Page 179 of 180

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Posted: 02 Jul 2021, 20:29
by gregregegg
Has the star system got a lot harsher? Loma now has zero 5 star wins, Crawfords got non at 135/140 (somhow brook and khan still are but i understand thats a bit of inertia in the rankings.), Parker had 4 5 star wins that are now only 4 stars.

I dont mind it getting harsher, stars are just a nice little guide at a glance, but yea just noticed a lot of peoples records looking worse at a glance and then relised many many 5s had been turned into 4s.

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Posted: 02 Jul 2021, 21:14
by Manrae
computerrank wrote: 02 Jul 2021, 10:34
Manrae wrote: 02 Jul 2021, 07:49 So…you are willing to see Tank’s ranking as a catalyst for change, but can’t see the problem with Tim Tszyu over Jermell Charlo
The discussion about Davis' ranking was a catalyst, yes, but not the reason to change anything. The discussion lead me into finding a lot of top boxers with a massive unbalance between WHR rating and best opponent rating in recent time.

So introducing a rating cap would make a good additional rule for the BoxRec ratings, I now think.

Meanwhile I generalized the cap rules a bit:
- look into all bouts in boxers profile - not only the last 3 years
- give all bouts between 3 year ago and 6 years ago a weight of 0.5 (for the last 3 years weight 1)
- give all bouts between 6 year ago and 9 years ago a weight of 0.25 ... etc

That changes the results - and also the Tszyu / Carlo case - see below.

Looks better, though I'd like to see the rest of the weight classes if you don't mind

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Posted: 02 Jul 2021, 21:44
by jujigatame
computerrank wrote: 02 Jul 2021, 04:49
jujigatame wrote: 01 Jul 2021, 18:24
computerrank wrote: 01 Jul 2021, 06:09 Jermell Carlo:
- cap version: pretty easy to understand, his best defeated opponent within last 3 years was only 10% of his rating
- close-rating version: same point, ratios 10% and below, only exception Harrison and that was a loss

The fundamental cause of improving the rating with inferior opponents clearly defeated is that the probability for a 100% win always is lower than 100%. So the winner still will get a bit.
If this is the case then maybe the solution here is to reduce the value of all wins to some degree? If KOs and dominant decisions are valued at 1.0 and fighters with poor opposition get overrated because 1.0 is always greater than the ratio in their point differences (so they are always outperforming the expected result) then maybe the solution is to make the max win value less than 1.0.
This results in a loss of prediction power. Taking a value of 0.9 for a clear win reduces the winner prediction ratio from 84% to below 80%.
That may be the case but it feels like a fundamental problem that every clear win raises your rating, no matter how big of a mismatch it is. That seems anathema to an effective ranking system. I don't exactly know how this works but from what you've described it sounds like you have to scale the win values by some factor under 1.0 or else you're always going to inflate the rating of bum-crushers.

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Posted: 03 Jul 2021, 01:57
by gregregegg
Crawford vs brook, crawford vs Kahn, AJ vs pov, AJ vs pulev, AJ vs ruiz (both), Wilder vs ortiz (both), jeff horn vs man pac ect are 5 star fights.....

mike tyson vs holifeild, Lennox lewis vs hollifeild, Ali vs fraiser, Ali vs forman, Durran vs lennard II, Haggler vs Duran are 4 star fights....


This absolutly was not the case untill recently. kinda sets alarm bells when crawford vs brook, an unwanted missmatch is somehow a higher star rating than some of the greatest fights of all time....

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Posted: 03 Jul 2021, 04:44
by Manrae
gregregegg wrote: 03 Jul 2021, 01:57 Crawford vs brook, crawford vs Kahn, AJ vs pov, AJ vs pulev, AJ vs ruiz (both), Wilder vs ortiz (both), jeff horn vs man pac ect are 5 star fights.....

mike tyson vs holifeild, Lennox lewis vs hollifeild, Ali vs fraiser, Ali vs forman, Durran vs lennard II, Haggler vs Duran are 4 star fights....


This absolutly was not the case untill recently. kinda sets alarm bells when crawford vs brook, an unwanted missmatch is somehow a higher star rating than some of the greatest fights of all time....
:o :verysad:

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Posted: 03 Jul 2021, 08:24
by computerrank
gregregegg wrote: 03 Jul 2021, 01:57 Crawford vs brook, crawford vs Kahn, AJ vs pov, AJ vs pulev, AJ vs ruiz (both), Wilder vs ortiz (both), jeff horn vs man pac ect are 5 star fights.....

mike tyson vs holifeild, Lennox lewis vs hollifeild, Ali vs fraiser, Ali vs forman, Durran vs lennard II, Haggler vs Duran are 4 star fights....


This absolutly was not the case untill recently. kinda sets alarm bells when crawford vs brook, an unwanted missmatch is somehow a higher star rating than some of the greatest fights of all time....
Yes, the ratings level was decreasing the last days. I am investigating the bug ...

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Posted: 03 Jul 2021, 16:48
by Rocky-
gregregegg wrote: 03 Jul 2021, 01:57 Crawford vs brook, crawford vs Kahn, AJ vs pov, AJ vs pulev, AJ vs ruiz (both), Wilder vs ortiz (both), jeff horn vs man pac ect are 5 star fights.....

mike tyson vs holifeild, Lennox lewis vs hollifeild, Ali vs fraiser, Ali vs forman, Durran vs lennard II, Haggler vs Duran are 4 star fights....


This absolutly was not the case untill recently. kinda sets alarm bells when crawford vs brook, an unwanted missmatch is somehow a higher star rating than some of the greatest fights of all time....
Crazy. The latest ratings are utter trash. On what planet was Brook vs Crawford a 5 star fight?
Julio Cesar Chavez Jr vs Danny Jacobs a 3 star fight? This is the same dude that lost to a 46-year-old Anderson Silva. Kazuto Takesako a 4 star fighter for beating taxi drivers? Jesus

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Posted: 03 Jul 2021, 18:50
by jujigatame
Takesako seems like the same issue I've been complaining about for a while now. It is easy for fighters to rack up a lot of ranking points by smashing scrubs.

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Posted: 05 Jul 2021, 12:09
by computerrank
Rocky- wrote: 03 Jul 2021, 16:48
gregregegg wrote: 03 Jul 2021, 01:57 Crawford vs brook, crawford vs Kahn, AJ vs pov, AJ vs pulev, AJ vs ruiz (both), Wilder vs ortiz (both), jeff horn vs man pac ect are 5 star fights.....

mike tyson vs holifeild, Lennox lewis vs hollifeild, Ali vs fraiser, Ali vs forman, Durran vs lennard II, Haggler vs Duran are 4 star fights....


This absolutly was not the case untill recently. kinda sets alarm bells when crawford vs brook, an unwanted missmatch is somehow a higher star rating than some of the greatest fights of all time....
Crazy. The latest ratings are utter trash. On what planet was Brook vs Crawford a 5 star fight?
Julio Cesar Chavez Jr vs Danny Jacobs a 3 star fight? This is the same dude that lost to a 46-year-old Anderson Silva. Kazuto Takesako a 4 star fighter for beating taxi drivers? Jesus
The issue with the ratings level is solved. The ratings are recovering ...

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Posted: 05 Jul 2021, 19:19
by pugilisticspecialist
What ratings version are we on now, and what is the prediction ratio?

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Posted: 06 Jul 2021, 01:08
by computerrank
pugilisticspecialist wrote: 05 Jul 2021, 19:19 What ratings version are we on now, and what is the prediction ratio?
No change, only more stable. 84.36 percent.

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Posted: 10 Jul 2021, 13:37
by Contendeh
I apologize if this has been addressed before:

Why is Povetkin still ranked when he has retired from boxing?

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Posted: 10 Jul 2021, 16:26
by computerrank
Contendeh wrote: 10 Jul 2021, 13:37 I apologize if this has been addressed before:

Why is Povetkin still ranked when he has retired from boxing?
You can rise that question in the "Current Scene" forum. A boxer is definitely removed from the current ratings after a year without bout (due to COVID19 it is 18 months currently). But before that, he might be kept active by the editors, if they are not convinced, he really would retire.

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Posted: 12 Jul 2021, 18:20
by jujigatame
BTW I see Zurdo is #1 at LHW now. Perhaps another data point indicating that it is too easy to build big point totals without beating top opponents.

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Posted: 12 Jul 2021, 18:27
by computerrank
jujigatame wrote: 12 Jul 2021, 18:20 BTW I see Zurdo is #1 at LHW now. Perhaps another data point indicating that it is too easy to build big point totals without beating top opponents.
The new release with rating cap is decided to go live soon. Ramirez will be #4 with that ...

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Posted: 13 Jul 2021, 18:35
by jujigatame
I mean that's better than nothing but it feels like it's just papering over an underlying problem.

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Posted: 16 Jul 2021, 17:05
by SportsRatings
jujigatame wrote: 13 Jul 2021, 18:35 I mean that's better than nothing but it feels like it's just papering over an underlying problem.
So you're saying BoxRec needs to install a bidet rather than just using more Charmin?

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Posted: 16 Jul 2021, 17:42
by jujigatame
SportsRatings wrote: 16 Jul 2021, 17:05
jujigatame wrote: 13 Jul 2021, 18:35 I mean that's better than nothing but it feels like it's just papering over an underlying problem.
So you're saying BoxRec needs to install a bidet rather than just using more Charmin?
Yes?

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Posted: 16 Jul 2021, 19:38
by margaret thatcher
i think analogy is like

a dude named boxrec is sick with the sh!ts

juji wants dude to take some medication that will stop his sh!ts, instead of just continually wiping. cuz if you wipe you may be clean for a moment, but your upset tummy gonna let loose some more blasts in a minute

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Posted: 17 Jul 2021, 14:52
by JCS
Strange... I'd compare it to surgery vs. painkillers... but what do I know.

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Posted: 17 Jul 2021, 16:11
by margaret thatcher
JCS wrote: 17 Jul 2021, 14:52 Strange... I'd compare it to surgery vs. painkillers... but what do I know.
absolutely bizarre comparison, just strange and insane :oo

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Posted: 17 Jul 2021, 18:46
by SportsRatings
JCS wrote: 17 Jul 2021, 14:52 Strange... I'd compare it to surgery vs. painkillers... but what do I know.
This is the internet though, analogies need less logic, more poop jokes.

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Posted: 18 Jul 2021, 11:34
by jujigatame
Also why is Kavaliauskas ranked at 154? His last fight was at 147 and his next fight is at 147.

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Posted: 18 Jul 2021, 11:42
by computerrank
jujigatame wrote: 18 Jul 2021, 11:34 Also why is Kavaliauskas ranked at 154? His last fight was at 147 and his next fight is at 147.
You should post that in the Record Queries & Updates forum. Maybe he made other plans before.

I changed that.

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Posted: 18 Jul 2021, 16:05
by jujigatame
OK if I see something like that again I'll raise it there. Thanks!