BoxRec

Is there someone I could email with questions about a project that we would like boxrec to be involved in?

dynamicop wrote:Is there someone I could email with questions about a project that we would like boxrec to be involved in?

How about the contact link on the main page?

There may be a ratings update coming soon.... Just to give us all something to discuss :).

Cobwebcat wrote:What's changing? I quite like these ones.

Very subtle changes... nothing major. I'll wait and see if they actually get implemented first..

New ratings went in.. Changes are very subtle.

New ratings ensure a minimum margin of points between victor and loser depending on type of win.


Another update should be coming as well.. It more accurately places debuting fighters and inactive fighters who score quality wins in their first contest... as well as the losers in those matches.

any chance you could look up the best all time britsh boxer based on the rankings JCS? chhers if you can

Mikee wrote:any chance you could look up the best all time britsh boxer based on the rankings JCS? chhers if you can

http://www.boxrec.com/record000070.html

Ted 'Kid' Lewis .. a close second.

JCS wrote:

Mikee wrote:any chance you could look up the best all time britsh boxer based on the rankings JCS? chhers if you can

http://www.boxrec.com/record000070.html

top man

Suggestion: is there any way to see how the fighters move in the ratings? so showing how from fight to fight they move up or down - also allowing a graphic illustration of how important a fight is to a guys career im thinking a x y graph of year vs placing, but i leave details to others lol. impossible to do without knowing the past ratings really

New ratings possibly coming. Changes to opposition quality handling.

Before:
Boxers lose 50% of rating if haven't faced a boxer within 25% of their own rating within the last 18 months.

New:
Boxers lose % of points based on a sliding scale if they have not faced someone within 50% of their own rating within the last 18 months.

Example: Boxer A's best opponent in the past 18 months was 40% of their own rating. Boxer A will lose 10% rating points.

Cobwebcat wrote:Can't notice anything?

Not in yet.

Cobwebcat wrote:JCS you will know the answer to this one....in the all-time rankings is the figure earned calculated by working out something like the average of a fighter's best ten wins over his career (so that his peak is recorded) or a similar method?

I don't know the specifics.. but Martin averages the best performance, but reduces for losses.


The new ratings should be in whenever JohnShep gets around to implementing them.

@all time ratings

please read here

http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.php/B ... escription

Basically it works in the same way as the Current Ratings. But:

- the adaption factor is only 7.5% (averages within 14 bouts), while it is 34,5% (average within 3 bouts) in the Current Ratings.
- there is no punishment for inactivity or missing opponent quality

The All Time Rating starts at 0.

Depending on the performance in the bouts the All Time Rating may step up.

There are 2 All Time Rating parameters:

- the Current All Time Rating
- the Peak All Time Rating (which is published as the All Time Rating)

The Current All Time Rating is calculated after every bout and so may increase and decrease depending on the results - as the Current Rating does - but it adapts more slowly.

The Peak All time Rating represents the peak value of the Current All Time Rating.

So after losses and lower performances, there must be additional achievements to top the old All Time Rating.

New ratings went live. P4P went nuts. Divisions show some improvements I think.

Got bored and did a quick tally of the first 1000 posts of this thread to see who posted here the most (note: somewhere I lost 6 posts but oh well)

5 Posters were responsible for 75% of the posts

JCS - 31%
computerank - 17.3%
Conan the Cribber - 10.5%
jujigatame - 8.2%
cobwebcat - 8%

Add in these next 5 and you will find 10 posters accounted for 90%

Lennox - 6.9%
emile - 2.3%
MattyP151 - 2.1%
Pundit - 2%
~ Mikee ~ - 1.7%

No one else added up to 1% But other posters included
JohnShep
BoxBuzz
TerribleTim2
dynamicop
gregor
John Shearer
jomothepure
Todd Hodgson
maxime
Probert24
JAHamilton77
B-FAT
Zhenyu Li
Ric
Blue
ThisModernLove
MontyCircus
Shoutout
Latuch!
mattym
Deram
Greyminus
Dlirag
Tomaskus
Barrera
Alain
alarmakool
nickd
bertosecurity
jimglen
Freiheit
generic screen name
Petu v.d. Pajm
RidickBowe
acevedoalx
joeboxer
NickR
marina
jbryniar1

Here is to another 1000

Not a huge fan of these new rankings. I see more cases where they've gotten worse than cases where they've gotten better.

jujigatame wrote:Not a huge fan of these new rankings. I see more cases where they've gotten worse than cases where they've gotten better.

Excluding P4P, what are your grievances? I don't see anything terribly alarming... its theoretically more accurate.

JCS wrote:

jujigatame wrote:Not a huge fan of these new rankings. I see more cases where they've gotten worse than cases where they've gotten better.

Excluding P4P, what are your grievances? I don't see anything terribly alarming... its theoretically more accurate.

I agree, I mean its better than having some ivory tower editor up there declaring who he feels is best.

JCS wrote:

jujigatame wrote:Not a huge fan of these new rankings. I see more cases where they've gotten worse than cases where they've gotten better.

Excluding P4P, what are your grievances? I don't see anything terribly alarming... its theoretically more accurate.

Nothing terribly alarming, I suppose, but there are some unproven guys getting boosts that I don't particularly approve of. Eh, not that big of a deal.

jujigatame wrote:

JCS wrote:

jujigatame wrote:Not a huge fan of these new rankings. I see more cases where they've gotten worse than cases where they've gotten better.

Excluding P4P, what are your grievances? I don't see anything terribly alarming... its theoretically more accurate.

Nothing terribly alarming, I suppose, but there are some unproven guys getting boosts that I don't particularly approve of. Eh, not that big of a deal.

Only change was made in the way of inactivity and opposition quality penalties.

JAHamilton77 wrote:Got bored and did a quick tally of the first 1000 posts of this thread to see who posted here the most (note: somewhere I lost 6 posts but oh well)

5 Posters were responsible for 75% of the posts

JCS - 31%
computerank - 17.3%
Conan the Cribber - 10.5%
jujigatame - 8.2%
cobwebcat - 8%

Add in these next 5 and you will find 10 posters accounted for 90%

Lennox - 6.9%
emile - 2.3%
MattyP151 - 2.1%
Pundit - 2%
~ Mikee ~ - 1.7%

No one else added up to 1% But other posters included
JohnShep
BoxBuzz
TerribleTim2
dynamicop
gregor
John Shearer
jomothepure
Todd Hodgson
maxime
Probert24
JAHamilton77
B-FAT
Zhenyu Li
Ric
Blue
ThisModernLove
MontyCircus
Shoutout
Latuch!
mattym
Deram
Greyminus
Dlirag
Tomaskus
Barrera
Alain
alarmakool
nickd
bertosecurity
jimglen
Freiheit
generic screen name
Petu v.d. Pajm
RidickBowe
acevedoalx
joeboxer
NickR
marina
jbryniar1

Here is to another 1000

Thanks for the analysis. I hope my percentage will go down, as I see my work as done. The current rankings are great. I dont care about p4p or all-time, but good luck trying.

I sincerely hope there is not another 1000 posts in this thread.

conan

Is there a way to view the "points" without having to go through the ratings to find your guy?

npal wrote:Is there a way to view the "points" without having to go through the ratings to find your guy?

no

another reason to "sort-out" your Rankings http://www.BS.com/forums/showt ... hp?t=36597

they're right there must be a more acurate way to 'progam' the system?