BoxRec

Now you see my argument all along. You cannot make a perfect computerized system, so why not strive for something different?

You can't make a perfect predictive system, either. I'd say the system you have now may even be better than The Ring or ESPN's rankings in many cases.

jujigatame wrote:

Now you see my argument all along. You cannot make a perfect computerized system, so why not strive for something different?

You can't make a perfect predictive system, either. I'd say the system you have now may even be better than The Ring or ESPN's rankings in many cases.

A predictive system would be an alternative system in which imperfect results would merely suggest more programming or simply understanding that no one can predict the future. Surely traditional rankings should always make sense. How often do people dispute the Ring?

Why suddenly go back and throw something out to debate?

Is Juan Manuel Marquez above Chris John in a traditional system acceptable? How about Mariano Carrera ahead of Arthur Abraham? I could go on..

How often do people dispute the Ring?

I do plenty. Why the hell is Spend Abazi rated #6 at featherweight? Why is Virgil Hill in the cruiserweight top 10? And so forth.

jujigatame wrote:

How often do people dispute the Ring?

I do plenty. Why the hell is Spend Abazi rated #6 at featherweight? Why is Virgil Hill in the cruiserweight top 10? And so forth.

Virgil Hill I see nothing wrong with.. Abazi, I've never seen the guy fight but #6 does appear high.

Either way, not all will be pleased with ANY system.

JCS83MD wrote:

jujigatame wrote:

How often do people dispute the Ring?

I do plenty. Why the hell is Spend Abazi rated #6 at featherweight? Why is Virgil Hill in the cruiserweight top 10? And so forth.

Virgil Hill I see nothing wrong with.. Abazi, I've never seen the guy fight but #6 does appear high.

Either way, not all will be pleased with ANY system.

Just look about a month or so back at the Ring Top 100 thread, I had plenty of qualms with their ratings.

JAHamilton77 wrote:

JCS83MD wrote:

jujigatame wrote: I do plenty. Why the hell is Spend Abazi rated #6 at featherweight? Why is Virgil Hill in the cruiserweight top 10? And so forth.

Virgil Hill I see nothing wrong with.. Abazi, I've never seen the guy fight but #6 does appear high.

Either way, not all will be pleased with ANY system.

Just look about a month or so back at the Ring Top 100 thread, I had plenty of qualms with their ratings.

Thats a P4P Top 100 which spanned a year.. that's a nutty list to begin with! I was speaking of their usual rankings by weight.

Would it be difficult to be able to view ratings at a state level?

I think it would be a great addition.

Thanks.

Carrera vs. Castillejo should be changed to "no contest", shouldn't it?
I wonder what the effect on the 160 ranking would be.

I get a lot from it,thanks John!

pundit wrote:Carrera vs. Castillejo should be changed to "no contest", shouldn't it?
I wonder what the effect on the 160 ranking would be.

You can read on:

http://www.wbaonline.com

NOTE

We would like apologize for the delay in the statements regarding the World Champion Mariano Carrera. At present the World Championships Committee is considering the affected party, who has not requested the opening of the second sample as stipulated by article 18.12, Chapter Drugs and Stimulants, of the World Championships Regulations.

WBA Anti-drug regulation

Rating anomaly alert:

How did Irene Pacheco end up behind Heriberto Ruiz in the bantamweight rankings, despite the fact that in Pacheco beat Ruiz in Ruiz's last fight, and Pacheco has not lost or had any long layoffs since then?

jujigatame wrote:Rating anomaly alert:

How did Irene Pacheco end up behind Heriberto Ruiz in the bantamweight rankings, despite the fact that in Pacheco beat Ruiz in Ruiz's last fight, and Pacheco has not lost or had any long layoffs since then?

Its likely that Pacheco's narrow SD win over a lower ranked contender lowered Pacheco's rating. Either that, or he was hit with an opposition quality penalty of some sort.

Gotcha. I shoulda figured it was the narrow SD over Leon Moore.

jujigatame wrote:Gotcha. I shoulda figured it was the narrow SD over Leon Moore.

The fact that it was classified as home turf only for Pacheco, penalized him quite a bit.

pundit wrote:Carrera vs. Castillejo should be changed to "no contest", shouldn't it?
I wonder what the effect on the 160 ranking would be.

Bump

pundit wrote:

pundit wrote:Carrera vs. Castillejo should be changed to "no contest", shouldn't it?
I wonder what the effect on the 160 ranking would be.

Bump

Probably a better question for the Records forum.

While you're at it, ask about Guerrero vs Salido and Nino vs Viloria

So far, the Nevada commission hasn’t changed the decision on either fight.
http://boxing.nv.gov/2006Results/11-04-06.pdf
http://boxing.nv.gov/2006Results/11-18-06.pdf

and the WBA hasn’t made their decision yet.
http://www.wbaonline.com/

NOTE
We would like apologize for the delay in the statements regarding the World Champion Mariano Carrera. At present the World Championships Committee is considering the affected party, who has not requested the opening of the second sample as stipulated by article 18.12, Chapter Drugs and Stimulants, of the World Championships Regulations.

Would someone by any chance have the patience to help an idiot like me understand how the rankings work (in a practical sense)

Basically, I want to fins out how a boxers' rating would fair if he continually fought guys making their debut.

Here's two German Cruisers, both winning on their debut against guys 0-0. One won by KO1, the other by TKO2. I thought this used to have a bearing on the rating (with TKO having a slightly higher weighting) but anyway, that's a different story.)

http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=377353
http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=356496

Anyway, they both have a points tally of 7. Basically, could I ask how their score is calculated, in practical terms? I've highlighted the rules I think relevant to calculating it, but just can't do it.

KO, TKO, RTD are rewarded with full value v=1, cd=1.

The winner gets a certain part of the opponent's points and additionaly a certain part of the rating difference to the opponent's rating. The winner gets 10 additional points, if his opponent's rating is higher than a quarter of his own rating.

Right, this is the formula
r_a_new = r_a + 0.345*v*r_b + 0.345/(1+2*cl)*(r_b - r_a)

Both boxers having a rating of 0, and v=1, cd=1, which only gives me a score of 0 for r_a_new. What's heppening

I'd like to point out that applying the hometown factor to a KO win makes absolutely no sense, and even when applied in the case of a decision it may be a bit too strong. Javier Mamani jumping like 20 spots and breaking into the top 5 after KOing Crazy Kim is completely nonsensical.

jujigatame wrote:I'd like to point out that applying the hometown factor to a KO win makes absolutely no sense, and even when applied in the case of a decision it may be a bit too strong. Javier Mamani jumping like 20 spots and breaking into the top 5 after KOing Crazy Kim is completely nonsensical.

It does appear too severe. Maybe we should give a little more credit than normal when a fighter going to another's home site and knocking him out but obviously not a ton. All in all, the home factor could use some fine tuning and should definitely not come into play for really wide decisions.

I think until it's been perfected, the hometown factor should be very made very minimal, or maybe even eliminated altogether, especially in the case of non-decisions.

jomothepure wrote:Would someone by any chance have the patience to help an idiot like me understand how the rankings work (in a practical sense)

Basically, I want to fins out how a boxers' rating would fair if he continually fought guys making their debut.

Here's two German Cruisers, both winning on their debut against guys 0-0. One won by KO1, the other by TKO2. I thought this used to have a bearing on the rating (with TKO having a slightly higher weighting) but anyway, that's a different story.)

http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=377353
http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=356496

Anyway, they both have a points tally of 7. Basically, could I ask how their score is calculated, in practical terms? I've highlighted the rules I think relevant to calculating it, but just can't do it.

KO, TKO, RTD are rewarded with full value v=1, cd=1.

The winner gets a certain part of the opponent's points and additionaly a certain part of the rating difference to the opponent's rating. The winner gets 10 additional points, if his opponent's rating is higher than a quarter of his own rating.

Right, this is the formula
r_a_new = r_a + 0.345*v*r_b + 0.345/(1+2*cl)*(r_b - r_a)

Both boxers having a rating of 0, and v=1, cd=1, which only gives me a score of 0 for r_a_new. What's heppening

You are right, the formula gives 0 points - but

The winner gets 10 additional points, if his opponent's rating is higher than a quarter of his own rating. Both were at 0 points.

So he is at 10 points - and now the rule is applied, that he didn't defeat a quality opponent (25% of his own rating of 10) within 18 month - and he is at 7.5 points finally (he loses 25% from his 10 points).

You see 7 points in the ratings.

jujigatame wrote:I'd like to point out that applying the hometown factor to a KO win makes absolutely no sense, and even when applied in the case of a decision it may be a bit too strong. Javier Mamani jumping like 20 spots and breaking into the top 5 after KOing Crazy Kim is completely nonsensical.

Mamani was already rated high before the fight at #9 - he got some 150 points and improved to this level now. The field of boxers is very close in this area and so few points make a lot of ranks.

Are you telling me that before he KOed Kim in Japan, Mamani was already ahead of Alcine, who had beat him dominantly less than 1 year ago?

jujigatame wrote:Are you telling me that before he KOed Kim in Japan, Mamani was already ahead of Alcine, who had beat him dominantly less than 1 year ago?

The hometown factor likely played a large role here... as Mamani was the outsider.. thus not being penalized very much for the WIDE loss.

Which supports my thoughts that the really wide decisions shouldn't be impacted by hometown factor... as they would've lost anywhere.

Hometown factor should affect everything but real wide decision.. and it should be turned down from its current status.