Page 9 of 180
Posted: 18 May 2006, 17:02
by joeboxer
please go back to the old ratings. these new ones dont make sense. guys who have won a lot against weak opposition are rated way too high. Dimitrenko 5th at heavy?
Posted: 18 May 2006, 17:03
by jujigatame
Yes, that's how boxing rankings have been done since the dawn of the sport. There might be an up and comer who is on a good win streak and would be favored to beat the top guys in the division, but that doesn't mean you rank him above those guys until he actually does it. It really seems like you're trying to build a computerized betting system or something here.
Posted: 18 May 2006, 17:12
by Grey
Eh, whatever, there's a fine line between objectivity and sanity, and frankly I think these ratings are going to make the site a laughing stock instead of your goal generating intelligent debate.
Posted: 18 May 2006, 17:13
by Lennox
jujigatame wrote:Yes, that's how boxing rankings have been done since the dawn of the sport. There might be an up and comer who is on a good win streak and would be favored to beat the top guys in the division, but that doesn't mean you rank him above those guys until he actually does it. It really seems like you're trying to build a computerized betting system or something here.
I have been arguing that very point for the last month Jujitame. Computer, JCS & JohnShep seem convinced the only way to produce a computer ranking is to create a best prediction system... it is not boxing ratings, im not even convinced this set of ranking/ order would do what they say, I dont think it will be better at predicting than IBO ratings over a long term because those boxers are in a good order from 1-100, but I guess we can do an evaluation study and count the upsets as before.
Posted: 18 May 2006, 17:18
by Lennox
GreyMinus wrote:Eh, whatever, there's a fine line between objectivity and sanity, and frankly I think these ratings are going to make the site a laughing stock instead of your goal generating intelligent debate.
I agree totally
Posted: 18 May 2006, 17:35
by Grey
Posted: 18 May 2006, 18:00
by JCS
In some situations this won't be entirely accurate because of tune-ups fights causing some fighters to be ranked in wrong divisions..
As fighters move divisions their rating points change slightly.. So their rating points would be adjusted on-the-fly at the time of the bout if in fact a fighter's weight division did not match that of the bout.
In other words, if fighters are at different divisions pre-fight and they are within 50 points or so.. I would say its not a fair test... because you don't know what the system will do their points at fight time.
Furthermore, I think the HW division is so fucked up you might as well put any notable fight in there regardless of ranking difference. 30 ranking spots in Heavy isn't that big of a deal outside the Top 25. That probably applies for most weight divisions.
Posted: 18 May 2006, 18:14
by Grey
JCS83MD wrote:
In some situations this won't be entirely accurate because of tune-ups fights causing some fighters to be ranked in wrong divisions..
As fighters move divisions their rating points change slightly.. So their rating points would be adjusted on-the-fly at the time of the bout if in fact a fighter's weight division did not match that of the bout.
In other words, if fighters are at different divisions pre-fight and they are within 50 points or so.. I would say its not a fair test... because you don't know what the system will do their points at fight time.
Furthermore, I think the HW division is so fucked up you might as well put any notable fight in there regardless of ranking difference. 30 ranking spots in Heavy isn't that big of a deal outside the Top 25. That probably applies for most weight divisions.
Since I'm an editor I can temporarily move fighters to the same divison and I'll rate them accordingly, don't worry.
Heh yeah the heavyweight division is a crapshoot, but I'll keep it to a difference of 30.
Posted: 18 May 2006, 18:16
by JCS
GreyMinus wrote:JCS83MD wrote:
In some situations this won't be entirely accurate because of tune-ups fights causing some fighters to be ranked in wrong divisions..
As fighters move divisions their rating points change slightly.. So their rating points would be adjusted on-the-fly at the time of the bout if in fact a fighter's weight division did not match that of the bout.
In other words, if fighters are at different divisions pre-fight and they are within 50 points or so.. I would say its not a fair test... because you don't know what the system will do their points at fight time.
Furthermore, I think the HW division is so fucked up you might as well put any notable fight in there regardless of ranking difference. 30 ranking spots in Heavy isn't that big of a deal outside the Top 25. That probably applies for most weight divisions.
Since I'm an editor I can temporarily move fighters to the same divison and I'll rate them accordingly, don't worry.
Heh yeah the heavyweight division is a crapshoot, but I'll keep it to a difference of 30.
Should be interesting.
And don't get me wrong.. Even though I assisted in some recent ratings updates etc, there is still room for improvement...
Posted: 18 May 2006, 19:20
by Freiheit
Why are some fighters rated (much) higher than fighters the lost two in their latest fight?
Posted: 19 May 2006, 01:18
by computerrank
Freiheit wrote:Why are some fighters rated (much) higher than fighters the lost two in their latest fight?
There is no logner a side rule, which ensures a winner to be rated higher than a loser. So the winnner, who was rated much lower than the loser may be still rated lower after this win.
This means a single loss / win does not mean all.
The side rule now effected the predicition rate.
Posted: 19 May 2006, 01:23
by computerrank
May 18, 2006
Julio Diaz (#7) vs. Ricky Quiles (#31) UD12
Notes: This is for the IBF Interim lightweight title, 12 rounds. Quiles is rated #1 by the IBF, Diaz is #3.
Vladim Tokarev (#4) vs. Felix Cora (#12) TKO4
Notes: This is for the NABF Cruiserweight title, either 10 or 12 rounds, I'm not exactly sure. Cora is rated #10 WBC and #11 IBF. Tokarev is rated #11 WBA and #12 WBO. Boxrec favors the Russian in this one.
Jason Estrada (#114) vs. Robert Wiggins (#138) UD10
Notes: This is a ten rounder and a big step up for Estrada, who Boxrec has above Wiggins, despite only having five professional wins.
Posted: 19 May 2006, 01:25
by jujigatame
So your betting system was successful tonight. Congratulations.
Posted: 19 May 2006, 02:04
by Grey
Indeed, 3 for 3!
Let's see if the streak continues
Posted: 19 May 2006, 06:33
by computerrank
I detected the old version after the daily update today and sent a message to John. Maybe an error in the daily update procedure ...
Posted: 19 May 2006, 08:56
by JCS
jujigatame wrote:So your betting system was successful tonight. Congratulations.
Isn't it amazing?
Posted: 19 May 2006, 08:56
by JCS
GreyMinus wrote:Indeed, 3 for 3!
Let's see if the streak continues
Gotta keep that site updated.
Posted: 19 May 2006, 16:06
by jujigatame
JCS83MD wrote:jujigatame wrote:So your betting system was successful tonight. Congratulations.
Isn't it amazing?
Yea, it's a pretty cool betting system you've got here.
Posted: 19 May 2006, 16:13
by JCS
jujigatame wrote:JCS83MD wrote:jujigatame wrote:So your betting system was successful tonight. Congratulations.
Isn't it amazing?
Yea, it's a pretty cool betting system you've got here.
Word
Posted: 19 May 2006, 16:49
by jujigatame
Yea, too bad they're trying to pass it off as a set of coherent rankings.
Posted: 19 May 2006, 18:35
by John
jujigatame wrote:Yea, too bad they're trying to pass it off as a set of coherent rankings.
who ever claimed they were rankings ???
Posted: 19 May 2006, 18:37
by JCS
JohnShep wrote:jujigatame wrote:Yea, too bad they're trying to pass it off as a set of coherent rankings.
who ever claimed they were rankings ???
You beat me to it!
Posted: 19 May 2006, 22:31
by jujigatame
So now we're going to get into a semantic debate on the difference between ratings and rankings?
Posted: 19 May 2006, 22:33
by BoxBuzz
and the difference between rantings and ravings
Posted: 19 May 2006, 22:42
by BoxBuzz
Serious Question....would it be possible to show the "all time rating" of retired boxers? Or maybe even not so retired?
For example If you pull up a name of a current boxer you can quickly find out where he is rated these days. Could that be made to happen for the "All time ratings" as well?
Example..
Tommy Loughran
Sex Male
Nationality US American
Hometown Philadelphia, PA
Division Light Heavyweight
All time Rating #6
Date of Birth 1902-11-29
Date of Death 1982-07-07
Age at Death 79
Reach 73 inches
Height 5' 11½
W 94 (17 ko's) (+ 18 news) | L 24 (+ 6 news) | D 10 (+ 2 news) | Total 174
Could that field be added? I think it would be a great addition if it is possible. In this case Roy Jones is #10 Could he have both fields filled? One for his "current" status and one for his "all time" status?
For example:
Roy Jones Jr
Sex Male
Nationality US American
Alias Junior
Birth Name Roy Levesta Jones
Global ID 001758
Federal ID FL020903
Hometown Pensacola, FL, USA
Birthplace Pensacola, FL, USA
Rated at Light Heavyweight
World Rank 20 / 586
All time Ranking #10
Date of Birth 1969-01-16
Age 37
Reach 74”
Stance Orthodox
Height 5' 11
Trainer Alton Merkerson
Manager James Prince
W 49 (38 ko's) | L 4 | D 0 | Total 53