BoxRec

crusader wrote:Apologies if this was covered already, but when two boxers have an equal number of points what is the tie-breaking criteria/criterion? This question came to me because I notice that Terry Flanagan and Jorge Linares each have 461 points, but Flanagan is listed as the #1 lightweight.

Thanks

Rating points go beyond the whole number..

Of course!

Thanks

Similar question: If you add up the full point values behind these two matchups from minimumweight fights this year, which one of 'em comes out with a higher total?
Wanheng Menayothin (220) vs. Young Gil Bae (64) [284]
or
Hekkie Budler (199) vs. Jesus Silvestre (85) [284]

284.8888 and 284.3738 :-)

Dear admins of the website boxrec was wondering why in the weight class Cruiserweight displayed not correctly updated rankings of alltime after all, according to formulas that boxers should not have to remove the annual rating points because the value of the 10 rooms of rating above 100 points???

another question Viktor Postol weight category Super Lightweight ashitano only 16 rating points in the ranking of alltime although he ended the year being number 2 in the ranking because it at least 33 points Dolgano? Sorry for my English I use Google translator ))))

For the all time ratings the annual ranking is done within division clusters:

- Heavyweight + Cruiserweight
- Light Heavyweight + Super Middleweight
- Middleweight + Super Welterweight
- Welterweight + Super Lightweight
- Lightweight + Super Featherweight
- Featherweight + Super Bantamweight
- Bantamweight + Super Flyweight
- Flyweight + Light Flyweight + Minimumweight

Correct me if wrong: get the annual points accrual Heavyweight + on the Cruiserweight Oleksandr Usyk example: 360 points at Cruiserweight, No. 6, Heavyweight + Cruiserweight No. 18 then 200 / 18 *0,33 = 3,66 points true or not ????

The ratings from the lower divisions in the clusters are adjusted to the highest division in the cluster.

So 360 points at Cruiserweight are equivalent to 360 * (200/240) * (200/240) points = 250 points at Heavyweight

The adjustment goes with the square of the upper weight limit (reference weight) of the divisions. 200 lbs for Cruiserweight, 240 lbs for Heavyweight.

So Usyk is #26 in the cluster currently.

and what is the minimum number in cluster annual ranking points are awarded

... no minimum requirement

the end I can't pantat how is the annual change of rating points from the change in weight class, there is a formula for roscea ???

use these conversion factors

minimum to fly : 0.789
light fly to fly: 0.930
super fly to bantam: 0.950
super bantam to feather: 0.938
super feather to light: 0.927
super light to welter: 0.907
super welter to middle: 0.926
super middle to light heavy: 0.922
cruiser to heavy: 0.694

thank you computerrank ) very interesting some important points. The shield coefficient cruiser to heavy is not fair coeficient decreases are very large compared to other divisions. How apply coefficienty not clusteraware between the divisions???

The factors depend on the weight limit ratio (reference weight) multiplied by itself.

The conversion factor for cruiserweight to heavyweight is high because the weight ratio between cruiserweight and heavyweight is high.

Reference weight for cruiserweight is 200 lbs. Reference weight for heavyweight ist 240 lbs. The ratio is 200/240 = 0.833 and multiplied by itself is 0.694.

The ratio is much lower for other division clusters.

reference weights (lbs) for divisions:

heavyweight 240
cruiserweight 200
light heavyweight 175
super middleweight 168
middleweight 160
super welterweight 154
welterweight 147
super lightweight 140
lightweight 135
super featherweight 130
featherweight 126
super bantamweight 122
bantamweight 118
super flyweight 115
flyweight 112
light flyweight 108
minimumweight 105

Just divide the reference weights and multiply by itself.

and why in calculating the annual rating of the eyes are clusters. More fair to use in calculating the strength of the division???

There are too many weak divisions. A top rank in one division is equivalent to a very weak rank in a neighbour division.

A top rank in cruiserweight is by no ways equivalent to a top rank in heavyweight.

A top rank in light welterweight is by no ways equivalent to a top rank in welterweight.

Clustering is a way to find a better annual reward.

To understand the system used here one must devote much time and energy. Still..it ISN'T POSSIBLE to justify aa) Billy Backus WAY ABOVE Marlon Starling at 147. Starling was never "stopped"/Backus has a number of TKO. bb) Floyd Patterson rated a.t. as high as he is doesn't make sense! George Foreman rated beneith Floyd Patterson? (Someone need to see a PSYCHIATRIST here! "Forget it RATING BOXERS!")
JOHN WILKINSON, Boxer (ret) pro-am: 25 (0/11)-27 (3-3)-1 (ko's/Rsc pro designate 1st; Rsc/ret). In 17 amateur Tournaments won 7; 2Nd 5x, outplace 5x boxing champions in 4 of those 5 in brackets. USAREUR & New England Golden Gloves (3x) largest tournaments [never went to Nationals][156lbs. always at Ne's]

-and- how is it my own "points" it has fluctuated 3 points at times down to one point other times?

why during cluster formation heavyweight - cruiserweight the ratio 240/200 lbs why not 230/200 or 250/200 ???

mike1989 wrote:why during cluster formation heavyweight - cruiserweight the ratio 240/200 lbs why not 230/200 or 250/200 ???

Most boxers fight at the upper limit of the weight division.

As there is no such upper limit for the heavyweights, I calculated the mean weight of all winning top heavyweights (with more than 350 points after their bout) in distinct time decades.

For the decade from 2010 up to today this mean weight is around 240 pounds.

For the decades before the mean weights are lower and I use corresponding reference weights.

Not true: minimum to fly : 0.789 where AboutWHO 265 fighters, and heavy cruiser to: 0.694 where about 1,000 fighters.

I think more fair would be like this :
Light Flyweight + Minimumweight
Super Flyweight+ Flyweight
Super Bantamweight+Bantamweight
Super Featherweight+Featherweight
Super Lightweight+Lightweight
Super Welterweight+Welterweight
Super Middleweight +Middleweight
Cruiserweight+ Light Heavyweight
and separately Heavyweight

mike1989 wrote:I think more fair would be like this :
Light Flyweight + Minimumweight
Super Flyweight+ Flyweight
Super Bantamweight+Bantamweight
Super Featherweight+Featherweight
Super Lightweight+Lightweight
Super Welterweight+Welterweight
Super Middleweight +Middleweight
Cruiserweight+ Light Heavyweight
and separately Heavyweight

Minimumweight and Light Flyweight only contain less than 800 active boxers.

I followed the more classic weight division categories, also because the clustering is used for the past too.

Heavyweight, Light Heavyweight, Middleweight, Welterweight, Lightweight, Featherweight, Bantamweight, Flyweight.