... after YOU have found all the undetected errors ...mike1989 wrote:and when will be the next to respond the the rating all time ???
- and told me ...
)))... OKcomputerrank wrote:... after YOU have found all the undetected errors ...mike1989 wrote:and when will be the next to respond the the rating all time ???
I updated with the top 20 now - same links:mike1989 wrote:so the standings of the top 10 or top 20 for a fighter ???
2009: Mayweather was #3 at welterweight cluster, which gets him 22 pointsmike1989 wrote:I have Floyd Mayweather came out with 1,759 points : 1808 ramaty boxrec - 44 point 2009 for Marquez +22 and not +he 66 in the cluster No. 3 after Mosley and Pacquiao ; 2014 -5 points Maidan No. 4 after Pacquiao, Mayweather and Marquez, ie not the +22 and +17 for the Maidan ???
2009 : the fight was at Welterweight way Welterweight light but not Lightweight but it is one cluster because Marquez # 3 and +22 to Mayweather and not 66. ??? http://boxrec.com/media/index.php?title=Fight:1429058computerrank wrote:2009: Mayweather was #3 at welterweight cluster, which gets him 22 pointsmike1989 wrote:I have Floyd Mayweather came out with 1,759 points : 1808 ramaty boxrec - 44 point 2009 for Marquez +22 and not +he 66 in the cluster No. 3 after Mosley and Pacquiao ; 2014 -5 points Maidan No. 4 after Pacquiao, Mayweather and Marquez, ie not the +22 and +17 for the Maidan ???
2009: Marquez was #1 at lightweight cluster - which should better be converted to the welterweight cluster, I think ...
2014: Maidana was #4 at welterweight cluster, which gets Mayweather 22 points
2009: I will change the program and test. Marquez #3 at welterweight would get Mayweather + 33 points = 200/(#3-1)*0.33 - it is for opponent rank ...mike1989 wrote:
2009 : the fight was at Welterweight way Welterweight light but not Lightweight but it is one cluster because Marquez # 3 and +22 to Mayweather and not 66. ??? http://boxrec.com/media/index.php?title=Fight:1429058
2014 : Maidan № 4 it means according to the formula 200/4*0,33 = 17 points to Mayweather and not +22 point for the Maidan. ???
okay )...computerrank wrote:mike1989 wrote:
2009: I will change the program and test. Marquez #3 at welterweight would get Mayweather + 33 points = 200/(#3-1)*0.33 - it is for opponent rank ...
2014: Maidana #4 adds 22 point to Mayweather - 200/(#4-1)*0.33 - it is for opponent rank ...
if given such a formulation then Wladimir Klitschko for another +30 points :computerrank wrote:mike1989 wrote:
2009: I will change the program and test. Marquez #3 at welterweight would get Mayweather + 33 points = 200/(#3-1)*0.33 - it is for opponent rank ...
2014: Maidana #4 adds 22 point to Mayweather - 200/(#4-1)*0.33 - it is for opponent rank ...
2000 Baird (4-1=3=22 point) +9 points; - Byrd was #6mike1989 wrote: if given such a formulation then Wladimir Klitschko for another +30 points :
2000 Baird (4-1=3=22 point) +9 points;
2002 Jamil maclin (6-1=5=13) +point 5;
2007 Brewster (6-1=5=13) +6 point;
2008 Ibragimov (5-1=4=16) + point 5 ;
2010 Eddie chambers (6-1=5=13) +5 point,
for a total of 1191+30= 1221 point.????
And Canelo jumps over 100 points for beating him....that doesn't seem right. Maybe a fighter should drop more points when they move up two divisions?crusader wrote:Khan #3 at 160
Khan boxed just 8 lbs above his regular weight weight - his rating was reduced by 100 points before the bout. I don't see a problem here.crusader wrote:And Canelo jumps over 100 points for beating him....that doesn't seem right. Maybe a fighter should drop more points when they move up two divisions?crusader wrote:Khan #3 at 160
... I would prefer to see Alvarez - Golovkin ...crusader wrote:A two division jump from 147 is pretty big, especially for a guy who wasn't a particularly large WW. Khan had absolutely no business being #3 at MW (though perhaps the issue is more about him having too many points to start with rather than not losing enough) and Canelo has no business gaining 100+ points for beating him.
But that's just me nit-picking.
but it is to the promoters - prize-boxing ...Chris Byrd at the time of his fight with Klitschko in 2000 the cluster was the fourth . I bring :computerrank wrote:mike1989 wrote: if given such a formulation then Wladimir Klitschko for another +30 points :
2000 Baird (4-1=3=22 point) +9 points; - Byrd was #6
look here
http://backup.boxrec.com/~martin/bouts_ranks.txt
Not sure what the timing was, but it is possible he got placed at Middleweight before the outcome AND division change were both calculated.crusader wrote:A two division jump from 147 is pretty big, especially for a guy who wasn't a particularly large WW and already came up a few divisions. Khan had absolutely no business being #3 at MW (though perhaps the issue is more about him having too many points to start with rather than not losing enough) and Canelo has no business gaining 100+ points for beating him.
But that's just me nit-picking.
Yes, there is another problem with the weight conversion ...mike1989 wrote:
Chris Byrd at the time of his fight with Klitschko in 2000 the cluster was the fourth . I bring :
Annual Ratings for 1999 :
Heavyweight 1999 648 Lennox Lewis
Heavyweight 1999 407 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 1999 405 Michael Grant
Heavyweight 1999 381 Henry Akinwande
Heavyweight 1999 355 Vitali Klitschko
Heavyweight 1999 255 Ike Ibeabuchi
Heavyweight 1999 253 David Tua
Heavyweight 1999 253 Larry Donald
Heavyweight 1999 250 Orlin Norris
Heavyweight 1999 245 Oleg Maskaev
here Chris Byrd would be No. 6
Annual Ratings for 2000 :
Heavyweight 2000 786 Lennox Lewis
Heavyweight 2000 404 Wladimir Klitschko
Heavyweight 2000 383 Evander Holyfield
Heavyweight 2000 297 Michael Grant
Heavyweight 2000 265 Vitali Klitschko
Heavyweight 2000 264 Mike Tyson
Heavyweight 2000 242 Andrew Golota
Heavyweight 2000 240 David Izon
Heavyweight 2000 228 Brian Nielsen
Heavyweight 2000 225 Kirk Johnson
here Chris Byrd would be No. 4: dropped Michael Grand and Henry Akinwande ( for a brush of the lack of competitive opponent somewhere lowering points 07-08 months of 2000), Vitali Klitschko sootvetstvenno lost to Byrd in the cruisers best was Juan Carlos Gomez 431 point * 0,694= 299 points from the cluster.
because No. 4 (4-1=3=22 point) ???? )
same with these :computerrank wrote:Yes, there is another problem with the weight conversion ...mike1989 wrote:
here Chris Byrd would be No. 4: dropped Michael Grand and Henry Akinwande ( for a brush of the lack of competitive opponent somewhere lowering points 07-08 months of 2000), Vitali Klitschko sootvetstvenno lost to Byrd in the cruisers best was Juan Carlos Gomez 431 point * 0,694= 299 points from the cluster.
because No. 4 (4-1=3=22 point) ???? )
)2002 McCline was #7mike1989 wrote:
same with these :
2002 Jamil maclin (6-1=5=13) +point 5; - McCline was #9
2007 Brewster (6-1=5=13) +6 point; - Brewster was #10
2008 Ibragimov (5-1=4=16) + point 5 ; Ibragimov was #7
2010 Eddie chambers (6-1=5=13) +5 point, - Chambers was #9
???????????????????????
nearly ...
Code: Select all
761 Lennox Lewis
380 David Tua
371 Evander Holyfield
356 Wladimir Klitschko
341 John Ruiz
332 Chris Byrd
311 Jameel McCline
Code: Select all
572 Wladimir Klitschko
441 Samuel Peter
413 Ruslan Chagaev
394 Oleg Maskaev
359 Nikolay Valuev
306 Sultan Ibragimov
286 Lamon Brewster
Code: Select all
644 Wladimir Klitschko
499 Ruslan Chagaev
425 Nikolay Valuev
423 Samuel Peter
328 Sultan Ibragimov
Code: Select all
869 Wladimir Klitschko
561 Vitali Klitschko
460 David Haye
357 Ruslan Chagaev
343 Nikolay Valuev
340 Tomasz Adamek
315 Eddie Chambers
... Yes, what now obtained the rating of Vladimir Klitschko of all-time ??? )computerrank wrote:2002 McCline was #7mike1989 wrote:
same with these :
2002 Jamil maclin (6-1=5=13) +point 5; - McCline was #9
2007 Brewster (6-1=5=13) +6 point; - Brewster was #10
2008 Ibragimov (5-1=4=16) + point 5 ; Ibragimov was #7
2010 Eddie chambers (6-1=5=13) +5 point, - Chambers was #9
???????????????????????2007 Brewster was #7Code: Select all
761 Lennox Lewis 380 David Tua 371 Evander Holyfield 356 Wladimir Klitschko 341 John Ruiz 332 Chris Byrd 311 Jameel McCline2008 Ibragimov was #5Code: Select all
572 Wladimir Klitschko 441 Samuel Peter 413 Ruslan Chagaev 394 Oleg Maskaev 359 Nikolay Valuev 306 Sultan Ibragimov 286 Lamon Brewster2010 Chambers was #7Code: Select all
644 Wladimir Klitschko 499 Ruslan Chagaev 425 Nikolay Valuev 423 Samuel Peter 328 Sultan IbragimovCode: Select all
869 Wladimir Klitschko 561 Vitali Klitschko 460 David Haye 357 Ruslan Chagaev 343 Nikolay Valuev 340 Tomasz Adamek 315 Eddie Chambers
This is the current situation:mike1989 wrote: ... Yes, what now obtained the rating of Vladimir Klitschko of all-time ??? )