much.

conan

Bute! Bute!

Release O is launched now.

Promoter home advantage is scrapped.

This is great. There may be some things about this version (like Valuev at #5 and Bute at #1) that are somewhat distasteful to those of us who really follow the sport, but what's important is that all the rankings are logical and easily explainable by looking at the fight results. That is of paramount importance and what this system does so well.

JCS wrote:Bute! Bute!

Give us a yell when he loses a fight. Apart from Calzaghe he is the only fighter to win a unanimous decision against Bika.

Brute wrote:

JCS wrote:Bute! Bute!

Give us a yell when he loses a fight. Apart from Calzaghe he is the only fighter to win a unanimous decision against Bika.

You are right. A UD win over Bika is a sure sign of greatness.

JCS wrote:

Brute wrote:

JCS wrote:Bute! Bute!

Give us a yell when he loses a fight. Apart from Calzaghe he is the only fighter to win a unanimous decision against Bika.

You are right. A UD win over Bika is a sure sign of greatness.

How many fights has Bika lost? Apart from Bute and Calzaghe he lost a majority decision to Soliman early in his career and avenged it in the Contender series. Mundine avoided him like the plague. Wins and losses are what count. You don't rate fights on geography, do you?

Provided Bute has learnt his lesson after the worrying last round against Andrade, I think he is a force to be reckoned with. I currently see him and Kessler as the top 2 at super middleweight, with Kessler being number 1.

Can anybody tell me why Simona Galassi (9-0, 2KO) ranks number 1 before Susi Kentikian (24-0, 16KO). For the featherweights it is even more mindboggling since Melissa Hernandez (9-1(1)-2, 2KO) ranks number one ahead of Ina Menzer (23-0, 9KO). These two rankings seem ridiculous to me. Looking forward to any replies. Peace.

Hernandez accumulated quite a bit of points at higher weight divisions and took them down to Feather. Usually, heavier divisions are considered stronger ones.

Galassi and Kentikian are separated by only two points. That is basically a toss-up and not worth discussing.

Remember, the rating system takes into account all bouts, regardless of division, and applies them to the boxer's current divisional points.

"Hernandez accumulated quite a bit of points at higher weight divisions and took them down to Feather. Usually, heavier divisions are considered stronger ones." Still, she could be ranked high in the featherweight division, but with a tko on her account and two draws, it doesn't make her number 1. Menzer almost has triple the number of fights and never lost. Her tko rate is more than triple the amount of Hernandez. This makes the ranking questionable.

"Galassi and Kentikian are separated by only two points. That is basically a toss-up and not worth discussing." Again, a fighter who has fought at flyweight all the time, with almost only one third of the fights of number two ranked Kentikian, who has amazing 16 tkos, why on earth should she be ranked number 1. This is not at toss up at all! This is wrong.

sweet-s wrote:"Hernandez accumulated quite a bit of points at higher weight divisions and took them down to Feather. Usually, heavier divisions are considered stronger ones." Still, she could be ranked high in the featherweight division, but with a tko on her account and two draws, it doesn't make her number 1. Menzer almost has triple the number of fights and never lost. Her tko rate is more than triple the amount of Hernandez. This makes the ranking questionable.

"Galassi and Kentikian are separated by only two points. That is basically a toss-up and not worth discussing." Again, a fighter who has fought at flyweight all the time, with almost only one third of the fights of number two ranked Kentikian, who has amazing 16 tkos, why on earth should she be ranked number 1. This is not at toss up at all! This is wrong.

You're basing your opinions on pure numbers. I could win 50 times and get 50 KOs against debuting fighters. Would you rank me #1 over fighters who have faced tough competition over and over?

Also, the rating points are not division specific.