computerrank wrote:Dear all.
I implemented a strict ranking scheme - based on ABC common suggestions:
- only bouts in division are considered
- a boxer starts at the end of the list
- a winner gets the rank of the loser - only some ranks lower, if the gap was very high
- a boxer loses some ranks, when he has no valid wins in the last 18 months - valid means defeating an opponent ranked maximum 3 times higher than himself, a minimum gap of 30 ranks is allowed.
- a boxer is sorted out of the ranks, when he has no fight in the last 18 months
- his last ranked is registrated, and will be used to sort him in after a come-back - but he will lose some ranks, depening on time of inactivity
And this is the result for heavyweights:
1 Wladimir Klitschko
2 Chris Byrd
3 Hasim Rahman
4 Jameel McCline
5 Nikolay Valuev
6 Calvin Brock
7 John Ruiz
8 Zuri Lawrence
9 Serguei Lyakhovich
10 Lamon Brewster
11 Matt Skelton
12 Danny Williams
13 DaVarryl Williamson
14 James Toney
15 Oliver McCall
16 Fres Oquendo
17 Javier Mora
18 Shannon Briggs
19 Monte Barrett
20 Henry Akinwande
Any opinions?
Perhaps John could be convinced to show such traditional rankings additionaly to the current performance ratings?
So one ranking for the performance fanatics - one for the traditionalists.
I cannot hold back -
- prediciton rate of performance ratings 83 %
- prediciton rate of tratitional rankings 68 %
I look forward to your response...
Best regards
Martin
Nasty Mr Conan here
Firstly Martin, thanks for taking the time to create the rankings. I think they are an excellent first attempt. There are a few things that I'd like to clear up or understand, but I'd like to say, for a first published attempt, they are exceptionally good. Now to go thru the various things point for point.
The criteria,
-------------
C1) can you explain what 'only bouts in division' means? Does that mean for example, Winky wouldn't get credit for his Middlweight performances, if he fought someone at Light Middle again.
C2) you have explained, if the winner A (rank15) was originally ranked lower than the loser e.g (rank2), then the winner gets the losers spot i.e. A moves to 2. Can you explain what happens to the loser then. Is he moved to rank 3, or does the nature of his loss decide where he gets shuffled down to.
C3) how to handle division changes? If PBF moves from jnr welter to welter, does than mean he only gets Gattis ratings if he wins or stays at the bottom of the rankigns should he lose?
The List
----------
- overall, like I said excellent for a first attempt. Purely from the optic, I would boldly say, that most boxrec forum members would prefer it to the existing list.
- obviously the biggest problem is Jameel McCline, who has been beaten by Calvin Brock and Zuri Lawrence and done nothing substantial since then. Given your algorithm I can understand how he got up the list with wins over GOOFI and Grant, but I can't see how he stayed there are he started losing. In particular I can't see how he stays above Brock and Lawrence.
- I imagine Zuri's presence at 9 is a side effect of the McCline problem.
- There is certainly a case to make for Williams at 12 after a nice string of victories including Tyson, Harrison and Skelton. I see this as one of the inevitable higher/lower arguments which Matty correctly says, will always exist.
- McCall is a surprise but justifiable. Everyone remembers Lennox, but in the recent past beat Akinwande and Salita.
- Mora is a surprise, but that comes from a win against Kirk Johnson. I think this highlights the problem with point C2) above. What happens in the loss? There's nothing in the ABC guidelines that says, you get moved down just one spot when you lose, which appears to be the case here.
Opinions etc.
-------------
I think, once a few things are ironed out, then John should be convinced to at least publish both rankings. I'm sure John has copped some flack already about the 'performance' rankings, so this would be a way to placate the tradionalists.
Of course the prediction rate is going to be higher, because the performance rankings are tuned for it and have undergone 30 iterations perfecting this tuning. I am completely surprised, that the FIRST draft of a traditional rankings is that close to the performance rankings. I think the prediction rates of the traditional rankings will surely go up, if point C2 is implemented differently i.e. the Javier Moras of the world, wont stay high so long.
Responses
------------
Please everyone, do not take this personally, because I believe it to be an important point. Martin, if you ask for repsonses in this thread, then I think it's like 'preaching to the converted'. The main participants on this thread are very convinced about your 'predictability' algorithm. The strength of your own conviction, with the backing of others on this thread, has stifled debate about the virtues of both the 'predictive' and 'traditional' ranking systems.
I think the tradional rankings is an interesting development and should be nutured here, until it's no longer in 'DRAFT' form. I think then the appropriate place to ask for responses is in another thread, where everyone clicks into. This thread, with it's intimidating 16 pages of argument and counter-argument, is most certainly not the right place to ask the question 'what do you think' to the people who count, namely the boxing fans.
Again thanks for your efforts and lets keep this alive for a little bit and see where it leads.
conan
