BoxRec

Posted: **23 Aug 2006, 14:37**

Just tinkering around on test... a few minor changes

- Increased UD decisions (CD 50->60) which are considered close
- Considered DQ a factor of 0.2, rather than 0.4

Predict Rate - 76.456% up from 76.3xx% (I believe)

Bouts as of 8/3/06

Heavyweight, Light Heavyweight, and Middleweight provided

Code: Select all


Heavyweight	874	Wladimir Klitschko
Heavyweight	655	Nikolay Valuev
Heavyweight	654	John Ruiz
Heavyweight	622	James Toney
Heavyweight	604	Chris Byrd
Heavyweight	596	Hasim Rahman
Heavyweight	572	Serguei Lyakhovich
Heavyweight	530	Calvin Brock
Heavyweight	448	Matt Skelton
Heavyweight	432	Lamon Brewster
Heavyweight	391	Samuel Peter
Heavyweight	388	Tony Thompson
Heavyweight	371	Oleg Maskaev
Heavyweight	355	Vladimir Virchis
Heavyweight	350	Ruslan Chagaev
Heavyweight	340	DaVarryl Williamson
Heavyweight	336	Sinan Samil Sam
Heavyweight	313	Danny Williams
Heavyweight	304	Oliver McCall
Heavyweight	292	Henry Akinwande

Light Heavyweight	1138	Antonio Tarver
Light Heavyweight	885	Glen Johnson
Light Heavyweight	775	Fabrice Tiozzo
Light Heavyweight	736	Roy Jones Jr
Light Heavyweight	688	Zsolt Erdei
Light Heavyweight	657	Clinton Woods
Light Heavyweight	598	Tomasz Adamek
Light Heavyweight	413	Paul Briggs
Light Heavyweight	413	Stipe Drews
Light Heavyweight	412	Julio Gonzalez
Light Heavyweight	385	Montell Griffin
Light Heavyweight	370	Chad Dawson
Light Heavyweight	312	Silvio Branco
Light Heavyweight	286	Adrian Diaconu
Light Heavyweight	282	Hugo Hernan Garay
Light Heavyweight	276	Prince Badi Ajamu
Light Heavyweight	263	George Khalid Jones
Light Heavyweight	247	Thomas Ulrich
Light Heavyweight	225	Peter Haymer
Light Heavyweight	225	Mehdi Sahnoune

Middleweight	1539	Ronald Wright
Middleweight	1455	Jermain Taylor
Middleweight	720	Arthur Abraham
Middleweight	493	Javier Castillejo
Middleweight	490	Sam Soliman
Middleweight	477	Sergio Mora
Middleweight	377	Raymond Joval
Middleweight	360	Kelly Pavlik
Middleweight	340	Edison Miranda
Middleweight	339	Kingsley Ikeke
Middleweight	337	Felix Sturm
Middleweight	332	David Alfonso Lopez
Middleweight	330	Evans Ashira
Middleweight	286	Amin Asikainen
Middleweight	285	Verno Phillips
Middleweight	278	Sebastian Sylvester
Middleweight	277	Gary Lockett
Middleweight	277	Willie Gibbs
Middleweight	271	Enrique Ornelas
Middleweight	265	Giovanni Lorenzo

Only subtle changes

Posted: **23 Aug 2006, 22:56**

All-time rankings are kinda screwy.

Posted: **24 Aug 2006, 08:12**

now what

Posted: **24 Aug 2006, 08:49**

I think Martin equalized the ratings independent from weightclass -- Now if only he would incorporate my changes above :)

You all must understand, these ratings were made by looking at a current scene and they are merely only pleasing you all for a snapshot in time. As time evolves, they may look grossly distorted and then let the complaining start. I believe that began to happen last time and thus the predictive system was incorporated.

:)

Posted: **24 Aug 2006, 10:23**

JCS83MD wrote:I think Martin equalized the ratings independent from weightclass -- Now if only he would incorporate my changes above :)

You all must understand, these ratings were made by looking at a current scene and they are merely only pleasing you all for a snapshot in time. As time evolves, they may look grossly distorted and then let the complaining start. I believe that began to happen last time and thus the predictive system was incorporated.

:)

Yes, and nothing looked grossly distorted in the last system

:)

What does "equalized the ratings independent from weightclass" mean?

Posted: **24 Aug 2006, 10:26**

emile wrote:
JCS83MD wrote:I think Martin equalized the ratings independent from weightclass -- Now if only he would incorporate my changes above :)

You all must understand, these ratings were made by looking at a current scene and they are merely only pleasing you all for a snapshot in time. As time evolves, they may look grossly distorted and then let the complaining start. I believe that began to happen last time and thus the predictive system was incorporated.

:)
Yes, and nothing looked grossly distorted in the last system :)

What does "equalized the ratings independent from weightclass" mean?

Like I said 100 times, its all a matter of perception. If you were looking for a IBO/Ring like ranking from the last system, it wasn't it - OBVIOUSLY.

It means that rather than update the database w/ a divisional rating, he updated the database w/ more of a "career" rating. This makes the P4P look better, but one could argue that it does not look as "traditional" in the division lists.

Posted: **24 Aug 2006, 10:49**

Cobwebcat wrote:When will this be corrected/Updated

What would the all time top 10 in P4P look like?

W/ the updates I'm posting you mean?

Posted: **24 Aug 2006, 10:52**

Cobwebcat wrote:All time. Not Current.

But with what ratings? The ones currently live, or the ones I'm testing to improve rates?

Posted: **24 Aug 2006, 11:01**

I'll post results from the ratings I'm testing.. Current system w/ some mods.

I wouldn't expect them to be very accurate though.

Posted: **24 Aug 2006, 11:04**

Another slight improvement

- Broke fight factors into three areas (0.4, 0.3, 0.2)
-- 0.4 = KO, TKO, RTD, Wider UD, PTS Decisions
-- 0.3 = DQ, NWS, Close UD, PTS (CD between 45-90)
-- 0.2 = Closest UD, SD, MD, PTS

- Reduced Inactivity Drop from 50% to 40%
- Quality of opponent decrease happens at 15 months (was 18 months)

Predict Rate - 76.822% up from 76.3xx% (Current Live System)

Bouts as of 8/3/06

P4P, Heavyweight, Light Heavyweight, and Middleweight

Code: Select all


P4P

1	2484	Floyd Mayweather Jr
2	2091	Ronald Wright
3	1973	Jermain Taylor
4	1777	Ricky Hatton
5	1777	Marco Antonio Barrera
6	1537	Jose Luis Castillo
7	1501	Manny Pacquiao
8	1431	Antonio Margarito
9	1401	Joe Calzaghe
10	1385	Shane Mosley
11	1368	Rafael Marquez
12	1365	Carlos Manuel Baldomir
13	1232	Chris John
14	1226	Miguel Angel Cotto
15	1197	Antonio Tarver
16	1196	Israel Vazquez
17	1114	Diego Corrales
18	1083	Juan Diaz
19	1079	Jorge Armando Arce
20	1067	Jorge Rodrigo Barrios
21	1059	Glen Johnson
22	1053	Junior Witter
23	1041	Jhonny Gonzalez
24	1036	Scott Harrison
25	1025	Kassim Ouma


Heavyweight	746		Wladimir Klitschko
Heavyweight	593		James Toney
Heavyweight	570		Nikolay Valuev
Heavyweight	569		John Ruiz
Heavyweight	539		Hasim Rahman
Heavyweight	491		Chris Byrd
Heavyweight	488		Calvin Brock
Heavyweight	433		Samuel Peter
Heavyweight	412		Serguei Lyakhovich
Heavyweight	411		Lamon Brewster
Heavyweight	392		Tony Thompson
Heavyweight	384		Matt Skelton
Heavyweight	349		Vladimir Virchis
Heavyweight	334		Ruslan Chagaev
Heavyweight	329		DaVarryl Williamson
Heavyweight	312		Danny Williams
Heavyweight	296		Sinan Samil Sam
Heavyweight	291		Sultan Ibragimov
Heavyweight	285		Jameel McCline
Heavyweight	284		Oleg Maskaev

Light Heavyweight	1197		Antonio Tarver
Light Heavyweight	1059		Glen Johnson
Light Heavyweight	909		Zsolt Erdei
Light Heavyweight	819		Roy Jones Jr
Light Heavyweight	752		Clinton Woods
Light Heavyweight	732		Tomasz Adamek
Light Heavyweight	661		Fabrice Tiozzo
Light Heavyweight	533		Stipe Drews
Light Heavyweight	515		Julio Gonzalez
Light Heavyweight	503		Chad Dawson
Light Heavyweight	481		Paul Briggs
Light Heavyweight	445		Montell Griffin
Light Heavyweight	407		Silvio Branco
Light Heavyweight	390		Hugo Hernan Garay
Light Heavyweight	362		Adrian Diaconu
Light Heavyweight	354		Prince Badi Ajamu
Light Heavyweight	323		Thomas Ulrich
Light Heavyweight	311		Peter Haymer
Light Heavyweight	302		George Khalid Jones
Light Heavyweight	289		Mehdi Sahnoune

Middleweight	2091		Ronald Wright
Middleweight	1973		Jermain Taylor
Middleweight	1015		Arthur Abraham
Middleweight	724		Sam Soliman
Middleweight	651		Javier Castillejo
Middleweight	643		Sergio Mora
Middleweight	566		Raymond Joval
Middleweight	518		Kelly Pavlik
Middleweight	486		David Alfonso Lopez
Middleweight	483		Felix Sturm
Middleweight	477		Kingsley Ikeke
Middleweight	464		Edison Miranda
Middleweight	453		Verno Phillips
Middleweight	413		Gary Lockett
Middleweight	407		Willie Gibbs
Middleweight	404		Amin Asikainen
Middleweight	397		Evans Ashira
Middleweight	394		Giovanni Lorenzo
Middleweight	392		Enrique Ornelas
Middleweight	385		Sebastian Sylvester

Posted: **24 Aug 2006, 11:07**

Cobwebcat wrote:Oh right.

Whichever is likely to be adopted I suppose.

Also why has Acelino Freitas jumped 2 places to the top overnight?

Ratings have been altered so they are optimized for P4P/career, not divisional.

Code: Select all



| Sugar Ray  | Robinson    | 6037.02830113096 |
| Carlos     | Ortiz       | 5633.51458812218 |
| Carlos     | Monzon      | 5544.83116774051 |
| Gene       | Fullmer     | 5194.93883964902 |
| Archie     | Moore       | 5171.88217701821 |
| Emile      | Griffith    | 5002.90431471824 |
| Dick       | Tiger       | 4908.24451475306 |
| Carmen     | Basilio     | 4481.56184905646 |
| Barney     | Ross        | 4441.03142356538 |
| Henry      | Armstrong   | 4393.57984777723 |

Posted: **24 Aug 2006, 11:11**

Cobwebcat wrote:No Ali!?

I rest my case :)

Here's a bigger list

Code: Select all

| Sugar Ray   | Robinson    | 6037.02830113096 |
| Carlos      | Ortiz       | 5633.51458812218 |
| Carlos      | Monzon      | 5544.83116774051 |
| Gene        | Fullmer     | 5194.93883964902 |
| Archie      | Moore       | 5171.88217701821 |
| Emile       | Griffith    | 5002.90431471824 |
| Dick        | Tiger       | 4908.24451475306 |
| Carmen      | Basilio     | 4481.56184905646 |
| Barney      | Ross        | 4441.03142356538 |
| Henry       | Armstrong   | 4393.57984777723 |
| Young       | Corbett III | 4329.2544902171  |
| Kid         | Gavilan     | 4252.45753446076 |
| Marvin      | Hagler      | 4181.14849137904 |
| Jimmy       | McLarnin    | 4131.800737005   |
| Jose Angel  | Napoles     | 4118.0095672965  |
| Harold      | Johnson     | 4092.53696216359 |
| Joe         | Louis       | 4066.47436689095 |
| Carl 'Bobo' | Olson       | 3986.84748378554 |
| Muhammad    | Ali         | 3962.80335072226 |
| Tony        | Canzoneri   | 3949.4897273027  |
| Ike         | Williams    | 3888.22209513042 |
| Rocky       | Marciano    | 3851.91149892235 |
| Luis Manuel | Rodriguez   | 3851.42740880491 |
| Lou         | Ambers      | 3817.93364267327 |
| Joey        | Giardello   | 3792.35361104124 |

Posted: **24 Aug 2006, 11:13**

Keep in mind that a lot of older pre-1940s bouts are missing and that the ratings are optimized for today's world. We should really be handicapping these older fighters.

I'll post a Top 100 just for shits and giggles.

Code: Select all

| Sugar Ray     | Robinson      | 6037.02830113096 |
| Carlos        | Ortiz         | 5633.51458812218 |
| Carlos        | Monzon        | 5544.83116774051 |
| Gene          | Fullmer       | 5194.93883964902 |
| Archie        | Moore         | 5171.88217701821 |
| Emile         | Griffith      | 5002.90431471824 |
| Dick          | Tiger         | 4908.24451475306 |
| Carmen        | Basilio       | 4481.56184905646 |
| Barney        | Ross          | 4441.03142356538 |
| Henry         | Armstrong     | 4393.57984777723 |
| Young         | Corbett III   | 4329.2544902171  |
| Kid           | Gavilan       | 4252.45753446076 |
| Marvin        | Hagler        | 4181.14849137904 |
| Jimmy         | McLarnin      | 4131.800737005   |
| Jose Angel    | Napoles       | 4118.0095672965  |
| Harold        | Johnson       | 4092.53696216359 |
| Joe           | Louis         | 4066.47436689095 |
| Carl 'Bobo'   | Olson         | 3986.84748378554 |
| Muhammad      | Ali           | 3962.80335072226 |
| Tony          | Canzoneri     | 3949.4897273027  |
| Ike           | Williams      | 3888.22209513042 |
| Rocky         | Marciano      | 3851.91149892235 |
| Luis Manuel   | Rodriguez     | 3851.42740880491 |
| Lou           | Ambers        | 3817.93364267327 |
| Joey          | Giardello     | 3792.35361104124 |
| Beau          | Jack          | 3710.78796936041 |
| Ezzard        | Charles       | 3510.68564760113 |
| Nino          | Benvenuti     | 3414.25202443048 |
| Bob           | Montgomery    | 3367.12890323722 |
| Floyd         | Patterson     | 3352.65709427231 |
| Willie        | Pep           | 3329.89501902794 |
| Vicente       | Saldivar      | 3306.42053516583 |
| Sammy         | Angott        | 3271.82262909481 |
| Sugar Ray     | Leonard       | 3257.15402812116 |
| Duilio        | Loi           | 3253.48281469204 |
| Kenny         | Lane          | 3202.25142492042 |
| Davey         | Moore         | 3139.67569704382 |
| Johnny        | Saxton        | 3075.84340023512 |
| Eddie         | Perkins       | 3075.51123033318 |
| Nicolino      | Locche        | 3009.45304665673 |
| Billy         | Conn          | 2984.91724451344 |
| Benny         | Leonard       | 2948.30133717571 |
| Joe           | Brown         | 2867.70069690818 |
| Pernell       | Whitaker      | 2831.92272749086 |
| Harry         | Greb          | 2777.19347880822 |
| Jack          | Carroll       | 2776.49870318271 |
| Jimmy         | Bivins        | 2722.46483413131 |
| Curtis        | Cokes         | 2721.30172895718 |
| Oscar         | De La Hoya    | 2691.29768437819 |
| Ismael        | Laguna        | 2689.8524307461  |
| Marcel        | Thil          | 2670.06260132105 |
| Bob           | Foster        | 2658.26796007823 |
| Flash         | Elorde        | 2650.5147737267  |
| Freddie       | Steele        | 2640.42780223155 |
| Thomas        | Hearns        | 2639.44872953958 |
| Sonny         | Liston        | 2631.0112991337  |
| Jackie        | Fields        | 2626.12925474438 |
| Joey          | Archer        | 2624.33640225337 |
| Terry         | Downes        | 2603.45514121343 |
| Rodrigo       | Valdez        | 2590.62802620113 |
| Spider        | Webb          | 2589.5470638599  |
| Jake          | LaMotta       | 2565.34702660896 |
| Fred          | Apostoli      | 2563.89123730414 |
| Ralph         | Dupas         | 2560.99219825097 |
| Mickey        | Walker        | 2545.69442754685 |
| Randy         | Turpin        | 2534.12366872408 |
| Joey          | Maxim         | 2526.80157088501 |
| Carlos        | Hernandez     | 2510.91212298185 |
| Freddie       | Dawson        | 2508.50171995886 |
| Aaron         | Pryor         | 2496.78315146392 |
| Charles       | Humez         | 2477.00374217779 |
| Jimmy         | Carter        | 2463.3849252054  |
| Carlos Teo    | Cruz          | 2433.70500535636 |
| Johnny        | Indrisano     | 2433.29359075971 |
| Sugar         | Ramos         | 2431.89536531768 |
| Julio Cesar   | Chavez        | 2431.26971166246 |
| Joey          | Giambra       | 2427.50816605511 |
| Willie        | Pastrano      | 2402.43393581317 |
| Maxie         | Rosenbloom    | 2400.08248955938 |
| Andy          | Callahan      | 2397.08626954898 |
| Holman        | Williams      | 2383.78829409723 |
| John          | Conteh        | 2375.95257525346 |
| Victor Emilio | Galindez      | 2361.72146016028 |
| Larry         | Holmes        | 2358.43281067504 |
| Gustav        | Scholz        | 2354.61005221801 |
| Brian         | Curvis        | 2348.79957541434 |
| Roberto       | Duran         | 2348.33307780997 |
| Bernard       | Hopkins       | 2344.65814444454 |
| Tippy         | Larkin        | 2339.46360999809 |
| Sandy         | Saddler       | 2338.74930508827 |
| Naseem        | Hamed         | 2319.79342369155 |
| Floyd         | Mayweather Jr | 2309.47776130535 |
| Sandro        | Mazzinghi     | 2297.06698888662 |
| Billy         | Petrolle      | 2295.66870982609 |
| Rocky         | Castellani    | 2276.10428782631 |
| Terry         | Norris        | 2273.11264041332 |
| Mike          | McCallum      | 2261.22976933555 |
| Tony          | DeMarco       | 2260.72777799117 |
| Roy           | Jones Jr      | 2260.18302088212 |
| John Henry    | Lewis         | 2252.26636428777 |

Posted: **24 Aug 2006, 11:38**

I don't want to see the current ratings messed with too much for the sake of improving the all-time ratings. While the all-time ratings are fun, they are a totally speculative exercise of comparing fighters from very different historically time periods. Since the all-time measure itself (best total over 5 years) is just an arbitrary choice point - that's what should be fiddled with to make the all-time ratings look better. Change the time period, or create a new measure. Maybe something like the adjusted stats for baseball - reward fighters who were the most dominant in their era rather than try to use a single metric to compare all of them together.

The current ratings, on the other hand, are not a toy. They are actually used for matchmaking, sanctioning, and promotion purposes. I'm not saying that this latest adjustment is bad, because I don't know how it was derived - but I would like to see some stability in the current ratings for a while.

Posted: **24 Aug 2006, 11:41**

emile wrote:I don't want to see the current ratings messed with too much for the sake of improving the all-time ratings. While the all-time ratings are fun, they are a totally speculative exercise of comparing fighters from very different historically time periods. Since the all-time measure itself (best total over 5 years) is just an arbitrary choice point - that's what should be fiddled with to make the all-time ratings look better. Change the time period, or create a new measure. Maybe something like the adjusted stats for baseball - reward fighters who were the most dominant in their era rather than try to use a single metric to compare all of them together.

The current ratings, on the other hand, are not a toy. They are actually used for matchmaking, sanctioning, and promotion purposes. I'm not saying that this latest adjustment is bad, because I don't know how it was derived - but I would like to see some stability in the current ratings for a while.

Maybe those who are seriously using the system should use IBO as their system is a mystical secret as are its changes.

Posted: **24 Aug 2006, 11:44**

Cobwebcat wrote:I can see the sense in that but I liked the all-time and they need drastically altering to make sense. I'm sure that can be done without upsetting "current"

Those all-time figs are so bad I wouldn't publish until they are adjusted

Remember the All-Time ratings from the predictive system? If memory serves correct, they weren't so bad at all. Maybe this is a sign of something...

Those all-time ratings I believe are from the current system, but I dont imagine my testing improved them all that much.

If you give me time, I can produce the all-time ratings from the previously used system + latest enhancements that never made it.

Posted: **24 Aug 2006, 11:59**

JCS83MD wrote: Maybe those who are seriously using the system should use IBO as their system is a mystical secret as are its changes.

I think its for the best they keep it a secret, because its quite easy to game these systems if you know how they are created.

Posted: **24 Aug 2006, 12:00**

emile wrote:
JCS83MD wrote: Maybe those who are seriously using the system should use IBO as their system is a mystical secret as are its changes.
I think its for the best they keep it a secret, because its quite easy to game these systems if you know how they are created.

They can also mask the fact that they're doing manual changes behind closed doors. I've seen some interesting movement of fighters on there..

Posted: **24 Aug 2006, 12:09**

CobWeb

Here is the Top 50 from the Best Predictive Ratings which never got released (5 Best Years)

Code: Select all

| Oscar         | De La Hoya    | 2064.81232134621 |
| Sugar Ray     | Robinson      | 2042.02613381611 |
| Ike           | Williams      | 2041.76700302035 |
| Muhammad      | Ali           | 2012.23727569841 |
| Henry         | Armstrong     | 2007.41491262254 |
| Carlos        | Monzon        | 2005.87586314998 |
| Naseem        | Hamed         | 2004.39359922628 |
| Marvin        | Hagler        | 2000.61655071512 |
| Floyd         | Mayweather Jr | 1987.24941185935 |
| Sugar Ray     | Leonard       | 1987.15469869271 |
| Joe           | Louis         | 1986.44425411519 |
| Davey         | Moore         | 1984.18276636864 |
| Carlos        | Ortiz         | 1984.11591087347 |
| Mike          | Tyson         | 1977.16962033522 |
| Kid           | Gavilan       | 1962.94740893949 |
| Ezzard        | Charles       | 1940.88979491201 |
| Rocky         | Marciano      | 1939.52535915137 |
| Vicente       | Saldivar      | 1935.52581959475 |
| Jose Angel    | Napoles       | 1932.71622187618 |
| Pernell       | Whitaker      | 1931.22293703604 |
| Alexis        | Arguello      | 1929.01963460997 |
| Luis Manuel   | Rodriguez     | 1927.90875735805 |
| Roy           | Jones Jr      | 1927.5474157664  |
| Barney        | Ross          | 1927.53769331541 |
| Thomas        | Hearns        | 1925.10542466472 |
| Michael       | Nunn          | 1925.04864259831 |
| Kenny         | Lane          | 1921.4138192183  |
| Bernard       | Hopkins       | 1921.15491348588 |
| Larry         | Holmes        | 1916.87557701921 |
| Emile         | Griffith      | 1914.25771496534 |
| Archie        | Moore         | 1911.13931631247 |
| Aaron         | Pryor         | 1908.31390499913 |
| Felix         | Trinidad      | 1906.00325153051 |
| Kostya        | Tszyu         | 1903.54800569117 |
| Tony          | Canzoneri     | 1903.04666782354 |
| Carl 'Bobo'   | Olson         | 1900.85423690023 |
| Carmen        | Basilio       | 1898.63198606611 |
| Sugar         | Ramos         | 1898.27951960378 |
| Eder          | Jofre         | 1896.70154338189 |
| Beau          | Jack          | 1896.07488569562 |
| Sonny         | Liston        | 1894.94712086117 |
| Terry         | Norris        | 1893.60815365246 |
| Julio Cesar   | Chavez        | 1892.6948081644  |
| Joe           | Frazier       | 1882.79969733435 |
| Hector        | Camacho       | 1881.58767523425 |
| Marco Antonio | Barrera       | 1879.78790301903 |
| Dick          | Tiger         | 1878.24503986678 |
| Eusebio       | Pedroza       | 1877.18842889006 |
| Gene          | Fullmer       | 1872.48208284744 |
| Willie        | Pep           | 1868.99568290903 |

Posted: **24 Aug 2006, 12:18**

Hi,

a few points.

1)

I don't think you should get carried away with the prediction rate again and I figured out why.

It's because the prediction rate is like a form guide i.e. who is going to win next. At the end of the last football season, Liverpool were the hottest team in England. If there had been predictive ratings for football, then at the end of the season Liverpool would've been ahead of Chelsea, because that would've helped in the task of obtaining the best percentage in predicting the results of the next matchups. However the 'new' career performance ratings reflects the performance over a longer period of time e.g. Chelsea ahead of Liverpool in the premiership table. As we've found out, most people want to see the league table, not the "whos in form list".

Because the predictive ratings were being used by boxrec, in-form boxers like Calvin Brock and Sechew Powell were being pushed ahead in the rankings. However most people were looking for career achievements in the rankings e.g. Wlad and Mosely at number 1. Occasionally the in-form fighters were the same fighters that had the best career achievements e.g Calzaghe. This was the equivalent to the middle of last football season, were Chelsea were not only the league leaders, but the most in-form team in the premiership.

If you start optimizing the new rankings for predictability again, then exactly the same thing will happen, the in-form fighters will start climbing the ranking again, at the sacrifice of boxers with more career achievements.

2)

Regarding your point above, dropping the DQ to 20% instead of 40% so that the predictability gets better.

Most DQ's that I have seen, have been desperation moves on the part of the losing boxer. It is a rare case where I think, gee that person got unfairly DQ'd out of a fight. I consider the DQ logically equivalent to a KO or TKO i.e. the loser cannot make it to the end of the fight.

In general, if you are intending to improve the career performance ratings, then you must try and match the public's perception of a win or loss. I think most people would rank a KO or TKO as higher dominance than a UD. Martin already has implemented this line of thinking with different points differences for a SD and a UD.

It is of course legitimate to tinker with the percentages, but only in the context of what matches the publics perceptions.

3)

I think the problem that most people had with Tarver's ranking, was the fact that he got his arse handed to him by Hopkins. There is neutral information available to this in boxrec such as a) Hopkins jumped two weight classes b) it was his first fight at this higher weight in 10 years and c) Tarver got his arse absolutely handed to him on the cards.

If you can work such factors into the calculation (whilst retaining clarity) then you will more accurately match the publics perception of the rankings. This is more important than the predictability rate for the 'career performance' ratings.

4)

A question. What can you read more into a) a wide UD (average 118-110) on neutral ground or b) a victory via TKO. Perhaps counter-intuitively, a wide UD tells me more about the relative skills of the two fighters. Anyone can bring it back with a KO in the 12th, but if you got your arse handed to you round after round, then it tells me, that one fighter was really substantially dominate. I think it would be a good idea to try and integrate wide UD's into the equation. This would help match the publics perception of the fighters, which is the goal of the 'career performance' ratings.

5)

Do you get too many points by defeating an elite fighter (ratings over 1200?). Everyone has to lose sometime. Every star is human and just one punch away from a loss. The underdog in this fight has the right to assume a very high position in the weight division, spoils go to the victor. The question though remains though, is the victor of an elite fighter, really an elite fighter himself? What I'm basically saying, is that the weight of the victory against an elite fighter is too much in comparison to victories against other non elite fighters.

Depending on the algorithm, Tarver got around 700 pts for his victory against Jones. Against any other fighter in the division, he would've got around 150. This vaulted Tarver into the elite fighter category. The question is, did he deserve to be there, or was this just 'his night'.

I think it is possible to use the 'neutral' information available for reflecting on this victory, though it might cost a lot in clarity. Firstly Tarver had already lost to Jones, so he was not substantially better. Secondly Tarver had already lost to another fighter in his previous five fights, so it was quite questionable whether Tarver was truly an elite fighter (losses to fighters at the beginning of your career can be forgiven). Also, the victory was much higher than any other victory he had had. This was not a case of an established p4p top 10 like DLH beating p4p 1 Pernell Whitaker and getting a heap of points for it. Perhaps these sorts of factors of the win against a p4p elite fighter can be taken into account in adjusting the points for the win.

I could even imagine a simpler solution where part of the mega point bonus is held back until some criteria is filled, perhaps a win against a +400 ranked fighter or even just a win against any fighter in his next fight. In Tarver's case, he would've not got the points as he suffered a defeat in his next outing against Glen Johnson. On the other hand, a victory against Johnson would've perhaps confirmed his eliteness.

This sort of holding back pts logic (only for wins against elite fighters), would probably help with stories like Buster Douglas beating Mike Tyson or Julio Gonzales beating Michaelzwevski. It reduces the overall impact of the dramatic upset of an aging champion.

conan

Posted: **24 Aug 2006, 12:27**

Congrats Conan, you were reply # "666" on this thread. I didnt know you were actually Satan

Posted: **24 Aug 2006, 12:32**

Conan,

I follow your argument on DQ. That is why, as you'll see in my latest attempts, I made DQ a 0.3, and split fight factors into 3 categories. Again, this is just testing I am not sure will ever be honored but when the stats improve, one would have to assume the change made better results than the programming that was once there.

I was planning on separating blowout decisions into its own category even higher than stoppages, however I assume this will negatively affect prediction rates and lose some clarity in the grand scheme of things. Also, it can be assumed that a fighter who went 12 rounds was not beat as badly as one who was knocked out, regardless of round or situation before this knockout. This argument has 2 valid sides to it.

What's unfortunate is that there is no real metric to gauge progress that is efficient and easy to interpret. Perhaps you, as a statistician, should provide one. :)

Posted: **24 Aug 2006, 12:35**

JAHamilton77 wrote:Congrats Conan, you were reply # "666" on this thread. I didnt know you were actually Satan

Ha, given the grief I've caused (amongst some +ve contributions) I think I deserve the 666.

conan

Posted: **24 Aug 2006, 12:43**

JCS83MD wrote:Conan,

I follow your argument on DQ. That is why, as you'll see in my latest attempts, I made DQ a 0.3, and split fight factors into 3 categories. Again, this is just testing I am not sure will ever be honored but when the stats improve, one would have to assume the change made better results than the programming that was once there.

I was planning on separating blowout decisions into its own category even higher than stoppages, however I assume this will negatively affect prediction rates and lose some clarity in the grand scheme of things. Also, it can be assumed that a fighter who went 12 rounds was not beat as badly as one who was knocked out, regardless of round or situation before this knockout. This argument has 2 valid sides to it.

What's unfortunate is that there is no real metric to gauge progress that is efficient and easy to interpret. Perhaps you, as a statistician, should provide one. :)

Just two quick suggestions one on DQ's and another on "Blow outs". if you do something with DQ's is there anyway you can sepaerate it between fights where a guy was winning when his opponent was DQ'd (same current credit ) and when he was losing when his opponent was DQ'd (fighter recieves less credit) and vice versa, take off less when a guy is DQ'd while winning and I guess the same as now when a a fight is DQ'd while losing.

As far as "Blowouts" I would only consider a "blowout" a complete shut out on all three cards, that would remove subjectivity of judges some. Of course if you want to lower the threshhold I guess you can say a fighter winning more than 3/4's of the rounds on all judges cards.

just some suggestions I am sure you have thought of these before. Dunno if they'd even have any effect on the ratings you come up with.

Posted: **24 Aug 2006, 12:45**

JAHamilton77 wrote:
JCS83MD wrote:Conan,

I follow your argument on DQ. That is why, as you'll see in my latest attempts, I made DQ a 0.3, and split fight factors into 3 categories. Again, this is just testing I am not sure will ever be honored but when the stats improve, one would have to assume the change made better results than the programming that was once there.

I was planning on separating blowout decisions into its own category even higher than stoppages, however I assume this will negatively affect prediction rates and lose some clarity in the grand scheme of things. Also, it can be assumed that a fighter who went 12 rounds was not beat as badly as one who was knocked out, regardless of round or situation before this knockout. This argument has 2 valid sides to it.

What's unfortunate is that there is no real metric to gauge progress that is efficient and easy to interpret. Perhaps you, as a statistician, should provide one. :)
Just two quick suggestions one on DQ's and another on "Blow outs". if you do something with DQ's is there anyway you can sepaerate it between fights where a guy was winning when his opponent was DQ'd (same current credit ) and when he was losing when his opponent was DQ'd (fighter recieves less credit) and vice versa, take off less when a guy is DQ'd while winning and I guess the same as now when a a fight is DQ'd while losing.

As far as "Blowouts" I would only consider a "blowout" a complete shut out on all three cards, that would remove subjectivity of judges some. Of course if you want to lower the threshhold I guess you can say a fighter winning more than 3/4's of the rounds on all judges cards.

just some suggestions I am sure you have thought of these before. Dunno if they'd even have any effect on the ratings you come up with.

The DQ separation is a "no go" because there are quite a few DQs in the database where the scorecards aren't listed. I am sure if all DQs had them listed, it would be a possibility.

In the past, I found success testing 12 round blowout swhere fighters had won by an average of 8 or more points per card.

BoxRec

Ratings - please read before commenting - Archived

Re: All Time

Re: ?