Ratings - please read before commenting

[John]

A full explanation of the ratings can be found here http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/BoxRe ... escription

[computerrank]

New release 1.1.7 is live.

Basic algorithm unchanged. A ratings cap is introduced.

The rating of a boxer may not be higher than twice the rating of his best defeated opponent within the last 3 years.

This limits the rating of a boxer, who only defeats relatively inferior opponents.

[JCS]

New release 1.1.7 is live.

Basic algorithm unchanged. A ratings cap is introduced.

The rating of a boxer may not be higher than twice the rating of his best defeated opponent within the last 3 years.

This limits the rating of a boxer, who only defeats relatively inferior opponents.

That seems quite harsh... is there any limit to the deduction amount?

Who suffered the largest consequences compared to the last release?

[Manrae]

Undefeated former 168lb champ that has moved up to 175 and has had 3 KO wins (1 over a former title challenger) being #1??

That's just nonsense!!



...Callum Smith, former 168lb champ that has had 0 fights at 175 and is coming off of a 12-round, one-sided whooping being #1??

...makes sense

[margaret thatcher]

first manny post of the new thread

now we just need mike in here too

[computerrank]

New release 1.1.7 is live.

Basic algorithm unchanged. A ratings cap is introduced.

The rating of a boxer may not be higher than twice the rating of his best defeated opponent within the last 3 years.

This limits the rating of a boxer, who only defeats relatively inferior opponents.

That seems quite harsh... is there any limit to the deduction amount?

Who suffered the largest consequences compared to the last release?

The cap cannot be lower than 25 percent of the basic rating.

[computerrank]

Undefeated former 168lb champ that has moved up to 175 and has had 3 KO wins (1 over a former title challenger) being #1??

That's just nonsense!!



...Callum Smith, former 168lb champ that has had 0 fights at 175 and is coming off of a 12-round, one-sided whooping being #1??

...makes sense

The editors moved him to Light Heavyweight, because he wants to box there.

Regarding his last loss, it depends to whom you lose.

[Manrae]

Undefeated former 168lb champ that has moved up to 175 and has had 3 KO wins (1 over a former title challenger) being #1??

That's just nonsense!!



...Callum Smith, former 168lb champ that has had 0 fights at 175 and is coming off of a 12-round, one-sided whooping being #1??

...makes sense

The editors moved him to Light Heavyweight, because he wants to box there.

Regarding his last loss, it depends to whom you lose.

Understood. Does this new release change the annual rankings?

[computerrank]

Undefeated former 168lb champ that has moved up to 175 and has had 3 KO wins (1 over a former title challenger) being #1??

That's just nonsense!!



...Callum Smith, former 168lb champ that has had 0 fights at 175 and is coming off of a 12-round, one-sided whooping being #1??

...makes sense

The editors moved him to Light Heavyweight, because he wants to box there.

Regarding his last loss, it depends to whom you lose.

Understood. Does this new release change the annual rankings?

... no ...

[JCS]

Martin, this one is a little odd.. but may be fine.

Boxer 812851 lost to 779174
Boxer 812851 drew w/ 779174 (next match for both, most recent for both)

However, 812851 ranked higher than 779174

Seems like 779174 would be ranked above.. considering the previous match was a win over the same guy..

[computerrank]

Martin, this one is a little odd.. but may be fine.

Boxer 812851 lost to 779174
Boxer 812851 drew w/ 779174 (next match for both, most recent for both)

However, 812851 ranked higher than 779174

Seems like 779174 would be ranked above.. considering the previous match was a win over the same guy..

Hi Jason,
it is quite consistent with the current rules.
812851 lost to 779174. But is was a MD and 812851 was higher before and still higher after (regarding pure WHR). 779174 was in front due to winner above loser rule.
And then they drew. By that 812851 again lost a bit and 779174 won a bit regarding pure WHR ratings.
As the winner above loser rule keeps the winner only above the ratings of the loser at time of the bout, after the draw the prior loser was still above the prior winner - and so is in front now.

[computerrank]

Inactivity is now back to a 12 month cut off, we are at 90% of the number prior to COVID.

[pugilisticspecialist]

Inactivity is now back to a 12 month cut off, we are at 90% of the number prior to COVID.

If it's not too much trouble, can I see career peak ratings for HW, CW, LHW and SMW, please?

[SportsRatings]

In the all-time HW ratings, Jack Johnson is #303

This seems a bit off and I'm not sure how it gets here with WHR, I know there will always be oddball outliers that don't fit, but the worst part is that puts him one spot below Alexander Ustinov.

Can this be fixed, even if it has to be hard-coded that Jack Johnson must at all times be ahead of Alexander Ustinov?

[computerrank]

In the all-time HW ratings, Jack Johnson is #303

This seems a bit off and I'm not sure how it gets here with WHR, I know there will always be oddball outliers that don't fit, but the worst part is that puts him one spot below Alexander Ustinov.

Can this be fixed, even if it has to be hard-coded that Jack Johnson must at all times be ahead of Alexander Ustinov?

Whole-History Ratings go with the depth of competition. At time of Jack Johnson the recorded depth is very insufficient So there is a natural disadvantage compared with modern times with more complete records available even at lower levels.

But for the all-time ratings I am trying with concepts that will more regard the relative rank of boxers at their career times and not the absolute WHR values.

You will have to be patient, but I will come back with that.

[JCS]

But for the all-time ratings I am trying with concepts that will more regard the relative rank of boxers at their career times and not the absolute WHR values.

This is what I do.... I think it is the way to go, for sure.

[SportsRatings]

In the all-time HW ratings, Jack Johnson is #303

This seems a bit off and I'm not sure how it gets here with WHR, I know there will always be oddball outliers that don't fit, but the worst part is that puts him one spot below Alexander Ustinov.

Can this be fixed, even if it has to be hard-coded that Jack Johnson must at all times be ahead of Alexander Ustinov?

Whole-History Ratings go with the depth of competition. At time of Jack Johnson the recorded depth is very insufficient So there is a natural disadvantage compared with modern times with more complete records available even at lower levels.

But for the all-time ratings I am trying with concepts that will more regard the relative rank of boxers at their career times and not the absolute WHR values.

You will have to be patient, but I will come back with that.

No worries, I've been thinking about revising my own all-time ratings for years now, never quite got to it yet.

[SportsRatings]

But for the all-time ratings I am trying with concepts that will more regard the relative rank of boxers at their career times and not the absolute WHR values.

This is what I do.... I think it is the way to go, for sure.

I agree. My method combines absolute values and relative rankings, so that modern fighters get an edge but not an overwhelming one. But the devil's in the details in any system, keeping it fairly simple seems like a good plan or you'll go nuts trying to get it "just right"

[margaret thatcher]

jack johnson was about the size of a light heavy, beating up on guys the size of welterweights to middles today. won the title from a guy who fought at 5'7 168. by comparison, jaime munguia had a junior middleweight fight at 6 feet 176 pounds, joe smith is 6'1 and fights at around 190 pounds as a light heavy. totally different time and hard to compare to today


although of course 303 is too low

[pugilisticspecialist]

A full explanation of the ratings can be found here http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/BoxRe ... escription

Is the explanation for all-time ratings still correct?

I thought the current formula was:
(0.67 * average_5_top_defeated_opponents + 0.33 * career_top_rating) * division_factor * 10

Or has it changed again?

[computerrank]

A full explanation of the ratings can be found here http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/BoxRe ... escription

Is the explanation for all-time ratings still correct?

I thought the current formula was:
(0.67 * average_5_top_defeated_opponents + 0.33 * career_top_rating) * division_factor * 10

Or has it changed again?

It hasn't changed.

[pugilisticspecialist]

A full explanation of the ratings can be found here http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/BoxRe ... escription

Is the explanation for all-time ratings still correct?

I thought the current formula was:
(0.67 * average_5_top_defeated_opponents + 0.33 * career_top_rating) * division_factor * 10

Or has it changed again?

It hasn't changed.

Then the wiki explanation is incomplete.

[computerrank]

Is the explanation for all-time ratings still correct?

I thought the current formula was:
(0.67 * average_5_top_defeated_opponents + 0.33 * career_top_rating) * division_factor * 10

Or has it changed again?

It hasn't changed.

Then the wiki explanation is incomplete.

I added the formula.

[Manrae]

Inactivity is now back to a 12 month cut off, we are at 90% of the number prior to COVID.

Have annual ratings been updated to reflect the new changes?

[computerrank]

Inactivity is now back to a 12 month cut off, we are at 90% of the number prior to COVID.

Have annual ratings been updated to reflect the new changes?

The annual ratings are not touched by that.