BoxRec

StarLord25 wrote: ↑20 Dec 2017, 16:52 I've noticed Crawford is ranked #1 at 147 before even having a fight there.

StarLord25 wrote: ↑20 Dec 2017, 23:29 Ok, great. What's the logic behind not starting a guy at 0 when he moves to another division because some would argue that because he hasn't really established himself at 147 yet, Crawford isn't #1.

computerrank wrote: ↑20 Dec 2017, 18:43

mike1989 wrote: ↑20 Dec 2017, 13:27 hi Martin!
what happened with the ratings why many boxers somewhere disappeared????

who disappeared - BoxRec ID please?

mike1989 wrote: ↑21 Dec 2017, 03:00

computerrank wrote: ↑20 Dec 2017, 18:43

mike1989 wrote: ↑20 Dec 2017, 13:27 hi Martin!
what happened with the ratings why many boxers somewhere disappeared????

who disappeared - BoxRec ID please?

all the boxers with a negative rating, in which only career defeat ???

computerrank wrote: ↑21 Dec 2017, 04:00

mike1989 wrote: ↑21 Dec 2017, 03:00

computerrank wrote: ↑20 Dec 2017, 18:43 who disappeared - BoxRec ID please?

all the boxers with a negative rating, in which only career defeat ???

What is a negative rating? The rating points are all positive - there are no negative points. ???

mike1989 wrote: ↑21 Dec 2017, 05:19

computerrank wrote: ↑21 Dec 2017, 04:00

mike1989 wrote: ↑21 Dec 2017, 03:00

all the boxers with a negative rating, in which only career defeat ???

What is a negative rating? The rating points are all positive - there are no negative points. ???

when the fighter has no victories, only defeats and rating 0 points ?

JCS wrote: ↑21 Dec 2017, 00:02

StarLord25 wrote: ↑20 Dec 2017, 23:29 Ok, great. What's the logic behind not starting a guy at 0 when he moves to another division because some would argue that because he hasn't really established himself at 147 yet, Crawford isn't #1.

The logic is that this would make zero sense as it pertains to the ratings.

If Crawford moves to 154 in his next fight and gets knocked out, would you give his opponent absolutely zero credit for the win?

StarLord25 wrote: ↑21 Dec 2017, 11:44

JCS wrote: ↑21 Dec 2017, 00:02

StarLord25 wrote: ↑20 Dec 2017, 23:29 Ok, great. What's the logic behind not starting a guy at 0 when he moves to another division because some would argue that because he hasn't really established himself at 147 yet, Crawford isn't #1.

The logic is that this would make zero sense as it pertains to the ratings.

If Crawford moves to 154 in his next fight and gets knocked out, would you give his opponent absolutely zero credit for the win?

True and great point. That's one of the main criticisms I've seen of Boxrec. But you can't let a fighter who moves to another division begin at 0. It's like his whole career before that became pointless.

computerrank wrote: ↑21 Dec 2017, 09:52

mike1989 wrote: ↑21 Dec 2017, 05:19

computerrank wrote: ↑21 Dec 2017, 04:00
What is a negative rating? The rating points are all positive - there are no negative points. ???

when the fighter has no victories, only defeats and rating 0 points ?

Yes, I see.

mike1989 wrote: ↑21 Dec 2017, 16:37

computerrank wrote: ↑21 Dec 2017, 09:52

mike1989 wrote: ↑21 Dec 2017, 05:19

when the fighter has no victories, only defeats and rating 0 points ?

Yes, I see.

and ???...

computerrank wrote: ↑21 Dec 2017, 17:01

mike1989 wrote: ↑21 Dec 2017, 16:37

computerrank wrote: ↑21 Dec 2017, 09:52

Yes, I see.

and ???...

Where ist the problem, they are not listed the ratings. In their record you will find the remark 'no rating'. It makes some sense - so they can not say I am #xxx in a weight division.

JCS wrote: ↑21 Dec 2017, 11:50

StarLord25 wrote: ↑21 Dec 2017, 11:44

JCS wrote: ↑21 Dec 2017, 00:02

The logic is that this would make zero sense as it pertains to the ratings.

If Crawford moves to 154 in his next fight and gets knocked out, would you give his opponent absolutely zero credit for the win?

True and great point. That's one of the main criticisms I've seen of Boxrec. But you can't let a fighter who moves to another division begin at 0. It's like his whole career before that became pointless.

I can't really determine if you are "for" or "against" that??

mike1989 wrote: ↑21 Dec 2017, 17:21

computerrank wrote: ↑21 Dec 2017, 17:01

mike1989 wrote: ↑21 Dec 2017, 16:37

and ???...

Where ist the problem, they are not listed the ratings. In their record you will find the remark 'no rating'. It makes some sense - so they can not say I am #xxx in a weight division.

this is interesting...
but the essence is lost the base where you can find all of them?... it may be logical units with no wins and points in a separate section??? how else to find a fighter???

computerrank wrote: ↑22 Dec 2017, 07:03

mike1989 wrote: ↑21 Dec 2017, 17:21

computerrank wrote: ↑21 Dec 2017, 17:01
Where ist the problem, they are not listed the ratings. In their record you will find the remark 'no rating'. It makes some sense - so they can not say I am #xxx in a weight division.

this is interesting...
but the essence is lost the base where you can find all of them?... it may be logical units with no wins and points in a separate section??? how else to find a fighter???

You will find him by his name or by his ID or in the records

mike1989 wrote: ↑22 Dec 2017, 09:32

computerrank wrote: ↑22 Dec 2017, 07:03

mike1989 wrote: ↑21 Dec 2017, 17:21
this is interesting...
but the essence is lost the base where you can find all of them?... it may be logical units with no wins and points in a separate section??? how else to find a fighter???

You will find him by his name or by his ID or in the records

it is a bit difficult. many people consider how the BoxRec database : just people Boxing functionaries in much need in a convenient search boxer with a negative record, but the search will not be easy... in my point of view, the data innovations will reduce the traffic of the website BoxRec ???

computerrank wrote: ↑22 Dec 2017, 11:32

mike1989 wrote: ↑22 Dec 2017, 09:32

computerrank wrote: ↑22 Dec 2017, 07:03
You will find him by his name or by his ID or in the records

it is a bit difficult. many people consider how the BoxRec database : just people Boxing functionaries in much need in a convenient search boxer with a negative record, but the search will not be easy... in my point of view, the data innovations will reduce the traffic of the website BoxRec ???

... for boxers with losses only? I don't think so. A Boxer with losses only can not be rated.

mike1989 wrote: ↑22 Dec 2017, 16:09

computerrank wrote: ↑22 Dec 2017, 11:32

mike1989 wrote: ↑22 Dec 2017, 09:32

it is a bit difficult. many people consider how the BoxRec database : just people Boxing functionaries in much need in a convenient search boxer with a negative record, but the search will not be easy... in my point of view, the data innovations will reduce the traffic of the website BoxRec ???

... for boxers with losses only? I don't think so. A Boxer with losses only can not be rated.

but half of all fighters made rating ???

computerrank wrote: ↑24 Dec 2017, 05:53

mike1989 wrote: ↑22 Dec 2017, 16:09

computerrank wrote: ↑22 Dec 2017, 11:32
... for boxers with losses only? I don't think so. A Boxer with losses only can not be rated.

but half of all fighters made rating ???

70 percent are rated, 30 percent are not.

Lennox wrote: ↑01 Jan 2018, 12:41 You have a woman ranked at 105 in the straw-weights, Mens.

computerrank wrote: ↑02 Jan 2018, 08:15

Lennox wrote: ↑01 Jan 2018, 12:41 You have a woman ranked at 105 in the straw-weights, Mens.

Somebody fixed it ...

mike1989 wrote: ↑03 Jan 2018, 17:34

computerrank wrote: ↑02 Jan 2018, 08:15

Lennox wrote: ↑01 Jan 2018, 12:41 You have a woman ranked at 105 in the straw-weights, Mens.

Somebody fixed it ...

hi Martin!
question: the annual ranking points are awarded to the top 20 or top 15 ???

computerrank wrote: ↑04 Jan 2018, 05:01

mike1989 wrote: ↑03 Jan 2018, 17:34

computerrank wrote: ↑02 Jan 2018, 08:15
Somebody fixed it ...

hi Martin!
question: the annual ranking points are awarded to the top 20 or top 15 ???

Top 20 for men

computerrank wrote: ↑04 Jan 2018, 05:01

mike1989 wrote: ↑03 Jan 2018, 17:34

computerrank wrote: ↑02 Jan 2018, 08:15
Somebody fixed it ...

hi Martin!
question: the annual ranking points are awarded to the top 20 or top 15 ???

Top 20 for men