BoxRec

The only solution is a stronger reduction when fighters move up. Conversely, this means that the reciprocal would have to be larger too (larger increase for fighters moving down). It remains to be seen whether increasing the strength of this factor would yield a better result. I WOULD be interested in seeing the results of increasing this factor by 25% or so.

The problem with that is what you'd be faced with when a guy moves up and beats one of the top guys in his first fight. If Ward beat Kovalev, should he get -25% at Light Heavyweight? The real solution is take it for what it's worth, a computer. If Pascal had done anything in years & Dawson wasn't coming off two stoppage losses- it wouldn't happen.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:The problem with that is what you'd be faced with when a guy moves up and beats one of the top guys in his first fight. If Ward beat Kovalev, should he get -25% at Light Heavyweight? The real solution is take it for what it's worth, a computer. If Pascal had done anything in years & Dawson wasn't coming off two stoppage losses- it wouldn't happen.

It already works like that anyway... Fighters lose points when they move up, and gain them when they go down.

JCS wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:The problem with that is what you'd be faced with when a guy moves up and beats one of the top guys in his first fight. If Ward beat Kovalev, should he get -25% at Light Heavyweight? The real solution is take it for what it's worth, a computer. If Pascal had done anything in years & Dawson wasn't coming off two stoppage losses- it wouldn't happen.

It already works like that anyway... Fighters lose points when they move up, and gain them when they go down.

I've never inquired, honestly doesn't matter to me I just can't resist responding when someone says a guy who fought at Light heavy hours beforehand had never fought at Light Heavy. I don't understand why anyone cares. Antonio Tarver isn't the greatest Cruiserweight in history either.

I said Chavez Jr never fought A light heavyweight. Vera is certainly not a light heavyweight. Dawson or Pascal would make a bloody mess out of the Jr.

If Ward moves up and his points are counted at 80%, then he would be #2 right away, and if he beats someone from the top 4, he would likely become #1, so this solution works.

Martin,

Is there something wrong with the process that auto-generates weight divisions when one is not explicitly set? I'm seeing many fights incorrectly classified...

http://boxrec.com/show_display.php?show_id=679836

Raymi fight has no division assignment. Highest weight is 112 (Flyweight)

On the fighter pages, bout shows as Super Bantamweight.

ikorolev wrote:I said Chavez Jr never fought A light heavyweight. Vera is certainly not a light heavyweight. Dawson or Pascal would make a bloody mess out of the Jr.

If Ward moves up and his points are counted at 80%, then he would be #2 right away, and if he beats someone from the top 4, he would likely become #1, so this solution works.

They were both over 168, ergo they were both light heavyweights.

The obvious conclusion here, is that Chavez fought a light heavyweight, when he fought Brian Vera.

You can't have a computer system that takes into account what would happen if this guy fought that guy or that guy fought this guy.

As I said before, I'm not disagreeing with you about Chavez in general, or that the whole situation stank. But on that night, they were light heavyweights. I'm not sure why this keeps coming back.

Can I please ask a question?

When David Haye fought Tomasz Bonin, was he instantly ranked at Heavyweight or still ranked at Cruiser?

keithmoonhangover wrote:Can I please ask a question?

When David Haye fought Tomasz Bonin, was he instantly ranked at Heavyweight or still ranked at Cruiser?

Just going on my gut about how the system works, I'd say he was ranked at Heavy after that, until he came back down.

i'm knew to BOXREC and I'm a yank so u can assume in my 61yrs that I've found t/RING MAG to be t/most help in all areas w/t/exception of their lb. to lb ratings which I skip across! It's sometimes funny to look at the major ranking bodies:WBA,WBC.WBO,IBF and on n on.I noticed that you rate no Champion,and don't seem to allow pugs to fight in 2wt. class's at the same time,putting down their last fights division as their basic home.Nowadays more then ever there's alot of movement and w/all t/divisions and fighters chasing better pay days by (let's take t/most common weight area) welter and Jr. Middle..(I never use t/term super) as in super welter!But w/many pugs stepping to F.M. and moving around in t/weight class's - (and can u blame them) you always rate them in ONE WEIGHT CLASS.I feel that's wrong as H.Armstrong was allowed to hold 3-titles at once for a while in /days of 8marquee divisions.Point: A.Broner fights a for a low rated welter belt and wins,but he's still technically a 135lb. pug as well as 365 days havn't passed,heck he may show up at 140,although I doubt it.I often looked for pugs ratings ...not to find them,if a fighter is out of action due to proven or certified injuries etc. does this mean he loses ratings.I did read into your ratings before commenting and may just disagree.I think you should have a champ - as I assume that most of us do have a certain man in each division that we feel is t/true champ!I don't really beleive in mandatory fights called for by the LET'S SAY WBO body on their champ.There controlling t/boxer to fight who they pick as the next man deserving and IMO are often way off.Boxrec is certainly big enough to have champions based on their history's and records etc.Do you stand behind the mandatory foe regulation that I just noticed t/BBBO or something apply to a pair of pugs and it just didn't make sense.If a fighter is unactive strip him or if he's champ of a belt in t/IBF and this so-called champ is a bum on everybody,s ratings..then that belt shouldn't be allowed to be used as leverage in many different ways..we the fans generally know when this is t/case abused to a hi-level.As in (ISHE SMITH).There should be a spot in t/regular ratings telling us who is t/deemed champ by t/6 big bodies,if it's vacant,interim champ etc.Often a pug willpick up 3 belts and be t/undisputed champ..when he's the majority champ on paper.People tend to take t/3 longest bodys - WBA,WBC,IBF w/t/wba be t/oldest and WBC 2nd.I remember as a kid they even had 2 champs as in ALI - TERRELL or HEARNS - LEONARD.That wasn't too bad and some great unification bouts occurred when t/governing bodies were pressed by t/public to allow it and even then I think it took fighters w/guts to tell them your belt isn't GOD and I will fight t/champ of your rival belt holding body whether u like it or not as t/people know n want this! Give us a champ and allow a man to be in 2 divisions simultaneously if he can for-fill his obligations to each weight class.Certainly all t/data that your computers throw out generating ratings can generate champs as well,and put the other champs down without having to go to another page and see.It is easier to tabulate when t/main ratings show all t/champs of t/big bodies and BOXREC is good enough to have it's own champ or interim champ.I'm quite sure that you have your rules n regs on this but I'd like to see a change.It's like for t/first time in history we have brothers that are both champs of t/same division at the same time..I've noticed one of them doesn't appear (injuries I assume) Oh well that was way to long and I'm still just figuring the infrastructure of Boxrec out and am quite pleased.THX

Paragraphs, please. Good god, my eyes hurt just looking at that.

Bobbyptsd wrote:

ikorolev wrote:I said Chavez Jr never fought A light heavyweight. Vera is certainly not a light heavyweight. Dawson or Pascal would make a bloody mess out of the Jr.

If Ward moves up and his points are counted at 80%, then he would be #2 right away, and if he beats someone from the top 4, he would likely become #1, so this solution works.

They were both over 168, ergo they were both light heavyweights.

The obvious conclusion here, is that Chavez fought a light heavyweight, when he fought Brian Vera.

You can't have a computer system that takes into account what would happen if this guy fought that guy or that guy fought this guy.

As I said before, I'm not disagreeing with you about Chavez in general, or that the whole situation stank. But on that night, they were light heavyweights. I'm not sure why this keeps coming back.

If boxrec is following your logic, why did they list Beterbiev as a light heavyweight when both of his fights were above 175 ?
http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_ ... &cat=boxer

No offence intended here, but it's silly having Chris Arreola ranked above the guy what knocked the bejasus out of him just a short time ago. Bermane Stiverne whipped Arreola and is being given the shaft by the WBC now that he is their "champion's" legit mandatory challenger. Now Boxrec is slapping him in the face too.

ikorolev wrote:

Bobbyptsd wrote:

ikorolev wrote:I said Chavez Jr never fought A light heavyweight. Vera is certainly not a light heavyweight. Dawson or Pascal would make a bloody mess out of the Jr.

If Ward moves up and his points are counted at 80%, then he would be #2 right away, and if he beats someone from the top 4, he would likely become #1, so this solution works.

They were both over 168, ergo they were both light heavyweights.

The obvious conclusion here, is that Chavez fought a light heavyweight, when he fought Brian Vera.

You can't have a computer system that takes into account what would happen if this guy fought that guy or that guy fought this guy.

As I said before, I'm not disagreeing with you about Chavez in general, or that the whole situation stank. But on that night, they were light heavyweights. I'm not sure why this keeps coming back.

If boxrec is following your logic, why did they list Beterbiev as a light heavyweight when both of his fights were above 175 ?
http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_ ... &cat=boxer

Two things:

1. It's not "my logic". It's the way Boxrec ranks fighters. Between you and me, I'd agree Chavez and Vera are not "real" light heavyweights, at least insofar as it's not Vera's optimal weight, definitely. But they were both over 168, which makes them officially light heavyweights, as far as pure numbers go, and that's how Boxrec ranks them.

2. I have no idea.

Pathetic that the groupies here don't fairly entertain criticism of their beloved system...

It makes no sense to allow a fighter to carry his points to a new division. The amount currently removed is miniscule and inconsequential. But even removing 50% wouldn't be sufficient. Divisional rankings should measure a fighter's accomplishments strictly in a particular division. The boxrec rankings measure a fighter's total accomplishments regardless of division, merely slotted into the division he last fought in. But if a fighter fights at a new division he should have to start from scratch, and giving him a handicap is unfair to fighters who have consistently competeted in the division. Ranking fighters in every division they compete in till they're deemed inactive in a division is the only fair solution.

Further, if success in a division means anything, it's to determine who deserves to compete for a single, lineal championship. If the champion isn't listed above and considered the goal and purpose of rankings, rankings are merely a meaningless, masturbatory exercise.

It's unfortunate boxrec's system isn't fairer, because objective rankings are exactly what's needed to legitimise single, lineal championships, and an unofficial records keeper is in a better position than a group of power-hungry journalists like the TBRB to actually have a positive impact on political reform of the sport.

qwertyblahblah wrote:Pathetic that the groupies here don't fairly entertain criticism of their beloved system...

It makes no sense to allow a fighter to carry his points to a new division. The amount currently removed is miniscule and inconsequential. But even removing 50% wouldn't be sufficient. Divisional rankings should measure a fighter's accomplishments strictly in a particular division. The boxrec rankings measure a fighter's total accomplishments regardless of division, merely slotted into the division he last fought in. But if a fighter fights at a new division he should have to start from scratch, and giving him a handicap is unfair to fighters who have consistently competeted in the division. Ranking fighters in every division they compete in till they're deemed inactive in a division is the only fair solution.

Further, if success in a division means anything, it's to determine who deserves to compete for a single, lineal championship. If the champion isn't listed above and considered the goal and purpose of rankings, rankings are merely a meaningless, masturbatory exercise.

It's unfortunate boxrec's system isn't fairer, because objective rankings are exactly what's needed to legitimise single, lineal championships, and an unofficial records keeper is in a better position than a group of power-hungry journalists like the TBRB to actually have a positive impact on political reform of the sport.

If you reset a fighter to zero when they move into a new division, how do you justly award an opponent for fighting them? Are you trying to suggest that Floyd moving to Middleweight means that a win over him at Middleweight should mean nothing to another fighter?

JCS wrote:

qwertyblahblah wrote:Pathetic that the groupies here don't fairly entertain criticism of their beloved system...

It makes no sense to allow a fighter to carry his points to a new division. The amount currently removed is miniscule and inconsequential. But even removing 50% wouldn't be sufficient. Divisional rankings should measure a fighter's accomplishments strictly in a particular division. The boxrec rankings measure a fighter's total accomplishments regardless of division, merely slotted into the division he last fought in. But if a fighter fights at a new division he should have to start from scratch, and giving him a handicap is unfair to fighters who have consistently competeted in the division. Ranking fighters in every division they compete in till they're deemed inactive in a division is the only fair solution.

Further, if success in a division means anything, it's to determine who deserves to compete for a single, lineal championship. If the champion isn't listed above and considered the goal and purpose of rankings, rankings are merely a meaningless, masturbatory exercise.

It's unfortunate boxrec's system isn't fairer, because objective rankings are exactly what's needed to legitimise single, lineal championships, and an unofficial records keeper is in a better position than a group of power-hungry journalists like the TBRB to actually have a positive impact on political reform of the sport.

If you reset a fighter to zero when they move into a new division, how do you justly award an opponent for fighting them? Are you trying to suggest that Floyd moving to Middleweight means that a win over him at Middleweight should mean nothing to another fighter?

If a fighter's reset to zero at a new division, he'd justifiably only be rewarded for subsequent fights in the new division. It would take more than one fight to gain a high ranking at a new division, as it should.

Yes, if Golovkin beats Floyd at middleweight he shouldn't improve in ranking, because he didn't beat a proven middleweight.

ikorolev...

Check you PMs...

qwertyblahblah wrote: Yes, if Golovkin beats Floyd at middleweight he shouldn't improve in ranking, because he didn't beat a proven middleweight.

Though surely beating Floyd at 160 should mean more than beating say... Bronco McKart

JCS wrote:

qwertyblahblah wrote: Yes, if Golovkin beats Floyd at middleweight he shouldn't improve in ranking, because he didn't beat a proven middleweight.

Though surely beating Floyd at 160 should mean more than beating say... Bronco McKart

Bronco McKart has at least made a small impact on the middlweight division, Floyd's made none. It makes sense that a fighter is credited slightly more at middleweight for beating McKart than someone with no fights in the division. Golovkin should get P4P accolades if he beats Floyd (and P4P points in a system like boxrec's that has such a section), but Floyd's irrelevant at middleweight.

qwertyblahblah wrote: Bronco McKart has at least made a small impact on the middlweight division, Floyd's made none. It makes sense that a fighter is credited slightly more at middleweight for beating McKart than someone with no fights in the division. Golovkin should get P4P accolades if he beats Floyd (and P4P points in a system like boxrec's that has such a section), but Floyd's irrelevant at middleweight.

It's fairly ludicrous to expect a software-based system to be 100% division specific and quite honestly, it probably shouldn't be. Perhaps your ideals are a bit more rigid, but it is what it is. Beating Floyd at 160 should be heralded in comparison to beating McKart at 160... at least in 2013.

JCS wrote:

qwertyblahblah wrote: Bronco McKart has at least made a small impact on the middlweight division, Floyd's made none. It makes sense that a fighter is credited slightly more at middleweight for beating McKart than someone with no fights in the division. Golovkin should get P4P accolades if he beats Floyd (and P4P points in a system like boxrec's that has such a section), but Floyd's irrelevant at middleweight.

It's fairly ludicrous to expect a software-based system to be 100% division specific and quite honestly, it probably shouldn't be. Perhaps your ideals are a bit more rigid, but it is what it is. Beating Floyd at 160 should be heralded in comparison to beating McKart at 160... at least in 2013.

Why shouldn't divisional rankings reflect accomplishments at a specific division? What else is the point of rankings? If you think my ideal of a fair criteria to establish single champions is rigid, sure it is.

It's an objective system that's not division-specific that's ludicrous. I'll ask you, is it really fairer that Chavez got as many points at light heavyweight for beating someone who'd never fought above 168 in Vera as he would've had he beaten Allan Green? Further, boxrec has to make an editorial decision about what division to rank a fighter in. Fighters are usually ranked in the last division they fought in, but Vera's ranked at middlweight, and making such a decision is often awfully arbitrary for an objective system. And why shouldn't Mayweather be ranked at welterweight and light middlweight? It shouldn't be too difficult for boxrec to adjust their system to accomodate this: they would just enter all fighters in all divisions they compete in, considering a fighter's first fight in a new division as they now consider a debut, and otherwise reward points the same. Sure it would take more time to input results, but the fairness in divisional rankings would be worth it.

qwertyblahblah wrote:

JCS wrote:

qwertyblahblah wrote: Bronco McKart has at least made a small impact on the middlweight division, Floyd's made none. It makes sense that a fighter is credited slightly more at middleweight for beating McKart than someone with no fights in the division. Golovkin should get P4P accolades if he beats Floyd (and P4P points in a system like boxrec's that has such a section), but Floyd's irrelevant at middleweight.

It's fairly ludicrous to expect a software-based system to be 100% division specific and quite honestly, it probably shouldn't be. Perhaps your ideals are a bit more rigid, but it is what it is. Beating Floyd at 160 should be heralded in comparison to beating McKart at 160... at least in 2013.

Why shouldn't divisional rankings reflect accomplishments at a specific division? What else is the point of rankings? If you think my ideal of a fair criteria to establish single champions is rigid, sure it is.

It's an objective system that's not division-specific that's ludicrous. I'll ask you, is it really fairer that Chavez got as many points at light heavyweight for beating someone who'd never fought above 168 in Vera as he would've had he beaten Allan Green? Further, boxrec has to make an editorial decision about what division to rank a fighter in. Fighters are usually ranked in the last division they fought in, but Vera's ranked at middlweight, and making such a decision is often awfully arbitrary for an objective system. And why shouldn't Mayweather be ranked at welterweight and light middlweight? It shouldn't be too difficult for boxrec to adjust their system to accomodate this: they would just enter all fighters in all divisions they compete in, considering a fighter's first fight in a new division as they now consider a debut, and otherwise reward points the same. Sure it would take more time to input results, but the fairness in divisional rankings would be worth it.

Seems you're too focused on the loser or the divisional newcomer.. when you should be focused on the winner and how the fights affect their standing, regardless of the scenario. You're just counting arbitrary numbers in your system -- making a software-based rating system is much more difficult.

I agree in that the editors here have far too much control in how the ratings are computed. I partially agree on your multi-division statement, but only for the all-time rankings... I think doing it for the current rankings would only confuse people and cause complications.

Bobbyptsd wrote:Paragraphs, please. Good god, my eyes hurt just looking at that.

yea that was way long but i couldn't seem to get my point made in a routine sise comment,but i will be more vigilant in t/future,Hell i'm just learning my way arouund here!

If Arreola had beaten someone good, perhaps I could see him rated one rung above the guy what whipped him. But Seth Mitchell? C'mon. It's Seth Mitchell for gawd's sake. Stiverne would be fighting Vitali Klitschko if it weren't for the fact Klitschko doesn't seem interested in boxing anymore.