Page 10 of 180
Posted: 20 May 2006, 06:31
by Dlirag
Is the ratings software available for download?
Posted: 28 May 2006, 11:15
by mattym
BoxBuzz wrote: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
I like this idea I think it would definitely be a nice touch
Posted: 28 May 2006, 20:41
by JCS
mattym wrote:BoxBuzz wrote: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
I like this idea I think it would definitely be a nice touch
Probably would be a good idea to further refine the current ratings and even the all-time ones before including this in the fighter info.
I think JohnShep may agree.
Posted: 29 May 2006, 05:17
by Latuch!
There must be a BUG in all time rankings.
Take for example Wlad. His current rating is 1814 point, whereas his all time rating indicates 1450 points.
As far as I understand the idea of all time ratings, they should take the boxer in his peak, that would mean
all time rating points must be greater or equal to current rating points.
and this is not met for Wlad and almost every other boxer.
Posted: 29 May 2006, 10:48
by JCS
Latuch! wrote:There must be a BUG in all time rankings.
Take for example Wlad. His current rating is 1814 point, whereas his all time rating indicates 1450 points.
As far as I understand the idea of all time ratings, they should take the boxer in his peak, that would mean
all time rating points must be greater or equal to current rating points.
and this is not met for Wlad and almost every other boxer.
No longer takes a boxer's peak into account. I believe its an average of the boxer's best 14 wins...
Posted: 02 Jun 2006, 08:10
by computerrank
Now a correction is implemented.
The rating formula itself is unchanged.
1. Established boxers
- Ratings of established boxers are not touched.
- Established boxers show valid ratings of 300 and more points.
2. Not established boxers
- Not established boxers are no longer rated with the established boxers, but undergo a launching procedure to get established and then get a valid rating.
- Not established boxers collect their launching points which are published.
- Not established boxers show less than 300 launching points.
Posted: 06 Jun 2006, 09:49
by mattyp151
Can you explain how Ray Robinson went from #1 MW to #17....
Posted: 06 Jun 2006, 10:20
by computerrank
Mattyp151 wrote:Can you explain how Ray Robinson went from #1 MW to #17....
Should be an error. I will look for this...
Posted: 06 Jun 2006, 10:27
by mattyp151
computerrank wrote:Mattyp151 wrote:Can you explain how Ray Robinson went from #1 MW to #17....
Should be an error. I will look for this...
Cool, not nit picking, but someone that many claim as the best boxer of all-time shouldn't be sitting at 17th. Major issues like that are noticable, where as I could careless who is the 50th best all time MW.
Posted: 06 Jun 2006, 10:34
by computerrank
Mattyp151 wrote:computerrank wrote:Mattyp151 wrote:Can you explain how Ray Robinson went from #1 MW to #17....
Should be an error. I will look for this...
Cool, not nit picking, but someone that many claim as the best boxer of all-time shouldn't be sitting at 17th. Major issues like that are noticable, where as I could careless who is the 50th best all time MW.
Bug fixed - but new version has to be activated ...
Posted: 06 Jun 2006, 10:48
by mattyp151
When is that going live?
Posted: 06 Jun 2006, 11:52
by computerrank
Mattyp151 wrote:When is that going live?
... next days ...
Posted: 11 Jun 2006, 22:00
by mattyp151
You may want to do something about Hopkins being #2 all time LHW after 1 fight...
Posted: 12 Jun 2006, 10:26
by computerrank
Mattyp151 wrote:You may want to do something about Hopkins being #2 all time LHW after 1 fight...
... this an old issue ...
Boxers are assigned to weight divisions by the editors, not by the rating program.
Active boxers should be assigned to their latest weight division.
Inactive - retired boxers should be assigned to their most successful weight division.
... but it is to the editiors - not to me ...
Posted: 13 Jun 2006, 04:48
by shoutout
Mattyp151 wrote:Can you explain how Ray Robinson went from #1 MW to #17....
yeah...the same way you can explain nikolai valuev as he best current HW!!
the system has been tampered with in a way that the once-valuable boxrec rankings are now irrelevant & useless!! 
bring back the old method please!! 
Posted: 15 Jun 2006, 08:24
by JCS
shoutout2u wrote:Mattyp151 wrote:Can you explain how Ray Robinson went from #1 MW to #17....
yeah...the same way you can explain nikolai valuev as he best current HW!!
the system has been tampered with in a way that the once-valuable boxrec rankings are now irrelevant & useless!! bring back the old method please!!
All you crybabies need to invent a method that looks good and is superior in prediction rate. Then we can talk.
Subjectivity + Computerized Ratings = Don't Mix
Posted: 15 Jun 2006, 19:31
by jujigatame
shoutout2u wrote:Mattyp151 wrote:Can you explain how Ray Robinson went from #1 MW to #17....
yeah...the same way you can explain nikolai valuev as he best current HW!!
the system has been tampered with in a way that the once-valuable boxrec rankings are now irrelevant & useless!! bring back the old method please!!
They're irrelevant as a conventional ranking system, true. However, they are now more useful as a gambling/prediction system.
Posted: 17 Jun 2006, 00:24
by generic screen name
Why is Chad Dawson the #1 light heavyweight? Does this new ranking system base it on talent now?
Posted: 17 Jun 2006, 01:44
by jujigatame
generic screen name wrote:Why is Chad Dawson the #1 light heavyweight? Does this new ranking system base it on talent now?
Essentially, yes.
Posted: 20 Jun 2006, 10:46
by JCS
jujigatame wrote:generic screen name wrote:Why is Chad Dawson the #1 light heavyweight? Does this new ranking system base it on talent now?
Essentially, yes.
Its more or less a performance rating.
Also, another thing to consider is that the ratings are pretty much a "Home Turf Performance Rating" until we get the revision in that factors hometown advantage.
Posted: 23 Jun 2006, 09:33
by jujigatame
I have a couple of questions:
1) Is there a new version out today?
2) Do you have Shannon Briggs doing your coding for you?
Posted: 23 Jun 2006, 09:34
by JCS
jujigatame wrote:I have a couple of questions:
1) Is there a new version out today?
2) Do you have Shannon Briggs doing your coding for you?
New version is being implemented whenever JohnShep checks his mail.
Shannon Briggs is a man beast.
Seriously, we have been thwarted in all of our efforts to solve the Briggs puzzle. He gets early knockouts vs. decent opposition (not great or good), he gets them often and is consistent in doing so.
Posted: 23 Jun 2006, 09:38
by jujigatame
More like Shannon Briggs is a POS. Seriously, I don't mind the "power ranking" type ratings that you're trying to create here, but Shannon Briggs being that high is a serious problem when you consider how he's done whenever he's stepped up the level of competition. He got beat by Sedreck Fields and shut out by Jameel McCline for chrissakes!!
Posted: 23 Jun 2006, 09:40
by JCS
jujigatame wrote:More like Shannon Briggs is a POS. Seriously, I don't mind the "power ranking" type ratings that you're trying to create here, but Shannon Briggs being that high is a serious problem when you consider how he's done whenever he's stepped up the level of competition. He got beat by Sedreck Fields and shut out by Jameel McCline for chrissakes!!
Hey.. its statistically proven that a fighter should not be limited by a previous loss. He could rematch McCline today and KO him.. and as we've seen lately from McCline.. this is a distinct possibility! Same goes for Fields.
Posted: 23 Jun 2006, 10:00
by jujigatame
Not saying he should be limited by a previous loss, but you should have to work a little harder to push yourself up the ratings than beating 11 total bums. Anybody in the top 50 could have beaten the guys that Briggs beat in the time since he lost to McCline.