BoxRec

computerrank wrote:

mike1989 wrote:
The current version does exactly this.

Every boxer boxing a top 20 in a close fight gets annual points for hi s best opponent.

Additionaly every boxer with an annual end rank of at least top 20 gets additional annual points if his annual end rank is at least top 20.

Example:

A boxer with annual end rank #21 and best opponent rank #20 gets points for this opponent.

A boxer with annual end rank #20 and best opponent rank #20 gets points for his opponent AND for his annual end rank.

A boxer with annual end rank #20 and best opponent rank #21 gets points gets no points at all.

mike1989 wrote: how to assess the rating of boxers that are not included in the top 20 that 98 % of boxers are ever inside the ring. the beautiful boxrec the fact that everything here is taken into account and each boxer has its place, I think I no think so, especially after when will be published new ratings when 10,000 men will receive a rating of 1 point, still the same 2 point me to the example ??? what do you think about this ???

computerrank wrote:

mike1989 wrote: how to assess the rating of boxers that are not included in the top 20 that 98 % of boxers are ever inside the ring. the beautiful boxrec the fact that everything here is taken into account and each boxer has its place, I think I no think so, especially after when will be published new ratings when 10,000 men will receive a rating of 1 point, still the same 2 point me to the example ??? what do you think about this ???

Now I understand.

The non top 20 are regarded by their career top rating only. They are represented in principle.

Principally, I could use track the divisions down to the last place.

BUT - you should know - during the daily program run all 2 million bouts are calculated every day. In order to keep the division ranks updated during the program run for each boxer in these lists.

This means - every day since 1850 - for 360 days for 160 years - for every boxer in the lists - for 20 boxers in each of the 17 divisions -
- check, whether the division has to be chenged and the rating converted - since a determining bouts might fall out of the 12 months period.
- check, whether the rating has to be reduced due to missing opponent quality
- check, wether a boxer has to be deleted from the list due to inactivity

This already needs a lot of additional computer power and run time for lists of 20 boxers per division - and the effort would rise by a factor of 50, if I would expand the lists to 1000 boxers.

mike1989 wrote:

computerrank wrote:

mike1989 wrote: 1000 boxers don't need. only top 100 so 100/100 = 1 point annual point, not in the rest of the lot. and featured beaten rivals in the top 20 ????
It is logical and will allow you to create an objective rating for all ????

computerrank wrote:

mike1989 wrote:

computerrank wrote:

Sorry, I tried. It is too expensive. Not possible. 20 ranks is the affordable limit. - May be later - computers get faster and faster ...

mike1989 wrote:there is a proposal about the maximum rating of the boxer from which you get the square root, offer nsitivity :
the mean value of the eyes in your entire career * 5 %. If the fighter acted 5 years had a rating of 1-150, 2-376, 3-728,4-989,5-1159, we get = (150+376+728+989+1159)/5)*5%= 34 point.
how's this for an idea ???

mike1989 wrote:

computerrank wrote:

mike1989 wrote:

Sorry, I tried. It is too expensive. Not possible. 20 ranks is the affordable limit. - May be later - computers get faster and faster ...

what if some funktsii , algorithms to make it easier then there will be a free resource ???
the current rating takes into account all ?? right ??? if Yes then what can be easier ???

computerrank wrote:

mike1989 wrote:there is a proposal about the maximum rating of the boxer from which you get the square root, offer nsitivity :
the mean value of the eyes in your entire career * 5 %. If the fighter acted 5 years had a rating of 1-150, 2-376, 3-728,4-989,5-1159, we get = (150+376+728+989+1159)/5)*5%= 34 point.
how's this for an idea ???

... and for Joe Louis it would mean 5000 points for 10 years = 50000 points. 5% are 2500 points ???

computerrank wrote:

mike1989 wrote:

computerrank wrote:

The difference is:

- for current ratings a boxer's rating and division is only checked, when he has a bout - maybe 2 times a year
- for all time ratings a boxer's rating and division in the top 20 lists is checked each day, when any bout happens - this is nearly every day - maybe 360 times a year

mike1989 wrote:

computerrank wrote:

mike1989 wrote:

and why in the previous version, you can poschitat rating of all new and only the top 20 ????????

computerrank wrote:

mike1989 wrote:

computerrank wrote:

and why in the previous version, you can poschitat rating of all new and only the top 20 ????????

I fear, you do not understand my explanations. All time ratings and current ratings are not comparable at this point.

All time ratings therefore always used only top 20 ranks - there is no change.

- The ratring program runs once a day
- The rating program updates all boxers' data reading about 2 million bouts. For the current ratings and for each bout the data of 2 boxers updated. So there are about 4 million boxer updates for the current ratings per program run.
- For the ranking lists in the all time ratings the program has to update all boxers in the lists for every day a bout happens. This means about 20 boxers per division * 17 divisions * 360 days * 150 years = about 2 million updates per program run

The ratings program run already is a very heavy load for the database. Every data update blocks user traffic. So it is not affordable to spend more than the calculation of 20 boxers per all time ranking division at the moment.

mike1989 wrote: understand.. but what about before the boxers below the top 20 received a rating in a not many boxers with a top 20 ranking higher than 14 % of their maximum value ???

computerrank wrote:

mike1989 wrote: understand.. but what about before the boxers below the top 20 received a rating in a not many boxers with a top 20 ranking higher than 14 % of their maximum value ???

The boxers, who have no rating points from top 20 ranks, are simply sorted in below the top 20 rankers in order of their career top rating.

Taking the square root of the top rating as well as using a different percentage does not change the order of them.

mike1989 wrote:and when you update any of the ratings all the time ????????

computerrank wrote:

mike1989 wrote:and when you update any of the ratings all the time ????????

No further corrections - errors - inconsistencies?

mike1989 wrote:
I do not understand. first, check the rating and then or ???

computerrank wrote:

mike1989 wrote:
I do not understand. first, check the rating and then or ???

It is a question to you!
Do you see need of further corrections - do you see any errors - inconsistencies?

I would like to wait with a new official update, until all your current hints and ideas are checked.

I sent you a private message - did your read it?

mike1989 wrote: did you get my private message??? first time wrote. wanted to make sure came. ))) professional habit.

MontyCircus wrote:Mayweather is now TBE.

Any chance we could see a guesstimate on what Ali's all-time rating would be if he had fought those missing 3 years from '67-'70? I figure you could use an estimate of the points he gained before and after his ban. Say 4-5 fights per year during that time? I realize it's not an exact science.

Heavyweight          1961   478    31     5     4    22    180 Muhammad Ali
Heavyweight          1962  1356    82    22    24    37    180 Muhammad Ali
Heavyweight          1963  2101   161    72    44    46    180 Muhammad Ali
Heavyweight          1964  3314   373   172   144    58    180 Muhammad Ali
Heavyweight          1965  4043   579   272   244    64    180 Muhammad Ali
Heavyweight          1966  3509   699   372   264    64    180 Muhammad Ali
Heavyweight          1967  3727   899   472   364    64    180 Muhammad Ali
Heavyweight          1970  1311   969   522   384    64    180 Muhammad Ali
Heavyweight          1971  1664  1052   572   417    64    180 Muhammad Ali
Heavyweight          1972  2329  1152   622   467    64    180 Muhammad Ali
Heavyweight          1973  1433  1213   655   495    64    180 Muhammad Ali
Heavyweight          1974  2662  1413   755   595    64    180 Muhammad Ali
Heavyweight          1975  3268  1613   855   695    64    180 Muhammad Ali
Heavyweight          1976  2697  1734   955   715    64    180 Muhammad Ali
Heavyweight          1977  2108  1849  1055   731    64    180 Muhammad Ali
Heavyweight          1978  1608  2049  1155   831    64    180 Muhammad Ali
Heavyweight          1980   555  2069  1175   831    64    180 Muhammad Ali
Heavyweight          1981   412  2077  1183   831    64    180 Muhammad Ali

mike1989 wrote:why Deontay Wilder is not removed oski. he's 1.5 years there was no opposition 50%. the latter was Berman stiverne 17.01.2015. ????