BoxRec

joshj909 wrote: ↑27 May 2019, 05:18 True, but also, I think it's the reason that Chisora is above Kabayel even though Kabayel beat him. For some reason people have given more weight to Chisora beating Takam than Kabayel beating Chisora and leaves this top 15 looking a bit odd in that respect.

I agree that Chisora got beat by kabayel and should not be above him and pointed it out but enough people voted against that and for Chisora to be higher so the democratic vote win which you now have to respect.

I think quite ironically, Chisora beating Takam is a better result than Kabayel beating Chisora.

I think the Takam victory is the best win on both resume's.

It's like one of those weird paradigms, like if you shot yourself in the past through a time warp, would you have ever taken the shot in the first place?

Rob3_142 wrote: ↑27 May 2019, 06:20 I think quite ironically, Chisora beating Takam is a better result than Kabayel beating Chisora.

I think the Takam victory is the best win on both resume's.

It's like one of those weird paradigms, like if you shot yourself in the past through a time warp, would you have ever taken the shot in the first place?

So in my opinion, that makes Kabayel rank higher than them both but in others, somehow, they think that means chisora goes above kabayel. You have to roughly accumulate the victories of the opponents that you beat to create a ranking system otherwise a win is worth nothing other than the judging people on the eye test. How would Takam be a good win unless he had good wins himself? Kabayel's victory over Chisora was only 8 months before his victory over Takam, and i believe this only improves Kabayel's victory, rather than Chisora overtaking him.

Rob3_142 wrote: ↑27 May 2019, 04:55 I think if you started to use that to move fighters around, you're reaching a bit. It also makes things super complicated. Styles make fights, which can making ranking guys difficult.

i dont really think its reaching , its perfectly valid to reassess the significance of a win. chisora got beat by kaybel hardly long before chis beat takam too

i mean if chis beating takam makes chis superior in ranking to kabayel, what about kabayel beating chis just like 1 fight before

for my rankings i like to have a bit of result linking, so in a case like this chis-takam isnt seen as totally irrelecant to a guy who beat the winner shortly before. tbf, these types of situations can be a bit murky

Rob3_142 wrote: ↑27 May 2019, 03:59 Well at the time, Hunter didn't have an extra win on his record. There's two things which will move a fighter in the rankings. A win/loss or a win/loss of someone around them in the rankings. They don't always happen at the same time.

Yeah, but if wins over Ustinov, Bakole and Kiladze aren't enough to rank Hunter above Breazeale, then adding Maldonado shouldn't be enough either.

Numbers alone aren't enough. You have to consider the quality of opponent (utterly abysmal, in this case). Another win at ~top 50 level might have swayed it, based on Breazeale doing no better himself. Not this guy though.

Hunter's record hasn't improved by fighting Maldonado. In fact, his average level of opposition has dropped slightly.

Deleted_Scenes wrote: ↑27 May 2019, 12:27 Yeah, but if wins over Ustinov, Bakole and Kiladze aren't enough to rank Hunter above Breazeale, then adding Maldonado shouldn't be enough either.

Numbers alone aren't enough. You have to consider the quality of opponent (utterly abysmal, in this case). Another win at ~top 50 level might have swayed it, based on Breazeale doing no better himself. Not this guy though.

Hunter's record hasn't improved by fighting Maldonado. In fact, his average level of opposition has dropped slightly.

joshj909 wrote: ↑27 May 2019, 06:39 So in my opinion, that makes Kabayel rank higher than them both but in others, somehow, they think that means chisora goes above kabayel. You have to roughly accumulate the victories of the opponents that you beat to create a ranking system otherwise a win is worth nothing other than the judging people on the eye test. How would Takam be a good win unless he had good wins himself? Kabayel's victory over Chisora was only 8 months before his victory over Takam, and i believe this only improves Kabayel's victory, rather than Chisora overtaking him.

Well the thing here is, it was an unlikely and lucky haymaker from Chisora which got the winner against Takam. If you remember, Takam was well on top leading up to that point. I'm not saying that Chisora didn't deserve to win, but he was playing a very low % strategy.

This scenario is presenting many headaches, and we are not going to ever agree on who marginally places above or below person X. Maybe they should fight each other?

Deleted_Scenes wrote: ↑27 May 2019, 12:27 Yeah, but if wins over Ustinov, Bakole and Kiladze aren't enough to rank Hunter above Breazeale, then adding Maldonado shouldn't be enough either.

Numbers alone aren't enough. You have to consider the quality of opponent (utterly abysmal, in this case). Another win at ~top 50 level might have swayed it, based on Breazeale doing no better himself. Not this guy though.

Hunter's record hasn't improved by fighting Maldonado. In fact, his average level of opposition has dropped slightly.

I'm going to throw another factor in, to justify my position further.

It was highly unlikely to be the same group people who voted the position of Breazeale/Hunter during their last bouts, so there is inevitably going to be some discrepancy on single positions of fighters. Especially when it is as tight as it is between the two here.

In my opinion when you vote on an update, you should respect what the top 15 is already. You should just vote on the single result and if it affects an upward or downward movement.

I would say a top 15 fighter fighting anyone not in the top 50 can't have any upward movement.

If he fights poorly and scrapes a win he can be moved downwards by opinion.

Rob3_142 wrote: ↑27 May 2019, 14:15 I'm going to throw another factor in, to justify my position further.

It was highly unlikely to be the same group people who voted the position of Breazeale/Hunter during their last bouts, so there is inevitably going to be some discrepancy on single positions of fighters. Especially when it is as tight as it is between the two here.

Everybody voted and that's how it ended up.

It's an imperfect system but the top 15 looks sensible in the main and a hell of a lot more accurate than any of the sanctioning body lists.

ewenhay wrote: ↑27 May 2019, 16:53 Everybody voted and that's how it ended up.

It's an imperfect system but the top 15 looks sensible in the main and a hell of a lot more accurate than any of the sanctioning body lists.

Not true. Some people voted in the period where the poll was open after either fighter fought. I'm not even sure if I voted last time Breazeale fought (or at least the inaugural ranking). That is not everyone.

Rob3_142 wrote: ↑28 May 2019, 15:11 Not true. Some people voted in the period where the poll was open after either fighter fought. I'm not even sure if I voted last time Breazeale fought (or at least the inaugural ranking). That is not everyone.

Whoever votes gets counted. We've gotten additional voters each new vote (fight).

Rob3_142 wrote: ↑28 May 2019, 15:11 Not true. Some people voted in the period where the poll was open after either fighter fought. I'm not even sure if I voted last time Breazeale fought (or at least the inaugural ranking). That is not everyone.

Everyone who bothered to vote in the alloted time period then.

Lennox wrote: ↑27 May 2019, 14:56 In my opinion when you vote on an update, you should respect what the top 15 is already. You should just vote on the single result and if it affects an upward or downward movement.

I would say a top 15 fighter fighting anyone not in the top 50 can't have any upward movement.

If he fights poorly and scrapes a win he can be moved downwards by opinion.

Lennox wrote: ↑27 May 2019, 14:56 In my opinion when you vote on an update, you should respect what the top 15 is already. You should just vote on the single result and if it affects an upward or downward movement.

I would say a top 15 fighter fighting anyone not in the top 50 can't have any upward movement.

If he fights poorly and scrapes a win he can be moved downwards by opinion.

Hindsight allows us to better judge boxers and their opponents because we are given more complete information, so why not use it?

For the next 12 months a losing fighter is tagged, so if he wins a fight or fights his points may be shared with anyone who had beaten him in the last 12 months and it works the other way that if you lose a fight you may be buffered by an opponent who you have beaten. This gives us a fair position and that man who beat the man situation. After 12 months tags are removed so a fighter could then go past someone who had defeated him in the past.

https://premierboxingorganisation.com/the-rules

joshj909 wrote: ↑29 May 2019, 04:48 Hindsight allows us to better judge boxers and their opponents because we are given more complete information, so why not use it?



https://premierboxingorganisation.com/the-rules

The rules of engagement were set when the thread was created. More than 50 forum members participated in the initial list by naming their top 15 lists, the results of which were accumulated to create a consolidated list. Every forum member has then had the opportunity to revise the list on a fight by fight basis.

Do you really want the rules to be changed just so you can rank Hunter above Chisora or Breazeale?

remember guys that this ranking and the voting system etc is also just a kind of fun. this ranking is not going to be perfect (there are no perfect rankings) but it's still very good imo. it has to show the boxrec's posters opinion rather than to be perfect.

dagilechia wrote: ↑29 May 2019, 15:07 remember guys that this ranking and the voting system etc is also just a kind of fun. this ranking is not going to be perfect (there are no perfect rankings) but it's still very good imo. it has to show the boxrec's posters opinion rather than to be perfect.

..sure thing, Dag and you are doing great taking care of it..

ewenhay wrote: ↑28 May 2019, 17:30 Everyone who bothered to vote in the alloted time period then.

That's where I struggle.
Due to the time difference, I am 12 hours ahead of the UK, so I know the result before it has even been voted upon by you guys...

ewenhay wrote: ↑29 May 2019, 14:47 The rules of engagement were set when the thread was created. More than 50 forum members participated in the initial list by naming their top 15 lists, the results of which were accumulated to create a consolidated list. Every forum member has then had the opportunity to revise the list on a fight by fight basis.

Do you really want the rules to be changed just so you can rank Hunter above Chisora or Breazeale?

Unless i'm mistaken, the rules didn't explicitly mention this? and where did i state changing them to rank Hunter above Chisora or Breazeale? That's not how i voted. I'm discussing how to maintain a ranking system in this voting format to allow us to effectively rank the boxers.

P.S. it was much less than 50.

dagilechia wrote: ↑29 May 2019, 15:07 remember guys that this ranking and the voting system etc is also just a kind of fun. this ranking is not going to be perfect (there are no perfect rankings) but it's still very good imo. it has to show the boxrec's posters opinion rather than to be perfect.

I agree. And thanks for maintaining it all. Just trying to point out how it could be more accurate if we were able to also vote to adjust positions because of common opponents within a short time period.

joshj909 wrote: ↑29 May 2019, 15:28 Unless i'm mistaken, the rules didn't explicitly mention this? and where did i state changing them to rank Hunter above Chisora or Breazeale? That's not how i voted. I'm discussing how to maintain a ranking system in this voting format to allow us to effectively rank the boxers.

P.S. it was much less than 50.



I agree. And thanks for maintaining it all. Just trying to point out how it could be more accurate if we were able to also vote to adjust positions because of common opponents within a short time period.

I think the list is pretty good. Everyone will individually have a slightly different order but in the main I think its a better list than we see from any of the alphabet bodies and even some of the other independent lists. Once you get past the first 7 or 8 there's not a lot to choose between the rest of the top 15 or 20.

greg wrote: ↑29 May 2019, 15:10 ..sure thing, Dag and you are doing great taking care of it..

thanks nice to hear that

joshj909 wrote: ↑29 May 2019, 15:28
P.S. it was much less than 50.

unfortunately, you are right - it was 20. it's still not that bad, and probably the list wouldn't change a lot anyway.

joshj909 wrote: ↑29 May 2019, 15:28 Unless i'm mistaken, the rules didn't explicitly mention this? and where did i state changing them to rank Hunter above Chisora or Breazeale? That's not how i voted. I'm discussing how to maintain a ranking system in this voting format to allow us to effectively rank the boxers.

P.S. it was much less than 50.



I agree. And thanks for maintaining it all. Just trying to point out how it could be more accurate if we were able to also vote to adjust positions because of common opponents within a short time period.

Live ratings would be more accurate but also need adjusting constantly. The use of the Elo system used in chess and now adopted by FIFA could be examined by those who currently run the sport if they ever decide they need greater accuracy.

I feel that Hunter and Hrgovic right now could well be top 5 provisionally with Ortiz, Povetkin and Pulev all exiting the top 10 soon.

The heavyweight revival is truly underway. See what money can do?

greg wrote: ↑29 May 2019, 15:10 ..sure thing, Dag and you are doing great taking care of it..

x2