Ratings - please read before commenting

computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2369
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by computerrank »

SportsRatings wrote: 23 May 2023, 20:14 Bridgerweights are ranked now at HW?

When did this change? Before, I think Babic and the others weren't listed among the HW, now I see Babic and Lukasz Rozanski are in the top 50
The editors assign a boxer to a weight division. This is not part of the ratings algorithm.
SportsRatings
Super Middleweight
Posts: 589
Joined: 26 May 2010, 23:15

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by SportsRatings »

JCS wrote: 24 May 2023, 00:40
SportsRatings wrote: 23 May 2023, 20:17 Zhang ahead of Hgrovic

I thought for 12 months, you couldn't be ahead of a fighter you lost to. Hrgovic beat Zhang in August 2022
Zhang beating Joyce probably overcame that defeat, no?
But shouldn't he still be behind Hrgovic? Maybe I have to go read the FAQ again...
SportsRatings
Super Middleweight
Posts: 589
Joined: 26 May 2010, 23:15

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by SportsRatings »

SportsRatings wrote: 24 May 2023, 21:35
JCS wrote: 24 May 2023, 00:40
SportsRatings wrote: 23 May 2023, 20:17 Zhang ahead of Hgrovic

I thought for 12 months, you couldn't be ahead of a fighter you lost to. Hrgovic beat Zhang in August 2022
Zhang beating Joyce probably overcame that defeat, no?
But shouldn't he still be behind Hrgovic? Maybe I have to go read the FAQ again...
Winner above loser:

For the last 18 months a winner of a fight is kept above the loser.


To me that sounds like the winner (Hrgovic) is kept above the loser (Zhang) for 18 months
It should probably say, "this can be overcome by the loser having success in the future over a higher-rated opponent" ?
I really thought that if Zhang moved up due to future results, Hrgovic would move up along with him to stay ahead; or that Zhang's "ceiling" would be Hrgovic for 18 months
computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2369
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by computerrank »

SportsRatings wrote: 24 May 2023, 21:40
SportsRatings wrote: 24 May 2023, 21:35
JCS wrote: 24 May 2023, 00:40

Zhang beating Joyce probably overcame that defeat, no?
But shouldn't he still be behind Hrgovic? Maybe I have to go read the FAQ again...
Winner above loser:

For the last 18 months a winner of a fight is kept above the loser.


To me that sounds like the winner (Hrgovic) is kept above the loser (Zhang) for 18 months
It should probably say, "this can be overcome by the loser having success in the future over a higher-rated opponent" ?
I really thought that if Zhang moved up due to future results, Hrgovic would move up along with him to stay ahead; or that Zhang's "ceiling" would be Hrgovic for 18 months
Thanks SportsRatings, I added this to the BoxRec Ratings Description :TU:
twova
Minimumweight
Posts: 1
Joined: 03 Jun 2023, 23:29

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by twova »

How is it possible to have Shields #15 and Taylor as #2 n Cameron #1 smdh I have lost so much respect for Boxrec. It's obvious why it's like that and it's not no rating's system yea rite it's humans and their disturbed minds.
computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2369
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by computerrank »

1262978 wrote: 03 Jun 2023, 23:36 How is it possible to have Shields #15 and Taylor as #2 n Cameron #1 smdh I have lost so much respect for Boxrec. It's obvious why it's like that and it's not no rating's system yea rite it's humans and their disturbed minds.
Missing competition in the higher weight divisions ...
margaret thatcher
Bantamweight
Posts: 34915
Joined: 22 Jul 2019, 15:43

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by margaret thatcher »

1262978 wrote: 03 Jun 2023, 23:36 How is it possible to have Shields #15 and Taylor as #2 n Cameron #1 smdh I have lost so much respect for Boxrec. It's obvious why it's like that and it's not no rating's system yea rite it's humans and their disturbed minds.
BOXRECC IS WACIST :lol:
darwinjonas
Flyweight
Posts: 3
Joined: 25 Jul 2021, 13:42

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by darwinjonas »

John wrote: 17 Aug 2021, 08:24 A full explanation of the ratings can be found here http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/BoxRe ... escription
Beterbiev 24th p4p... He fought Koelling for the IBF, Govzdyk WBC and Smith Jr WBO, All by KO. the only fighter on the list who unifies twice. He KO all his mandatories by KO and all his opponents. I don't know nothing or the algorithm need to be review.
diego123
Minimumweight
Posts: 1
Joined: 03 Jun 2023, 23:17

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by diego123 »

Stupid question, how do I view number ratings on BoxRec? I have it set to display them on my account settings but all I see is the star rating.
computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2369
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by computerrank »

1262973 wrote: 10 Jun 2023, 17:25 Stupid question, how do I view number ratings on BoxRec? I have it set to display them on my account settings but all I see is the star rating.
Only special roles can see the rating points currently.
gmegibben1
Super Flyweight
Posts: 1
Joined: 14 Jan 2021, 21:58

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by gmegibben1 »

At some stage will regular users be able to see the ratings again?
computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2369
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by computerrank »

gmegibben1 wrote: 26 Jun 2023, 13:05 At some stage will regular users be able to see the ratings again?
This is not in the pipeline.
jujigatame
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 6519
Joined: 30 Oct 2004, 21:08

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by jujigatame »

I know we're (sadly) not getting the numerical ratings back but I at least wish we could see the rating progressions on the fighter pages, even if they're in the 0-5 star format. It was super useful to be able to see a fighter's career trajectory and the quality of each of their opponents at the time of the fight.
computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2369
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by computerrank »

jujigatame wrote: 09 Jul 2023, 22:18 I know we're (sadly) not getting the numerical ratings back but I at least wish we could see the rating progressions on the fighter pages, even if they're in the 0-5 star format. It was super useful to be able to see a fighter's career trajectory and the quality of each of their opponents at the time of the fight.
For me ithe stars are shown, even when I am not logged in.
jujigatame
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 6519
Joined: 30 Oct 2004, 21:08

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by jujigatame »

computerrank wrote: 10 Jul 2023, 03:45
jujigatame wrote: 09 Jul 2023, 22:18 I know we're (sadly) not getting the numerical ratings back but I at least wish we could see the rating progressions on the fighter pages, even if they're in the 0-5 star format. It was super useful to be able to see a fighter's career trajectory and the quality of each of their opponents at the time of the fight.
For me ithe stars are shown, even when I am not logged in.
I see stars, but only 1 set, which I thought was the "bout rating" rather than 1 rating for each fighter. Is that not the correct way to interpret it?
pelhwan
Lightweight
Posts: 6
Joined: 05 Mar 2016, 09:17

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by pelhwan »

https://boxrec.com/wiki/index.php/BoxRe ... ht_Annuals

Are the ratings for the first of that year, or the end of that year?
computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2369
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by computerrank »

pelhwan wrote: 11 Jul 2023, 05:45 https://boxrec.com/wiki/index.php/BoxRe ... ht_Annuals

Are the ratings for the first of that year, or the end of that year?
For the end ...
computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2369
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by computerrank »

jujigatame wrote: 10 Jul 2023, 17:35
computerrank wrote: 10 Jul 2023, 03:45
jujigatame wrote: 09 Jul 2023, 22:18 I know we're (sadly) not getting the numerical ratings back but I at least wish we could see the rating progressions on the fighter pages, even if they're in the 0-5 star format. It was super useful to be able to see a fighter's career trajectory and the quality of each of their opponents at the time of the fight.
For me ithe stars are shown, even when I am not logged in.
I see stars, but only 1 set, which I thought was the "bout rating" rather than 1 rating for each fighter. Is that not the correct way to interpret it?
Yes, the bout ratings are shown.
Tyler
Super Middleweight
Posts: 3
Joined: 01 May 2010, 00:03

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by Tyler »

computerrank wrote: 27 Jun 2023, 08:58
gmegibben1 wrote: 26 Jun 2023, 13:05 At some stage will regular users be able to see the ratings again?
This is not in the pipeline.
This makes review of non-active, lesser known fighters nearly impossible. Why is this useful feature not being brought back? There is no transparency to the ratings without them.

Even active fighters are trending towards 12+ month layoffs, so we end up with "NA" vs "NA" (especially on PBC cards). At the very least, would you consider increasing inactivity to 15 months?
jujigatame
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 6519
Joined: 30 Oct 2004, 21:08

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by jujigatame »

computerrank wrote: 11 Jul 2023, 06:29
jujigatame wrote: 10 Jul 2023, 17:35
computerrank wrote: 10 Jul 2023, 03:45 For me ithe stars are shown, even when I am not logged in.
I see stars, but only 1 set, which I thought was the "bout rating" rather than 1 rating for each fighter. Is that not the correct way to interpret it?
Yes, the bout ratings are shown.
It would be nice to have the individual fighter ratings for each fight. Even in star form would be good if there are no plans to make the numerical ratings public again. I think it's really important to be able to gauge a fighter's career progression and strength of opposition.
computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2369
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by computerrank »

Tyler wrote: 11 Jul 2023, 19:44
computerrank wrote: 27 Jun 2023, 08:58
gmegibben1 wrote: 26 Jun 2023, 13:05 At some stage will regular users be able to see the ratings again?
This is not in the pipeline.
This makes review of non-active, lesser known fighters nearly impossible. Why is this useful feature not being brought back? There is no transparency to the ratings without them.

Even active fighters are trending towards 12+ month layoffs, so we end up with "NA" vs "NA" (especially on PBC cards). At the very least, would you consider increasing inactivity to 15 months?
Inactivity always was after 12 months before COVID-19 and only was temporarily set to 18 months due to the special situation then.
gregregegg
Featherweight
Posts: 7440
Joined: 29 Sep 2017, 04:08

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by gregregegg »

computerrank wrote: 12 Jul 2023, 06:12
Tyler wrote: 11 Jul 2023, 19:44
computerrank wrote: 27 Jun 2023, 08:58 This is not in the pipeline.
This makes review of non-active, lesser known fighters nearly impossible. Why is this useful feature not being brought back? There is no transparency to the ratings without them.

Even active fighters are trending towards 12+ month layoffs, so we end up with "NA" vs "NA" (especially on PBC cards). At the very least, would you consider increasing inactivity to 15 months?
Inactivity always was after 12 months before COVID-19 and only was temporarily set to 18 months due to the special situation then.
Is it possible to make a system where fighters with fights booked return-to/stay-in the rankings? To avoid examples like usyk disapearing from the rankings in the week leading up to his fight with DDD....
computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2369
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by computerrank »

gregregegg wrote: 12 Jul 2023, 06:25
computerrank wrote: 12 Jul 2023, 06:12
Tyler wrote: 11 Jul 2023, 19:44

This makes review of non-active, lesser known fighters nearly impossible. Why is this useful feature not being brought back? There is no transparency to the ratings without them.

Even active fighters are trending towards 12+ month layoffs, so we end up with "NA" vs "NA" (especially on PBC cards). At the very least, would you consider increasing inactivity to 15 months?
Inactivity always was after 12 months before COVID-19 and only was temporarily set to 18 months due to the special situation then.
Is it possible to make a system where fighters with fights booked return-to/stay-in the rankings? To avoid examples like usyk disapearing from the rankings in the week leading up to his fight with DDD....
There are too many no shows with scheduled bouts ...
sandis
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2895
Joined: 14 Jul 2006, 01:26

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by sandis »

Why Dmitry Aulov is rated that high?

He had the only DQ win against a boxer who knocked out a pro debut in his pro debut
SportsRatings
Super Middleweight
Posts: 589
Joined: 26 May 2010, 23:15

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by SportsRatings »

How is Teofimo Lopez "inactive" and not ranked at Super Light ?

He just won 1.5 months ago, and he beat the #2 guy ?
Post Reply