Ratings - please read before commenting

computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2332
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by computerrank »

conan_the_cribber wrote: 17 Feb 2023, 05:32
Here is a first approach for such a p4p rating:

a) finds the boxer's bout performances in the last 5 years
b) sum of all performances in the last 2 years
c) finds the best performance in the last 2 years
d) sum of all performances in the 3 years before with a cap of the best performance in the last 2 years (in order devaluate descending boxers)
e) winner above loser rule within the last 18 months for a division difference of at most 1 division
Firstly, it's a rough draft, I understand that. But as someone who in real life designs the biggest computing systems in Europe, I think you need to work on your specification skills. It is not possible from the description above to know how points a) through e) combine to generate the number you came up with.

So going back to the drawing board for a second, tell me what's going wrong with the normal divisional ratings? If you're satisfied with them, then I'm surprised that they don't suffice for a p4p rating. However you did mention, that there is some divisional scaling (where you made an adjustment and sent the results to me recently). Does that mean the higher weight divisions require scaling down? How did you determine that? My guess is it's a side of effect of your desire for a predictability validated ratings system (our old dispute). Bigger fighters defeat smaller fighters disproportionally, I'm assuming that this is something that the underlying mathematical model does not account for. I ask you this, because in points a) b) c) and d) above you use this rating (I assume in an unfiltered way).

Secondly, I would like to think about the problem domain. What are we trying to automate here? Here are some rough domain thoughts.

1) Marquis fighters, those who's name comes up in p4p discussions, generally fight about twice a year these days.
2) Marquis fighters are near the top of their divisional ratings.
3) A division may have multiple Marquis fighters (Aj, Fury, Wilder OR Canelo Golovkin).
4) These Marquis fighters may not have met yet.
5) When two Marquis fighters in a division meet, and there is a result for one of these fighters, then immediately after the fight, the winner should ALWAYS be rated above the loser in the p4p ratings.
6) What should be the criteria for invalidating this direct result in point 5)? Well I guess it's either
6a) a truly stellar achievement by the direct result loser in a higher weight class. If Tarver beat Jones, then Tarver should be p4p higher. If Jones fought anyone in his division and won in his next fight, then Tarver should still ALWAYS be above Jones still. However, if in his next fight, Jones jumped two divisions and fought Ruiz and won, then I could make an argument that Jones is ahead of Tarver on the p4p basis because Tarver has yet to achieve such a feat. My gut feeling is Marquis fights in a higher weight division than normal, should be weighted more in p4p calculations.
6b) A very long time. Given the fight frequency, I think if both fighters are avoiding each other, yet both are still competing in similar divisions (max one weight class apart), then the direct result should stand. I think it's fair to say, that whatever Golovkin achieved in his own weight division in the four years since he fought Canelo in 2018, no-one would rank him above Canelo because Canelo did not lose in that time. So I would suggest that the 18 months offered above is too short for p4p.
6c) A very bad loss for the winner. Boxing is a cruel sport. So many boxers reach a point where they just get old. Should the winner have a loss against a weak opponent, then it's fair to say, that they're not a p4p prospect any more. So I'm thinking, that in addition to points a) through e) above, the nature of the losses also need to be accounted for.
7) In general beating someone on the p4p list, does not mean you inherit their spot. It is not a ladder competition. When Andy Ruiz beat AJ, he should not have been #1 on anyone's heavyweight list, as the fight only proved that a) Ruiz was better than AJ and b) that AJ was weaker than people previously thought and probably behind Tury and Wilder (none of the three having fought each other at the time).
8) The nature of the result should probably influence the p4p status. KO wins weigh more than PTS win, and a lopsided PTS win is worth more than a close PTS win or SD.
9) No-one should be considered for the p4p ratings who has not fought another Marquis fighter. Compiling a 40-0 record like Brian Nielson did in the 90s, should be worth nothing. I'm assuming the divisional ratings take care of this.
10) A fighter who has proven themselves superior in multiple Marquis fights should probably be rated above people with a single Marquis win.


Any further domain comments from enthusiasts? Once the domain is sort of specified we can deduce factors that are implementable.
It is quite well possible to derive the resulting php rating numbers from the short description. The performance at bout time just is the opponent's BoxRec rating at bout time modified by the bout result.

So the rating i not from scratch at all. But the compiliation might be different for p4p purposes.
computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2332
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

Re: p4p ratings

Post by computerrank »

conan_the_cribber wrote: 17 Feb 2023, 04:15 Well Martin, it's like this.

1) Generally it's an improvement.

2) It still requires some tuning and in my opinion is not yet publishable. In particular the Lightweights don't work out. Without knowing the numbers, I'm pretty sure Lomachenko was at one point one of the top p4p fighters. However, the man that beat him, or the fighter that beat the man who beat the man, do not appear in the p4p ratings above him. Also, the ratings contradict the lightweight divisional ratings.

3) However, my main complaint is you "going it alone" for this first attempt. I assume I'm not the only one who's put up their name as someone willing to help in the ratings. I assume JCS and others are on board. I think it would be better to work as a team, thereby saving yourself less iterations of programming.

I will now answer the criteria bit that you've chosen. I encourage you to seek further input from the other enthusiasts before having another go.

cheers

conan
Hi Conan,

ad 3) My test was considering your first thoughts:
- it's the top level fights that define p4p, not the early career wins
- multiple top level fight victories by a fighter should usually trump a fighter with a single top level fight victory
- longevity at the top level is probably a factor
- defeating someone who had qualified for the p4p list almost certainly puts you above him, if the weight class difference is a single one.
- etc. etc. etc.
I tried to get a feeling, whether some such rough specific parameters would change the ranking significantly.

ad 1) At least the differences seem to be interesting

ad 2) The order of such a specific p4p rating will easily "contradict" the order of the standard current rating with it's outstanding prediction quality because the specific p4p rating must have different rules by definition. I guess, this is a central point.

The standard current rating must stay valid and not be contradicted by a special p4p rating..

In the current BoxRec p4p ratings the lower divisions might be under- emphasized. So more emphasized lower divisions might be ok.

18 months hold time for the winner above loser rule might be not enough. So 3 years might be worth a test. And a scope of +-1 division for the rule.

That would result in these p4p top 100:

Code: Select all

  1  Dmitrii              Bivol                 Light Heavyweight     1158.01
  2  Saul                 Alvarez               Super Middleweight    1127.00
  3  Terence              Crawford              Welterweight           997.65
  4  Naoya                Inoue                 Bantamweight           820.78
  5  Gennadiy             Golovkin              Middleweight           702.65
  6  Tyson                Fury                  Heavyweight            553.52
  7  Errol                Spence Jr             Welterweight           496.40
  8  Shakur               Stevenson             Lightweight            441.49
  9  Stephen              Fulton                Super Bantamweight     384.80
 10  Regis                Prograis              Light Welterweight     341.84
 11  O'Shaquie            Foster                Super Featherweight    323.27
 12  Juan Francisco       Estrada               Super Flyweight        318.81
 13  Josh                 Taylor                Light Welterweight     311.44
 14  Artur                Beterbiev             Light Heavyweight      297.41
 15  Jermell              Charlo                Light Middleweight     296.67
 16  Magomed              Kurbanov              Light Middleweight     290.86
 17  Devin                Haney                 Lightweight            281.67
 18  Gervonta             Davis                 Lightweight            278.66
 19  Oleksandr            Usyk                  Heavyweight            268.17
 20  Liam                 Smith                 Middleweight           265.70
 21  Yordenis             Ugas                  Welterweight           248.20
 22  Kenshiro             Teraji                Light Flyweight        245.82
 23  George               Kambosos Jr           Lightweight            239.53
 24  Roman                Gonzalez              Super Flyweight        225.82
 25  Teofimo              Lopez                 Light Welterweight     222.96
 26  Nonito               Donaire               Bantamweight           221.13
 27  Anthony              Joshua                Heavyweight            215.20
 28  Brandon              Figueroa              Featherweight          214.98
 29  Kazuto               Ioka                  Super Flyweight        212.17
 30  Vasyl                Lomachenko            Lightweight            211.57
 31  Vergil               Ortiz Jr              Welterweight           208.13
 32  Mauricio             Lara                  Featherweight          205.30
 33  Rey                  Vargas                Featherweight          200.09
 34  Jose Carlos          Ramirez               Light Welterweight     193.81
 35  Sebastian            Fundora               Light Middleweight     183.64
 36  John                 Ryder                 Super Middleweight     183.47
 37  Sunny                Edwards               Flyweight              180.14
 38  Mark                 Magsayo               Featherweight          178.04
 39  Emanuel              Navarrete             Super Featherweight    176.61
 40  Arnold               Barboza Jr            Light Welterweight     174.31
 41  Oscar                Valdez                Super Featherweight    170.47
 42  William              Zepeda Segura         Lightweight            166.93
 43  Cody                 Crowley               Welterweight           158.41
 44  Jesse                Rodriguez             Super Flyweight        156.44
 45  Frank                Martin                Lightweight            149.87
 46  John Riel            Casimero              Super Bantamweight     148.94
 47  Brian Carlos         Castano               Light Middleweight     148.33
 48  Chris                Eubank Jr             Middleweight           148.29
 49  Leigh                Wood                  Featherweight          148.05
 50  Murodjon             Akhmadaliev           Super Bantamweight     147.55
 51  Jaron                Ennis                 Welterweight           141.97
 52  Sandor               Martin                Light Welterweight     140.40
 53  Shavkatdzhon         Rakhimov              Super Featherweight    139.56
 54  Jack                 Catterall             Light Welterweight     138.71
 55  Isaac                Dogboe                Featherweight          133.06
 56  Jeremia              Nakathila             Lightweight            132.35
 57  Gary Antuanne        Russell               Light Welterweight     131.44
 58  Junto                Nakatani              Super Flyweight        128.49
 59  Luis Alberto         Lopez                 Featherweight          127.56
 60  Andy                 Ruiz                  Heavyweight            127.07
 61  Josh                 Warrington            Featherweight          125.54
 62  Joe                  Cordina               Super Featherweight    124.48
 63  Fernando Daniel      Martinez              Super Flyweight        121.59
 64  Masamichi            Yabuki                Light Flyweight        121.41
 65  Jaime                Munguia               Middleweight           121.34
 66  Shuichiro            Yoshino               Lightweight            120.90
 67  Isaac                Cruz                  Lightweight            118.25
 68  Marlon               Tapales               Super Bantamweight     115.58
 69  Hector Luis          Garcia                Super Featherweight    114.96
 70  Gustavo Daniel       Lemos                 Lightweight            114.27
 71  Demetrius            Andrade               Super Middleweight     114.16
 72  Luis                 Nery                  Super Bantamweight     112.41
 73  Jamaine              Ortiz                 Lightweight            111.71
 74  Eimantas             Stanionis             Welterweight           109.80
 75  Tim                  Tszyu                 Light Middleweight     109.21
 76  Israil               Madrimov              Light Middleweight     108.91
 77  Steve                Spark                 Light Welterweight     108.25
 78  Joshua               Franco                Super Flyweight        108.03
 79  Callum               Smith                 Light Heavyweight      107.63
 80  Joet                 Gonzalez              Featherweight          107.08
 81  Reiya                Abe                   Featherweight          106.98
 82  Panya                Pradabsri             Minimumweight          106.11
 83  Carlos               Adames                Middleweight           105.76
 84  Lawrence             Okolie                Cruiserweight          104.58
 85  Thammanoon           Niyomtrong            Minimumweight          104.21
 86  Jai                  Opetaia               Cruiserweight          102.45
 87  David                Benavidez             Super Middleweight     100.74
 88  Kosei                Tanaka                Super Flyweight         98.97
 89  David                Avanesyan             Welterweight            98.65
 90  Joe                  Joyce                 Heavyweight             95.82
 91  Jason                Moloney               Bantamweight            93.35
 92  Souleymane           Cissokho              Welterweight            92.60
 93  Jose                 Pedraza               Light Welterweight      92.58
 94  Richard              Commey                Light Welterweight      92.48
 95  Joe                  Smith Jr              Light Heavyweight       92.35
 96  Gilberto             Ramirez               Light Heavyweight       92.08
 97  Ryan                 Garcia                Light Welterweight      89.38
 98  Conor                Benn                  Welterweight            89.05
 99  Mairis               Briedis               Cruiserweight           87.86
100  Robeisy              Ramirez               Featherweight           87.20

Here are p4p ratings with more emphasizing the lower weights and a winner above loser rule with a hold time of 3 year
J0E_90
Editor
Editor
Posts: 38
Joined: 25 Aug 2015, 20:48

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by J0E_90 »

Question that pertains to amateur boxing rankings

Is there any additional weighting given to RSC/RSCH/RSCO/RSCOS/RSCI/RSCM/RET wins?

Anecdotally there would not appear to be. These are essentially TKO wins just recorded under these terms as that is the terminology of amateur boxing.

RSC - Referee stopped contest (this is the term used currently)
RSCH - Referee stopped contest due to headshots (defunct term)
RSCO/RSCOS - Referee stopped contest due to outclassing (defunct term)
RET - Corner retirement
RSCI - Referee stopped contest due to Injury
RSCM - Referee stopped contest due to Medical Reasons

Some associations/results sheets do list TKOs and I'm wondering is that leading to some disparity in rankings.

Can RSC, RSCH, RSCO, RSCOS, RSCI, RSCM, and RET be aligned to TKO in terms of points?

Thank you
computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2332
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by computerrank »

J0E_90 wrote: 19 Feb 2023, 09:05 Question that pertains to amateur boxing rankings

Is there any additional weighting given to RSC/RSCH/RSCO/RSCOS/RSCI/RSCM/RET wins?

Anecdotally there would not appear to be. These are essentially TKO wins just recorded under these terms as that is the terminology of amateur boxing.

RSC - Referee stopped contest (this is the term used currently)
RSCH - Referee stopped contest due to headshots (defunct term)
RSCO/RSCOS - Referee stopped contest due to outclassing (defunct term)
RET - Corner retirement
RSCI - Referee stopped contest due to Injury
RSCM - Referee stopped contest due to Medical Reasons

Some associations/results sheets do list TKOs and I'm wondering is that leading to some disparity in rankings.

Can RSC, RSCH, RSCO, RSCOS, RSCI, RSCM, and RET be aligned to TKO in terms of points?

Thank you
"KO","TKO","RTD","DQ","RSC","RSCO","RSCOS","RSCH","RSCM","RSCI","RET" are treated the same.
numbers of bouts currently:
RSCO 2147
RSCI 1835
RSSC 18579
RSCH 864
RET 1680
RSCOS 141
RSCM 9
J0E_90
Editor
Editor
Posts: 38
Joined: 25 Aug 2015, 20:48

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by J0E_90 »

computerrank wrote: 19 Feb 2023, 11:08
J0E_90 wrote: 19 Feb 2023, 09:05 Question that pertains to amateur boxing rankings

Is there any additional weighting given to RSC/RSCH/RSCO/RSCOS/RSCI/RSCM/RET wins?

Anecdotally there would not appear to be. These are essentially TKO wins just recorded under these terms as that is the terminology of amateur boxing.

RSC - Referee stopped contest (this is the term used currently)
RSCH - Referee stopped contest due to headshots (defunct term)
RSCO/RSCOS - Referee stopped contest due to outclassing (defunct term)
RET - Corner retirement
RSCI - Referee stopped contest due to Injury
RSCM - Referee stopped contest due to Medical Reasons

Some associations/results sheets do list TKOs and I'm wondering is that leading to some disparity in rankings.

Can RSC, RSCH, RSCO, RSCOS, RSCI, RSCM, and RET be aligned to TKO in terms of points?

Thank you
"KO","TKO","RTD","DQ","RSC","RSCO","RSCOS","RSCH","RSCM","RSCI","RET" are treated the same.
numbers of bouts currently:
RSCO 2147
RSCI 1835
RSSC 18579
RSCH 864
RET 1680
RSCOS 141
RSCM 9
Apologies, my mistake. Was only going off anecdotal evidence. Thank you for your reply.

Further to this, and this would be a question for John or Marina, is it be possible for an amendment to the code that will make all of these results show as stoppages in a boxer's overall W-D-L record?
computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2332
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by computerrank »

J0E_90 wrote: 19 Feb 2023, 16:28
computerrank wrote: 19 Feb 2023, 11:08
J0E_90 wrote: 19 Feb 2023, 09:05 Question that pertains to amateur boxing rankings

Is there any additional weighting given to RSC/RSCH/RSCO/RSCOS/RSCI/RSCM/RET wins?

Anecdotally there would not appear to be. These are essentially TKO wins just recorded under these terms as that is the terminology of amateur boxing.

RSC - Referee stopped contest (this is the term used currently)
RSCH - Referee stopped contest due to headshots (defunct term)
RSCO/RSCOS - Referee stopped contest due to outclassing (defunct term)
RET - Corner retirement
RSCI - Referee stopped contest due to Injury
RSCM - Referee stopped contest due to Medical Reasons

Some associations/results sheets do list TKOs and I'm wondering is that leading to some disparity in rankings.

Can RSC, RSCH, RSCO, RSCOS, RSCI, RSCM, and RET be aligned to TKO in terms of points?

Thank you
"KO","TKO","RTD","DQ","RSC","RSCO","RSCOS","RSCH","RSCM","RSCI","RET" are treated the same.
numbers of bouts currently:
RSCO 2147
RSCI 1835
RSSC 18579
RSCH 864
RET 1680
RSCOS 141
RSCM 9
Apologies, my mistake. Was only going off anecdotal evidence. Thank you for your reply.

Further to this, and this would be a question for John or Marina, is it be possible for an amendment to the code that will make all of these results show as stoppages in a boxer's overall W-D-L record?
This thread considers rating algorithm questions. Your issue should be raised in the thread 'SUGGESTIONS FOR BOXREC' , I guess:

viewtopic.php?t=250810
Cobwebcat
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 282
Joined: 11 May 2006, 09:57

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by Cobwebcat »

From a non mathematical point of view should not a P4P fighter demonstrate that they can be successful at multiple weights?

I don’t have a problem with Alvarez being higher than Bivol because, like Pacquiao, he has dominated many different weight classes. If you stay at one weight you haven’t demonstrated that you could move out of your comfort zone and still be victorious.

If the above could, in some way, be taken into consideration in an algorithm I think it would be useful.

P4P means, to me, if everyone was the same size but with their own skill set, who would win? Given that isn’t possible the closest thing to that is a fighter willing to move to different weights and winning.

What we have at the moment is more of a single weight dominance comparison which is different to P4P I think.
pugilisticspecialist
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 239
Joined: 19 May 2009, 16:23

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by pugilisticspecialist »

The balance factor between divisons should be based on the % weight difference between divisions.

So if a fighter moves from 168 lbs to 175 lbs, their rating should be reduced to 96% of what it was at 168 lbs, since 168 is 96% of 175.

Obviously the reduction between cruiserweight and heavyweight is difficult to determine, since heavyweight has no max limit, but if there's some way to find the all-time mean average weight at heavyweight, then you could go off that.

Another thing, for the all-time ratings, cruiserweight should be split into two: "cruiserweight 200 lbs" and "cruiserweight 190 lbs".

Also, old school heavyweight fights where both fighters are below 200 lbs should be treated as cruiserweight bouts.
computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2332
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by computerrank »

Manrae wrote: 24 Feb 2023, 08:23 Is Luis Padilla missing a fight on his record or is this an error?

https://boxrec.com/en/box-pro/981417
https://boxrec.com/en/event/867856
Here, he's 16-3-2, having won 3-in-a-row, then losing 3-in-a-row

https://boxrec.com/en/box-pro/794770
...Yet, here, he's 15-3-2, having won 2-in-a-row, then losing 3-in-a-row, and a draw
You should not post that here - this thread is for the ratings algorithm

By the way, everything is all right for boxer_id 794770 - he is 16-4-2 on his profile page.
computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2332
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

BoxRec Ratings Description Revised

Post by computerrank »

I completely revised the BoxRec Ratings Description:

https://boxrec.com/wiki/index.php/BoxRe ... escription
pugilisticspecialist
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 239
Joined: 19 May 2009, 16:23

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by pugilisticspecialist »

What ratings version are we on now, and what's the prediction ratio?
computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2332
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by computerrank »

pugilisticspecialist wrote: 23 Mar 2023, 15:40 What ratings version are we on now, and what's the prediction ratio?
WHR.1.2.5 with winner prediction ratio 85.67 percent went public today,

Main improvements:
- The mean prediction error for the stoppage risk of a bout was reduced from 15.1 % down to 1.6 %
- seeding the initial ratings of boxers in heavier divisions higher than in lighter divisions not needed any more !!!
- internal WHR rating now is absolute fighting strength of boxer
Khash
Super Bantamweight
Posts: 11
Joined: 27 Dec 2017, 03:14

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by Khash »

Sometimes it really seems the boxrec computers don't bring all the data into calculations when rating !

Can someone explain how on the p4p list of my country (Iran) this boxer with a record of 1-5-1 has a higher rating
https://boxrec.com/en/box-pro/1110273

Than this boxer (me) with the record of 7-3
https://boxrec.com/en/box-pro/862313

How !?
computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2332
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by computerrank »

Khash wrote: 25 Mar 2023, 08:28 Sometimes it really seems the boxrec computers don't bring all the data into calculations when rating !

Can someone explain how on the p4p list of my country (Iran) this boxer with a record of 1-5-1 has a higher rating
https://boxrec.com/en/box-pro/1110273

Than this boxer (me) with the record of 7-3
https://boxrec.com/en/box-pro/862313

How !?
Iran current p4p
- #2 Bahadur Karami id=1110273 record 1-5-1
- #3 Khashaiar Ghassemi id=862313 record 7-3-0

BoxRec ratings do not go with the raw record, but with the quality of opposition and the achievements in relation to that.

Karami has a potential rating of .184 points and his best performance was a very close loss against Reece Farnhill on 2023-03-04 with .326 points at that point. That gives a current rating of .184.

Ghassemi has a potential rating of .327 and his best performance was a stoppage against Attanon Kunlawong on 2022-07-24 with only 0.058 points at that point. That gives a current rating of .116.

Ghassemi needs to fight better opposition to exempt his potential.
margaret thatcher
Bantamweight
Posts: 33244
Joined: 22 Jul 2019, 15:43

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by margaret thatcher »

it's always these dudes with hugely padded records complaining about their ranking isnt it
Khash
Super Bantamweight
Posts: 11
Joined: 27 Dec 2017, 03:14

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by Khash »

"Hugely padded record complaining blah.."

Take a look at my record, I fought anything that was available, never had a promoter .
On my debut I fought a guy who had only 3 losses to the likes of Lomachenko and Miguel Berchelt...
I finished the six round fight with him but even then that didn't do much to my rating.

Read and examine the argument I have brought forth carefully before making a comment.
Khash
Super Bantamweight
Posts: 11
Joined: 27 Dec 2017, 03:14

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by Khash »

computerrank wrote: 25 Mar 2023, 11:58
Khash wrote: 25 Mar 2023, 08:28 Sometimes it really seems the boxrec computers don't bring all the data into calculations when rating !

Can someone explain how on the p4p list of my country (Iran) this boxer with a record of 1-5-1 has a higher rating
https://boxrec.com/en/box-pro/1110273

Than this boxer (me) with the record of 7-3
https://boxrec.com/en/box-pro/862313

How !?
Iran current p4p
- #2 Bahadur Karami id=1110273 record 1-5-1
- #3 Khashaiar Ghassemi id=862313 record 7-3-0

BoxRec ratings do not go with the raw record, but with the quality of opposition and the achievements in relation to that.

Karami has a potential rating of .184 points and his best performance was a very close loss against Reece Farnhill on 2023-03-04 with .326 points at that point. That gives a current rating of .184.

Ghassemi has a potential rating of .327 and his best performance was a stoppage against Attanon Kunlawong on 2022-07-24 with only 0.058 points at that point. That gives a current rating of .116.

Ghassemi needs to fight better opposition to exempt his potential.

I appreciate your prompt reply and explanation,

Don't you think the lack of full info updated on jy record such as the weight of me and my opponent at the time of the fight has caused the decrease of the ratings to some extent?
computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2332
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by computerrank »

Khash wrote: 25 Mar 2023, 21:58 ... I appreciate your prompt reply and explanation,

Don't you think the lack of full info updated on jy record such as the weight of me and my opponent at the time of the fight has caused the decrease of the ratings to some extent?
... no influence ...

correction:

The loss of Karami against low rated Alexandre Branson Cole drops him as he is tied to that winner by the winner above loser rule - and so he is rated lower than Cole for 18 months.
jujigatame
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 6461
Joined: 30 Oct 2004, 21:08

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by jujigatame »

Am I crazy or did Seigo Yuri Akui recently appear at #2 at 112? Is this somehow related to the fact that he beat Yabuki back in 2018, and then Yabuki went on to beat Teraji at 108 last year?
computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2332
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by computerrank »

jujigatame wrote: 01 Apr 2023, 23:44 Am I crazy or did Seigo Yuri Akui recently appear at #2 at 112? Is this somehow related to the fact that he beat Yabuki back in 2018, and then Yabuki went on to beat Teraji at 108 last year?
Seigo Yuri Akui TKOed Taku Kuwahara on 2021-07-21.
jujigatame
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 6461
Joined: 30 Oct 2004, 21:08

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by jujigatame »

Hmm I guess I wouldn't have thought that fight would have so much effect, but these Japanese domestic bouts are often fought at a pretty high level so maybe I should adjust my expectations.
extrahen
Flyweight
Posts: 1
Joined: 26 Dec 2020, 20:08

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by extrahen »

Put the heavyweights ratings back to what they were, how can you have Usyk down at 27 p4p and ratings-wise suggest there is barely any top heavyweights.
computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2332
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by computerrank »

extrahen wrote: 06 Apr 2023, 14:50 Put the heavyweights ratings back to what they were, how can you have Usyk down at 27 p4p and ratings-wise suggest there is barely any top heavyweights.
There is a lack of competition in higher weight divisions - and the p4p ratings represent that now ...
gregregegg
Featherweight
Posts: 6882
Joined: 29 Sep 2017, 04:08

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by gregregegg »

computerrank wrote: 06 Apr 2023, 16:17
extrahen wrote: 06 Apr 2023, 14:50 Put the heavyweights ratings back to what they were, how can you have Usyk down at 27 p4p and ratings-wise suggest there is barely any top heavyweights.
There is a lack of competition in higher weight divisions - and the p4p ratings represent that now ...
While I kind of understand the less competitors aspect, usyk at 27 is laughable. I know it’s impossible to make the perfect algorithm but Liam smith being 15 spots higher…. As well as ugas, kambo, donnair all above usyk…

There is not a single fan/expert/human on earth with those guys above usyk p4p…

I think this “correction” while logical in an algorithmic sense has kinda made P4P rankings a wrong, and underrated heavyweight fights in general (Joyce vs zhang being 2 star for example)…
Ernestogon
Bantamweight
Posts: 2
Joined: 31 Dec 2018, 19:17

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by Ernestogon »

What is a "connected fighter" in the context of the algorithm?
Post Reply