BoxRec

jimglen wrote: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?

It just means they have a shitty bunch of idiots on their forum.... much more ciblized on here, in the main.... and that was from 2005, I wonder what they think of it now? probably a different opinion

jimglen wrote: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?

That thread is two years old. What's its relevance to today's rankings?

I didn't notice it was an old thread, I was just 'Googling' BoxRec and this came up...

as to the Rankings they need improvement, and 'computer' generated outcomes lack for Human & Known insight...so utilize the best most accurate systems acceptable within Boxing knowledge and then 'tweak' it with Human (boxing) general consenses. At least up to the Top 100 in each division after that we'll just have to trust the system :)

jimglen wrote:I didn't notice it was an old thread, I was just 'Googling' BoxRec and this came up...

as to the Rankings they need improvement, and 'computer' generated outcomes lack for Human & Known insight...so utilize the best most accurate systems acceptable within Boxing knowledge and then 'tweak' it with Human (boxing) general consenses. At least up to the Top 100 in each division after that we'll just have to trust the system :)

Boy you make it sound so easy.. Why not read what actually goes into it, sit down and think about it, then come back and offer specific details on how you think it can be bettered.

Cobwebcat wrote:Just wondering how Carlos Hernandez makes it to number 2 in the all-time Light welterweights?

The all time lists look great now. This is the only guy I can find who's position looks out of place. His record looks nothing special.

Error or am I missing something?

I think, you should check the level of opponents in detail. Might be there were no titles in place, but the level was high anyway.

I will track the calculation of his all time rating - but this will take some time ...

I posted this in an unrelated thread (Thread Here), but I'll place it here as well to get some thoughts..

I still believe the inactivity penalty is harsh. We took care of a few rare scenarios, but i believe this problem is still large enough to warrant action.


I wanted to get a few opinions on boxers, using the IBO and BoxRec rating. Tell me if you think which rating is proper, or is it somewhere in between?

I think the IBO has all of these nearly dead on, while our system is way off on the above boxers.

Our system as you said in the other thread cannot rate ability - it rates accomplishment, and even then it can only rate win lose or draw, it cannot take into account a judging travesty or a fight where someone 'struggled', or a fight that is wide on the cards but every round was close.

I think the system is fine as long as you understand what it can and cannot do

~ MIKEE ~ wrote:Our system as you said in the other thread cannot rate ability - it rates accomplishment, and even then it can only rate win lose or draw, it cannot take into account a judging travesty or a fight where someone 'struggled', or a fight that is wide on the cards but every round was close.

I think the system is fine as long as you understand what it can and cannot do

Does that have something to do with my previous post? If so, what :)?

JCS wrote:

~ MIKEE ~ wrote:Our system as you said in the other thread cannot rate ability - it rates accomplishment, and even then it can only rate win lose or draw, it cannot take into account a judging travesty or a fight where someone 'struggled', or a fight that is wide on the cards but every round was close.

I think the system is fine as long as you understand what it can and cannot do

Does that have something to do with my previous post? If so, what :)?

I mean that i dont think there is anything wrong with the boxrec system provided you dont think it tells you anything about ability.... it measures accomplishment....

~ MIKEE ~ wrote:

JCS wrote:

~ MIKEE ~ wrote:Our system as you said in the other thread cannot rate ability - it rates accomplishment, and even then it can only rate win lose or draw, it cannot take into account a judging travesty or a fight where someone 'struggled', or a fight that is wide on the cards but every round was close.

I think the system is fine as long as you understand what it can and cannot do

Does that have something to do with my previous post? If so, what :)?

I mean that i dont think there is anything wrong with the boxrec system provided you dont think it tells you anything about ability.... it measures accomplishment....

Here, I'm arguing that the inactive penalties are too severe and cited specific examples.

I mentioned that it measures accomplishment not ability, in another thread... :)

Mads Larsen is another one that's been punished harshly, although it may be closer to the actual truth?? Don't know.

We have him at #49
IBO has him at #20

JCS wrote:

~ MIKEE ~ wrote:

JCS wrote: Does that have something to do with my previous post? If so, what :)?

I mean that i dont think there is anything wrong with the boxrec system provided you dont think it tells you anything about ability.... it measures accomplishment....

Here, I'm arguing that the inactive penalties are too severe and cited specific examples.

I mentioned that it measures accomplishment not ability, in another thread... :)

all rankings should punish inactivity.... I dont think ours is severe tbh... if the boxrec rankings were used widely the impetus to fight would be increased.... a good thing

~ MIKEE ~ wrote:

JCS wrote:

~ MIKEE ~ wrote: I mean that i dont think there is anything wrong with the boxrec system provided you dont think it tells you anything about ability.... it measures accomplishment....

Here, I'm arguing that the inactive penalties are too severe and cited specific examples.

I mentioned that it measures accomplishment not ability, in another thread... :)

all rankings should punish inactivity.... I dont think ours is severe tbh... if the boxrec rankings were used widely the impetus to fight would be increased.... a good thing

You think Larry Donald at #124 is fair? Let me remind you that JD Chapman is in the Top 100... above Larry Donald!!!

JCS wrote:

~ MIKEE ~ wrote:

JCS wrote: Here, I'm arguing that the inactive penalties are too severe and cited specific examples.

I mentioned that it measures accomplishment not ability, in another thread... :)

all rankings should punish inactivity.... I dont think ours is severe tbh... if the boxrec rankings were used widely the impetus to fight would be increased.... a good thing

You think Larry Donald at #124 is fair? Let me remind you that JD Chapman is in the Top 100... above Larry Donald!!!

what is stopping him fighting? is he injured? maybe enforced inacticity could be factored in - - but then that wont be known for everyone, so they will just have to suffer it.... you cant have NO inactivity penalty, and IMO the harsher the better.... like I say, if that was more widespread it would be an incentive....

~ MIKEE ~ wrote:

JCS wrote:

~ MIKEE ~ wrote: all rankings should punish inactivity.... I dont think ours is severe tbh... if the boxrec rankings were used widely the impetus to fight would be increased.... a good thing

You think Larry Donald at #124 is fair? Let me remind you that JD Chapman is in the Top 100... above Larry Donald!!!

what is stopping him fighting? is he injured? maybe enforced inacticity could be factored in - - but then that wont be known for everyone, so they will just have to suffer it.... you cant have NO inactivity penalty, and IMO the harsher the better.... like I say, if that was more widespread it would be an incentive....

Unfortunately the BoxRec ratings are not an official sanctioning body, so we're not out to make a precedent. We're out to make the most accurate ratings possible.

Larry Donald 30+ spots below JD Chapman is not accurate. Sorry. Noone is going to convince me otherwise.

JCS wrote:

~ MIKEE ~ wrote:

JCS wrote: You think Larry Donald at #124 is fair? Let me remind you that JD Chapman is in the Top 100... above Larry Donald!!!

what is stopping him fighting? is he injured? maybe enforced inacticity could be factored in - - but then that wont be known for everyone, so they will just have to suffer it.... you cant have NO inactivity penalty, and IMO the harsher the better.... like I say, if that was more widespread it would be an incentive....

Unfortunately the BoxRec ratings are not an official sanctioning body, so we're not out to make a precedent. We're out to make the most accurate ratings possible.

Larry Donald 30+ spots below JD Chapman is not accurate. Sorry. Noone is going to convince me otherwise.

fair play, and I dont think it is accurate in terms of abilty..... but in terms of accomplishment?

Donald has not WON since November 2004. His last three fights were June 2007, October 2005, March 2005, so he has been damn inactive as well.

JD Chapman has fought and won 15 times in that same period..... I dont know the ratings of these fighters, but added up do those 15 wins beat Donalds win, draw and two loss?

~ MIKEE ~ wrote:

JCS wrote:

~ MIKEE ~ wrote: what is stopping him fighting? is he injured? maybe enforced inacticity could be factored in - - but then that wont be known for everyone, so they will just have to suffer it.... you cant have NO inactivity penalty, and IMO the harsher the better.... like I say, if that was more widespread it would be an incentive....

Unfortunately the BoxRec ratings are not an official sanctioning body, so we're not out to make a precedent. We're out to make the most accurate ratings possible.

Larry Donald 30+ spots below JD Chapman is not accurate. Sorry. Noone is going to convince me otherwise.

fair play, and I dont think it is accurate in terms of abilty..... but in terms of accomplishment?

Donald has not WON since November 2004. His last three fights were June 2007, October 2005, March 2005, so he has been damn inactive as well.

JD Chapman has fought and won 15 times in that same period..... I dont know the ratings of these fighters, but added up do those 15 wins beat Donalds win, draw and two loss?

I have to think Donald's very close majority decision loss (some thought it was a win) supercedes anything JD Chapman has ever done, multiplied by 3.

Donald is still a guy who deserves to be ranked around #50-60.

Name 123 heavyweights that deserve to be ahead of him.

JCS wrote:

~ MIKEE ~ wrote:

JCS wrote: Unfortunately the BoxRec ratings are not an official sanctioning body, so we're not out to make a precedent. We're out to make the most accurate ratings possible.

Larry Donald 30+ spots below JD Chapman is not accurate. Sorry. Noone is going to convince me otherwise.

fair play, and I dont think it is accurate in terms of abilty..... but in terms of accomplishment?

Donald has not WON since November 2004. His last three fights were June 2007, October 2005, March 2005, so he has been damn inactive as well.

JD Chapman has fought and won 15 times in that same period..... I dont know the ratings of these fighters, but added up do those 15 wins beat Donalds win, draw and two loss?

I have to think Donald's very close majority decision loss (some thought it was a win) supercedes anything JD Chapman has ever done, multiplied by 3.

Donald is still a guy who deserves to be ranked around #50-60.

Name 123 heavyweights that deserve to be ahead of him.

mate, im not arguing it with you... its your system i was just trying to be helpful... i wager that changing the inactivity penalty will move lots of fighters up....

maybe the real question then is does his MD loss to Valuev count for more than spending November 2002 to May 2004, and October 2005 to June 2006, checking his email?

~ MIKEE ~ wrote:
maybe the real question then is does his MD loss to Valuev count for more than spending November 2002 to May 2004, and October 2005 to June 2007, checking his email?

Yes. I believe the MD loss should more than offset the first bout of inactivity... The 2nd inactivity justifies a drop, but not a massive one.

JCS wrote:

~ MIKEE ~ wrote:
maybe the real question then is does his MD loss to Valuev count for more than spending November 2002 to May 2004, and October 2005 to June 2007, checking his email?

Yes. I believe the MD loss should more than offset the first bout of inactivity... The 2nd inactivity justifies a drop, but not a massive one.

I guess the only thing to do is run the calcs at differing %ages, and look at how the IBO and other people rank your 'test' fighters

FightNews just put Holyfield at #15...

BoxingTalk #16


BoxRec... #50


Harsh inactivity penalty that hit Holyfield.. and the one that hit Savarese, Holyfield's latest win, has prevented Holyfield from getting any higher. I'm not saying he deserves a Top 10 rating.. but #50 is too low. Around #30 or so would feel right to me.

Povetkin has also suffered.. because Donald's rating was poor after his lay off.


I think we need to get out of the predict rate mindset, and focus on traditional ranking-like accuracy.

By reducing the inactive penalty from a base of 50%, to 34%, the following changes were made, without serious anomalies:

Holyfield up to #48
Donald up to #85
Golota up to #67
Hill up to #39
Gainer still at 42
Simms up to 17 (from 23, since scores were updated properly)

Jose Antonio Rivera (Travis Simms comeback win) enters Top 40, after being outside Top 50. <- #11 at IBO

It's an improvement..

Discovered a new inactive penalty formula.

Does anyone agree that the experimental method makes a bit more sense in determining how many rating points of a boxer to keep, after inactivity?

Now, only 50% of a boxer's rating points are kept if he were to come back after 18 months of inactivity. Had he come back 1 day sooner, ALL of his points would remain...

I am aiming for a more gradual decrease, starting at 18 months. There is still a steep drop off from 100%, but its MUCH softer.

Cobwebcat wrote:Yes I agree but as the rating values aren't showing on the site its a bit difficult to comment!!

Well.. the rankings are based on the rating points, so I dont think you really NEED them.

Cobwebcat wrote:Of course you need them. You have them presumably??

There is a big difference if

1st 1200

2nd 1150

3rd 750

4th 499


rather than

1st 1200

2nd 1150

3rd 1140

4th 499



You cant know if something looks right without knowing the distance between the places in rating points. That's basic!

Where have they gone?

I'm sure they'll be back.