Page 94 of 180
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 02 Mar 2016, 17:51
by computerrank
Romulus9 wrote:Question regarding a recent result/rating:
Dave Markert (0 points) defeated Daniel Craycraft (1 point/1 star) in a six round decision. Craycraft went from 1 to 0 points, but Markert did not receive any points. Craycraft may have fought most of his career in lower classes but all of his fights since returning have been at light heavyweight, the same weight class.
Just curious as to why that was the case, and if Craycraft being correctly computed at Super Middleweight or Light Heavyweight (where he now competes) would make a difference.
Thanks!
The bout was just updated. Only the pre-bout rating are in until now. The post-bout ratings will be updated with the next ratings program run.
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 02 Mar 2016, 18:06
by Romulus9
computerrank wrote:Romulus9 wrote:Question regarding a recent result/rating:
Dave Markert (0 points) defeated Daniel Craycraft (1 point/1 star) in a six round decision. Craycraft went from 1 to 0 points, but Markert did not receive any points. Craycraft may have fought most of his career in lower classes but all of his fights since returning have been at light heavyweight, the same weight class.
Just curious as to why that was the case, and if Craycraft being correctly computed at Super Middleweight or Light Heavyweight (where he now competes) would make a difference.
Thanks!
The bout was just updated. Only the pre-bout rating are in until now. The post-bout ratings will be updated with the next ratings program run.
The result was posted a day or two ago. Will that program run occur on Sunday, or tomorrow morning at 9:35 GMT? (I don't know when the post-bout ratings are done.). Interested to see how many points Dave might get.
Thank you for the response.
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 03 Mar 2016, 04:52
by computerrank
Romulus9 wrote:computerrank wrote:Romulus9 wrote:Question regarding a recent result/rating:
Dave Markert (0 points) defeated Daniel Craycraft (1 point/1 star) in a six round decision. Craycraft went from 1 to 0 points, but Markert did not receive any points. Craycraft may have fought most of his career in lower classes but all of his fights since returning have been at light heavyweight, the same weight class.
Just curious as to why that was the case, and if Craycraft being correctly computed at Super Middleweight or Light Heavyweight (where he now competes) would make a difference.
Thanks!
The bout was just updated. Only the pre-bout rating are in until now. The post-bout ratings will be updated with the next ratings program run.
The result was posted a day or two ago. Will that program run occur on Sunday, or tomorrow morning at 9:35 GMT? (I don't know when the post-bout ratings are done.). Interested to see how many points Dave might get.
Thank you for the response.
The ratings are updated daily. So the update of a new result may take up to 2 days. But there seems to be a problem with the updates. I will have a look.
Dave Markert might be at about 2 points now.
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 03 Mar 2016, 06:09
by computerrank
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 03 Mar 2016, 09:17
by mike1989
why not change ratingi on this event :
http://boxrec.com/show/728919
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 03 Mar 2016, 09:50
by computerrank
There seems to be a problem with all the updates.
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 03 Mar 2016, 10:58
by computerrank
The updates were run now ...
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 03 Mar 2016, 13:58
by mike1989
already it's okay )
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 03 Mar 2016, 14:04
by mike1989
but you can not see the ratings in the defeated opozicii individual fighter ???
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 03 Mar 2016, 14:16
by computerrank
mike1989 wrote:but you can not see the ratings in the defeated opozicii individual fighter ???
I can see all ratings now ... what is wrong, please?
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 14 Mar 2016, 19:20
by bm117
What caused Mickey Bey's recent tumble down the rankings? I'm just curious, I can't figure it out.
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 14 Mar 2016, 21:02
by JCS
18 months since he fought a quality opponent?
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 14 Mar 2016, 21:32
by bm117
Ahhh, right. I was thinking that rule came into effect after 24 months, forgot it was 18. My bad, thanks!
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 17 Mar 2016, 17:22
by jujigatame
The ranking formula may need some slight tweaking when this guy is the #37 HW:
http://boxrec.com/boxer/634096
Why does a fighter with 124 points gain 38 points from KOing a guy with only 34 points? That seems way out of wack.
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 17 Mar 2016, 18:43
by JCS
jujigatame wrote:The ranking formula may need some slight tweaking when this guy is the #37 HW:
http://boxrec.com/boxer/634096
Why does a fighter with 124 points gain 38 points from KOing a guy with only 34 points? That seems way out of wack.
I imagine that's the launch factor.. or w/e it is called.
I believe the BoxRec system stymies the ratings of boxers until they enter another "tier".. which I imagine is what this guy did.
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 17 Mar 2016, 19:02
by computerrank
You found a weak point, I guess. The launch state is not reduced by inactivity or missing opponent quality.
Maybe I should apply the corresponding reductions to the launch state as I do with the ratings - at least for higher launch states..
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 12 Apr 2016, 11:47
by jujigatame
Looks like Zhang has managed to rise up to #33 from a KO of 41 year old George Arias.
I suppose I can understand the wins over Gavern and Cox lifting him as high as they did (somewhere in the #50-60 range) but beyond that point, he's getting way too much credit for KOing guys with point totals around 25% of his.
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 13 Apr 2016, 15:54
by computerrank
... at the moment the new ratings release was launched. Zhang now is #55 ...
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 13 Apr 2016, 17:00
by computerrank
... additionally ... by the ratings program
- active boxers are assigned to the division with highest performance within the last 12 months
- inactive boxers are assigned to the division with best 3 performances within their career
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 14 Apr 2016, 02:51
by cold187
How come everyone's a points has just been slashed by 50%
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 14 Apr 2016, 05:49
by magicrp
pacquiao all-time no5 greater than mayweather all-time no6? is it true
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 14 Apr 2016, 08:56
by computerrank
cold187 wrote:How come everyone's a points has just been slashed by 50%
Less addtional points than before.
But only the ranking counts, not the absolute values.
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 14 Apr 2016, 08:57
by computerrank
magicrp wrote:pacquiao all-time no5 greater than mayweather all-time no6? is it true
it is ...
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 14 Apr 2016, 11:03
by jujigatame
New ratings seem solid although it's tough to tell without looking at them side-by-side with the old ones. Looks like Malik Scott has moved down a couple spots which is probably an improvement.
Re: Boxrec Ratings - Read first before commenting on the ratings
Posted: 14 Apr 2016, 17:20
by mike1989
Write please, what happened with the ratings. And what's the new formula ???