... it is a bit more ...JCS wrote:Ahh, I did not want to assume what "equilibrium-based" meant.. but it seems we have moved back one step closer to an ELO system. Is this really what we want to do?
Losing in the 1st round to Danny Green surely means that Jones in not a top ten fighter.JCS wrote:He hasn't really lost to anyone bad enough to seriously damage his rating.keithmoonhangover wrote: That's interesting, but there must be a flaw in the system. Jones is not the 10th best Light Heavy in the world.
I still think the most recent bouts should hold the highest importance... After all, with top fighters only fighting a few times a year.. I think this is necessary.computerrank wrote:... it is a bit more ...JCS wrote:Ahh, I did not want to assume what "equilibrium-based" meant.. but it seems we have moved back one step closer to an ELO system. Is this really what we want to do?
Elo would update the ratings bout by bout as we do currrently.
These ratings concider all bouts of a rating time period of 10 years in one step, weighed decendend in the time domain. So results of boxers affect ratings of former opponents. And this results in drastic better predicition quality, regardless being still only based on achievements.
Yes, we want to be closer to ratings, confirmed by better match with the following results.
But we might make some cosmetical adaptions, which make them look more acceptable to the community.
Take Pacquiao's rating and compare it to Heavyweights. Where would he rank??squiggy wrote:What is the reason for decreasing a boxer's rating for moving up in weight class?
I'm not sure what you mean or how your comment answers my question.JCS wrote:Take Pacquiao's rating and compare it to Heavyweights. Where would he rank??squiggy wrote:What is the reason for decreasing a boxer's rating for moving up in weight class?
Ok.
the rankings are about an actual depiction of relative acheivement - with the added factor that they are ideally able to be used for prediction... Pacman as a Heavy, with undecreased ratings, is the best HW in the world... except he isnt, is he? Same as Pacman at Cruiser, or LHW...squiggy wrote:I'm not sure what you mean or how your comment answers my question.JCS wrote:Take Pacquiao's rating and compare it to Heavyweights. Where would he rank??squiggy wrote:What is the reason for decreasing a boxer's rating for moving up in weight class?
Ok.
The hypothetical "how would Manny Pacquiao do against a heavyweight" has nothing to do with reality, whereas the questions I raised were about his actual rankings following his actual fights.
Yep - which makes P4P in a system like this, an unreasonable calculation.squiggy wrote:Okay. I see your point, as it pertains to rankings within a weight class. But unless I'm missing something, it does still seem to have an unfortunate effect on p4p rankings wherein a fighter gets little credit for winning fights at higher weights.
the p4p ratings here are better looked at as a reflection of single-division dominance... they really should rename it... from that point of view it makes more sense doesnt it?squiggy wrote:Okay. I see your point, as it pertains to rankings within a weight class. But unless I'm missing something, it does still seem to have an unfortunate effect on p4p rankings wherein a fighter gets little credit for winning fights at higher weights.
How do you make a good P4P system?squiggy wrote:It's a shame, though. A list of division-dominance numbers is much less interesting than a good p4p system would be.
Losing in the 1st round to Danny Green surely means that Jones in not a top ten fighter.JCS wrote:He hasn't really lost to anyone bad enough to seriously damage his rating.keithmoonhangover wrote: That's interesting, but there must be a flaw in the system. Jones is not the 10th best Light Heavy in the world.
Tell the computer that. I think he's due to fall some in March.keithmoonhangover wrote:Losing in the 1st round to Danny Green surely means that Jones in not a top ten fighter.JCS wrote:He hasn't really lost to anyone bad enough to seriously damage his rating.keithmoonhangover wrote: That's interesting, but there must be a flaw in the system. Jones is not the 10th best Light Heavy in the world.
Q for you and computerrank i guess:JCS wrote:How do you make a good P4P system?squiggy wrote:It's a shame, though. A list of division-dominance numbers is much less interesting than a good p4p system would be.
... you won't be happy with this:MatthewS wrote:Q for you and computerrank i guess:JCS wrote:How do you make a good P4P system?squiggy wrote:It's a shame, though. A list of division-dominance numbers is much less interesting than a good p4p system would be.
if everyone active retired tomorrow, and we used the all-time ratings to produce a p4p list - but only of the ones who were active - what would it look like?
Code: Select all
+----------------+---------------+----------+
| first_name | last_name | r_at_act |
+----------------+---------------+----------+
| Bernard | Hopkins | 1259 |
| Roy | Jones Jr | 1126 |
| Floyd | Mayweather Jr | 1124 |
| Evander | Holyfield | 1123 |
| Manny | Pacquiao | 1035 |
| Juan Manuel | Marquez | 944 |
| Shane | Mosley | 857 |
| Wladimir | Klitschko | 839 |
| Marco Antonio | Barrera | 772 |
| Rafael | Marquez | 666 |
| Antonio | Tarver | 584 |
| Erik | Morales | 493 |
| Vic | Darchinyan | 486 |
| Veeraphol | Sahaprom | 476 |
| Chris | John | 451 |
| Cory | Spinks | 443 |
| Vitali | Klitschko | 432 |
| Antonio | Margarito | 418 |
| Jose Luis | Castillo | 417 |
| Kelly | Pavlik | 417 |
| Pongsaklek | Wonjongkam | 388 |
| Sergio Gabriel | Martinez | 382 |
| Glen | Johnson | 378 |
| Johnny | Tapia | 371 |
| Eric | Morel | 371 |
+----------------+---------------+----------+
- only bouts with both boxers above a specific rating limit considered?JCS wrote:I think the community strength needs to be looked into further... Some of the South Africans and Japanese are really high compared to the current system.
Here's an idea. Can you take the 100 "Biggest" fights in the past 5 years..
Compare prediction rates between the two using only those fights?
computerrank wrote:- only bouts with both boxers above a specific rating limit considered?JCS wrote:I think the community strength needs to be looked into further... Some of the South Africans and Japanese are really high compared to the current system.
Here's an idea. Can you take the 100 "Biggest" fights in the past 5 years..
Compare prediction rates between the two using only those fights?
- then compare the results with the predictions
- segregated by South Africans, Japanese, Mexicans, Philippinoes, Thais ...
- identify significant deviations from the average predictions rates
something like this?
Benchmarks (2000 - 2010):JCS wrote:Also Martin, what is overall prediction rate only for 2000-2011?
A boxer can't gain regular points against an opponent with 0 points.JCS wrote:Martin --
How did Chauncy gain 7 points from beating a 0 rating boxer?
http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_ ... &cat=boxer