Page 35 of 180
Posted: 27 Mar 2007, 11:58
by JCS
Mikee wrote:question.
Julio Cesar Chavez (retired) fought Oscar De La Hoya (active). if DLH beats mayweather, his points value increases (yes/no?). Does this affect JCC's points?
i guess im asking, do current results affect the All time rankings of opponents of the active fighters if these opponents have retired?
i guess if this is the case, then every result must affect every fighter in some minute way? or is there a cut off point for how deep the result of one fight can affect the ratings (whcih i suppose is question again)
I can answer this.
Only ratings/accomplishments at the time of the bouts matter. In other words, DLH could beat Klitschko... but it doesn't affect DLH's rating when he beat JCC, since that was years ago. There are no retrospective alterations.
Posted: 27 Mar 2007, 12:03
by m1kee50
JCS wrote:Mikee wrote:question.
Julio Cesar Chavez (retired) fought Oscar De La Hoya (active). if DLH beats mayweather, his points value increases (yes/no?). Does this affect JCC's points?
i guess im asking, do current results affect the All time rankings of opponents of the active fighters if these opponents have retired?
i guess if this is the case, then every result must affect every fighter in some minute way? or is there a cut off point for how deep the result of one fight can affect the ratings (whcih i suppose is question again)
I can answer this.
Only ratings/accomplishments at the time of the bouts matter. In other words, DLH could beat Klitschko... but it doesn't affect DLH's rating when he beat JCC, since that was years ago. There are no retrospective alterations.
so JCC's rating is from the ratings of his opponents WHEN THEY FOUGHT HIM? have i got that right?
what about a newly discovered fight that occurred in the past (obviously lol) what does that do to the relevant fighters (indeed which fighters are relevant - how far does that change go, since the rankings of the fighters in their successive fights would then be different to before the fight was entered....)
Posted: 27 Mar 2007, 12:07
by JCS
Mikee wrote:JCS wrote:Mikee wrote:question.
Julio Cesar Chavez (retired) fought Oscar De La Hoya (active). if DLH beats mayweather, his points value increases (yes/no?). Does this affect JCC's points?
i guess im asking, do current results affect the All time rankings of opponents of the active fighters if these opponents have retired?
i guess if this is the case, then every result must affect every fighter in some minute way? or is there a cut off point for how deep the result of one fight can affect the ratings (whcih i suppose is question again)
I can answer this.
Only ratings/accomplishments at the time of the bouts matter. In other words, DLH could beat Klitschko... but it doesn't affect DLH's rating when he beat JCC, since that was years ago. There are no retrospective alterations.
so JCC's rating is from the ratings of his opponents WHEN THEY FOUGHT HIM? have i got that right?
what about a newly discovered fight that occurred in the past (obviously lol) what does that do to the relevant fighters (indeed which fighters are relevant - how far does that change go, since the rankings of the fighters in their successive fights would then be different to before the fight was entered....)
Everyday, the rating calculations start from bout 1 in the database, and work their way forward. If a new bout is added today, it will be included into the calculations tomorrow.
Its just a daisy chain of results... We start a Fight 1, end at Fight Whatever.
Posted: 27 Mar 2007, 12:07
by m1kee50
JCS wrote:Mikee wrote:JCS wrote:
I can answer this.
Only ratings/accomplishments at the time of the bouts matter. In other words, DLH could beat Klitschko... but it doesn't affect DLH's rating when he beat JCC, since that was years ago. There are no retrospective alterations.
so JCC's rating is from the ratings of his opponents WHEN THEY FOUGHT HIM? have i got that right?
what about a newly discovered fight that occurred in the past (obviously lol) what does that do to the relevant fighters (indeed which fighters are relevant - how far does that change go, since the rankings of the fighters in their successive fights would then be different to before the fight was entered....)
Everyday, the rating calculations start from bout 1 in the database, and work their way forward. If a new bout is added today, it will be included into the calculations tomorrow.
Its just a daisy chain of results... We start a Fight 1, end at Fight Whatever.
what is fight #1?
Posted: 27 Mar 2007, 12:08
by JCS
Mikee wrote:JCS wrote:Mikee wrote:
so JCC's rating is from the ratings of his opponents WHEN THEY FOUGHT HIM? have i got that right?
what about a newly discovered fight that occurred in the past (obviously lol) what does that do to the relevant fighters (indeed which fighters are relevant - how far does that change go, since the rankings of the fighters in their successive fights would then be different to before the fight was entered....)
Everyday, the rating calculations start from bout 1 in the database, and work their way forward. If a new bout is added today, it will be included into the calculations tomorrow.
Its just a daisy chain of results... We start a Fight 1, end at Fight Whatever.
what is fight #1?
The first fight chronologically in the database.
Posted: 27 Mar 2007, 12:13
by m1kee50
JCS wrote:Mikee wrote:JCS wrote:
Everyday, the rating calculations start from bout 1 in the database, and work their way forward. If a new bout is added today, it will be included into the calculations tomorrow.
Its just a daisy chain of results... We start a Fight 1, end at Fight Whatever.
what is fight #1?
The first fight chronologically in the database.
lol i meant who is in fight #1? thanks for answering my silly questions btw.
another point tho JCS, in the rules it says that cd=1 if no score cards are available - isnt this over-pointing the older fighters at the expence of modern ones? also, isnt it favouring small-town bouts over well known ones?
Posted: 27 Mar 2007, 12:18
by m1kee50
is it possible to get a hold of a copy of this program you use, so i could look up things and set my parameters up? or is it proprietary?
Posted: 27 Mar 2007, 12:32
by JCS
Mikee wrote:is it possible to get a hold of a copy of this program you use, so i could look up things and set my parameters up? or is it proprietary?
The CD=1 you could argue.. but it has to be set as something..
The program relies on the BoxRec database (server access required), and unless you are experienced in coding w/ perl, I doubt it would be any good to you.
Posted: 27 Mar 2007, 12:35
by m1kee50
JCS wrote:Mikee wrote:is it possible to get a hold of a copy of this program you use, so i could look up things and set my parameters up? or is it proprietary?
The CD=1 you could argue.. but it has to be set as something..
The program relies on the BoxRec database (server access required), and unless you are experienced in coding w/ perl, I doubt it would be any good to you.
lol, nah, i just would have liked to see how things looked with changes, like how does SRR shape up if all his fights are counted, same for RJJ, SRL, all the other up-and-down the weight merchants
Posted: 27 Mar 2007, 12:38
by JCS
Mikee wrote:JCS wrote:Mikee wrote:is it possible to get a hold of a copy of this program you use, so i could look up things and set my parameters up? or is it proprietary?
The CD=1 you could argue.. but it has to be set as something..
The program relies on the BoxRec database (server access required), and unless you are experienced in coding w/ perl, I doubt it would be any good to you.
lol, nah, i just would have liked to see how things looked with changes, like how does SRR shape up if all his fights are counted, same for RJJ, SRL, all the other up-and-down the weight merchants
You sir have not been following the thread :).
All fights are being counted now in the all-time ratings.
Posted: 27 Mar 2007, 12:40
by m1kee50
JCS wrote:Mikee wrote:JCS wrote:
The CD=1 you could argue.. but it has to be set as something..
The program relies on the BoxRec database (server access required), and unless you are experienced in coding w/ perl, I doubt it would be any good to you.
lol, nah, i just would have liked to see how things looked with changes, like how does SRR shape up if all his fights are counted, same for RJJ, SRL, all the other up-and-down the weight merchants
You sir have not been following the thread :).
All fights are being counted now in the all-time ratings.
i did not realise it had already been done lol, that was fast. Bernard Hopkins over Archie Moore tho? maybe thats just me.....
Posted: 27 Mar 2007, 12:45
by m1kee50
another stupid question...... why is the All time rating different from the Current Rating? i dont mean what trick of maths makes it different, but why not use one points system?
Posted: 27 Mar 2007, 12:53
by JCS
Mikee wrote:another stupid question...... why is the All time rating different from the Current Rating? i dont mean what trick of maths makes it different, but why not use one points system?
How do you use the same system to determine a current rating, and a all-time rating? That is the better question...
If a guy fights 5 Fights
Starts w/ Rating of 25
Beats a guy, Current Rating now 30
Beats a guy, Current Rating now 60
Loses, Current Rating now 48
Draws, Current Rating now 50
Wins, Current Rating now 55
Then retires.. how do you derive an all-time rating using the ones above?
Posted: 27 Mar 2007, 13:38
by m1kee50
JCS wrote:Mikee wrote:another stupid question...... why is the All time rating different from the Current Rating? i dont mean what trick of maths makes it different, but why not use one points system?
How do you use the same system to determine a current rating, and a all-time rating? That is the better question...
If a guy fights 5 Fights
Starts w/ Rating of 25
Beats a guy, Current Rating now 30
Beats a guy, Current Rating now 60
Loses, Current Rating now 48
Draws, Current Rating now 50
Wins, Current Rating now 55
Then retires.. how do you derive an all-time rating using the ones above?
why would the answer not be 55? am i missing something?
Posted: 27 Mar 2007, 13:38
by JCS
Mikee wrote:JCS wrote:Mikee wrote:another stupid question...... why is the All time rating different from the Current Rating? i dont mean what trick of maths makes it different, but why not use one points system?
How do you use the same system to determine a current rating, and a all-time rating? That is the better question...
If a guy fights 5 Fights
Starts w/ Rating of 25
Beats a guy, Current Rating now 30
Beats a guy, Current Rating now 60
Loses, Current Rating now 48
Draws, Current Rating now 50
Wins, Current Rating now 55
Then retires.. how do you derive an all-time rating using the ones above?
why would the answer not be 55? am i missing something?
Yeah, you're missing something. What happens if a guy ends his career like Mike Tyson?
Posted: 27 Mar 2007, 13:40
by m1kee50
JCS wrote:Mikee wrote:JCS wrote:
How do you use the same system to determine a current rating, and a all-time rating? That is the better question...
If a guy fights 5 Fights
Starts w/ Rating of 25
Beats a guy, Current Rating now 30
Beats a guy, Current Rating now 60
Loses, Current Rating now 48
Draws, Current Rating now 50
Wins, Current Rating now 55
Then retires.. how do you derive an all-time rating using the ones above?
why would the answer not be 55? am i missing something?
Yeah, you're missing something. What happens if a guy ends his career like Mike Tyson?
what do you mean by that? sorry
Posted: 27 Mar 2007, 13:47
by JCS
Mikee.. please check your PM.
Posted: 27 Mar 2007, 13:56
by m1kee50
JCS wrote:Mikee.. please check your PM.
Posted: 01 Apr 2007, 11:21
by JCS
Martin
Maske's rating had to be incredibly low to only now be at #65 for beating Virgil Hill who is now #72!!! Do you think its worth investigating how low a past fighter's rating can drop after inactivity? Even though he took 11 years off, its obvious Maske is still better than a lot of guys out there. Perhaps slow the descent after the first one or two drops have taken place?
Posted: 02 Apr 2007, 07:21
by computerrank
Jason,
I think, the rating is quite reasonable - Maske's dedicated preparation is absolutely extraordinary, Hill's rating was down anyway, and his performance matched with it - so we should not change anything for this exemption.
Posted: 02 Apr 2007, 08:57
by Lennox
computerrank wrote:Jason,
I think, the rating is quite reasonable - Maske's dedicated preparation is absolutely extraordinary, Hill's rating was down anyway, and his performance matched with it - so we should not change anything for this exemption.
Computer- Jason is right, the rating of Maske and Hill is absolutely stupid. The ratings are a joke, you need a better formula, you have fighters higher than Virgil Hill that have less than a 5% chance of beating him.
Posted: 02 Apr 2007, 09:02
by JCS
computerrank wrote:Jason,
I think, the rating is quite reasonable - Maske's dedicated preparation is absolutely extraordinary, Hill's rating was down anyway, and his performance matched with it - so we should not change anything for this exemption.
With all due respect Martin, Virgil Hill was too low in the first place, as well as Maske. I just can't see Virgil Hill being any lower than #30 or so, considering Rob Calloway is #32. I know the constant bouts of inactivity hurt their ratings, but its as if we assume that inactivity is a great deal worse then simply maintaining... which is what guys like Pongsaklek do.
I'd like to see the effects of reducing the penalties for inactivity by a third, or possibly a half.
Posted: 02 Apr 2007, 09:28
by jujigatame
I don't have much of a problem with Hill and Maske's ratings. Neither guy is very relevant to the current scene at this point.
Posted: 02 Apr 2007, 09:35
by JCS
jujigatame wrote:I don't have much of a problem with Hill and Maske's ratings. Neither guy is very relevant to the current scene at this point.
Well, in my opinion, you have to consider all scenarios, regardless of a fighter's worth to the current scene. When Virgil Hill is 40 spots lower than Rob Calloway, there's a major issue.
Posted: 02 Apr 2007, 11:18
by jujigatame
Well, let's face it, Hill just lost to a guy who'd been retired for over 10 years.