Ratings - please read before commenting

VSports
Super Flyweight
Posts: 5
Joined: 27 Sep 2018, 03:20

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by VSports »

I'm sure this is just an anomaly but this struck me as very odd:

My fighter, 861672, recently scored a TKO1 against 716182 but is ranked still ranked 4 spots behind him. Trying to make sense of it. :witzend:
margaret thatcher
Flyweight
Posts: 28804
Joined: 22 Jul 2019, 15:43

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by margaret thatcher »

hmmm might be a bug? since i think boxrec ratings have a rule where a guy must be ranked ahead of a guy he just beat

your guys a nice prospect btw :TU:
JCS
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 5805
Joined: 17 Dec 2004, 13:27

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by JCS »

VSports wrote: 08 Feb 2022, 17:07 I'm sure this is just an anomaly but this struck me as very odd:

My fighter, 861672, recently scored a TKO1 against 716182 but is ranked still ranked 4 spots behind him. Trying to make sense of it. :witzend:

Looks like a bug.
computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2241
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by computerrank »

VSports wrote: 08 Feb 2022, 17:07 I'm sure this is just an anomaly but this struck me as very odd:

My fighter, 861672, recently scored a TKO1 against 716182 but is ranked still ranked 4 spots behind him. Trying to make sense of it. :witzend:
I will look into that.
VSports
Super Flyweight
Posts: 5
Joined: 27 Sep 2018, 03:20

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by VSports »

Thank you :TU:
computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2241
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by computerrank »

VSports wrote: 08 Feb 2022, 17:07 I'm sure this is just an anomaly but this struck me as very odd:

My fighter, 861672, recently scored a TKO1 against 716182 but is ranked still ranked 4 spots behind him. Trying to make sense of it. :witzend:
I found the bug and corrected it. It will be set live with the next release - that will take some days
VSports
Super Flyweight
Posts: 5
Joined: 27 Sep 2018, 03:20

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by VSports »

computerrank wrote: 11 Feb 2022, 11:36
VSports wrote: 08 Feb 2022, 17:07 I'm sure this is just an anomaly but this struck me as very odd:

My fighter, 861672, recently scored a TKO1 against 716182 but is ranked still ranked 4 spots behind him. Trying to make sense of it. :witzend:
I found the bug and corrected it. It will be set live with the next release - that will take some days
Fantastic, thank you!
computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2241
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by computerrank »

The corrected release is live now.
jujigatame
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 6147
Joined: 30 Oct 2004, 21:08

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by jujigatame »

Did BoxRec abandon the "winner over loser" rule? I see Teo is back over Kambosos now.
computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2241
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by computerrank »

jujigatame wrote: 19 Feb 2022, 19:13 Did BoxRec abandon the "winner over loser" rule? I see Teo is back over Kambosos now.
Kamosos #2 and Lopez #3 :stop:
jujigatame
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 6147
Joined: 30 Oct 2004, 21:08

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by jujigatame »

computerrank wrote: 20 Feb 2022, 04:21
jujigatame wrote: 19 Feb 2022, 19:13 Did BoxRec abandon the "winner over loser" rule? I see Teo is back over Kambosos now.
Kamosos #2 and Lopez #3 :stop:
It definitely looked different yesterday. Maybe I just happened to look at a weird time? Do changes like that happen when rankings are recalculated after new results?
JCS
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 5805
Joined: 17 Dec 2004, 13:27

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by JCS »

Yeah... I saw it as well..
computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2241
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by computerrank »

:salut: I improved the program some days ago.

For the daily ratings run over all results in the database now all winner above loser upsets are regarded within 18 months up to any chain length. Currently the maximum chain length is 8 bouts.

Within the instant ratings update caused by any result entered or changed the winner above loser upsets are only regarded for the direct opponents of both boxers involved in the bout (in order to limit the effort).

So there may happen a situation before the new daily ratings run, where a winner may be rated temporarily wrongly below the loser.
Manrae
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 234
Joined: 28 Nov 2002, 18:57

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by Manrae »

Hello, just wondering why this fighter is still listed as inactive

https://boxrec.com/en/proboxer/798789
margaret thatcher
Flyweight
Posts: 28804
Joined: 22 Jul 2019, 15:43

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by margaret thatcher »

Manrae wrote: 23 Feb 2022, 22:48 Hello, just wondering why this fighter is still listed as inactive

https://boxrec.com/en/proboxer/798789
he announced his retirement after the fight
Manrae
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 234
Joined: 28 Nov 2002, 18:57

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by Manrae »

margaret thatcher wrote: 24 Feb 2022, 00:06
Manrae wrote: 23 Feb 2022, 22:48 Hello, just wondering why this fighter is still listed as inactive

https://boxrec.com/en/proboxer/798789
he announced his retirement after the fight
Oh wow, I had no idea. What was his reasoning?
margaret thatcher
Flyweight
Posts: 28804
Joined: 22 Jul 2019, 15:43

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by margaret thatcher »

he said its more important for him to work with the russian boxing federation to promote the sport than to be boxing himself
Manrae
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 234
Joined: 28 Nov 2002, 18:57

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by Manrae »

margaret thatcher wrote: 24 Feb 2022, 00:26 he said its more important for him to work with the russian boxing federation to promote the sport than to be boxing himself
I see, thanks for the info :salut:
Manrae
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 234
Joined: 28 Nov 2002, 18:57

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by Manrae »

https://boxrec.com/media/index.php/BoxR ... ht_Annuals

Why did Deontay Wilder disappear from the 2020 & 2021 rankings?
computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2241
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by computerrank »

Manrae wrote: 24 Feb 2022, 11:02 https://boxrec.com/media/index.php/BoxR ... ht_Annuals

Why did Deontay Wilder disappear from the 2020 & 2021 rankings?
Because Wilder had only clear losses in 2020 as well as in 2021.
Manrae
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 234
Joined: 28 Nov 2002, 18:57

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by Manrae »

computerrank wrote: 24 Feb 2022, 17:43
Manrae wrote: 24 Feb 2022, 11:02 https://boxrec.com/media/index.php/BoxR ... ht_Annuals

Why did Deontay Wilder disappear from the 2020 & 2021 rankings?
Because Wilder had only clear losses in 2020 as well as in 2021.
So... why would Muhammad Ali appear in the 1981 rankings? Were his loses in '80 & '81 not "clear"? Does the quality of opponent no longer apply for annual ratings?
computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2241
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by computerrank »

Manrae wrote: 24 Feb 2022, 21:17
computerrank wrote: 24 Feb 2022, 17:43
Manrae wrote: 24 Feb 2022, 11:02 https://boxrec.com/media/index.php/BoxR ... ht_Annuals

Why did Deontay Wilder disappear from the 2020 & 2021 rankings?
Because Wilder had only clear losses in 2020 as well as in 2021.
So... why would Muhammad Ali appear in the 1981 rankings? Were his loses in '80 & '81 not "clear"? Does the quality of opponent no longer apply for annual ratings?
Ali only had a clear loss in 1980 and so was not ranked in rhe 1980 annual ratings - no matter, how high ranked his opponent was. Ali had no counting achievements in that year.
But in 1981 he had an only close loss - and so he was ranked in the 1981 annual ratings.
Manrae
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 234
Joined: 28 Nov 2002, 18:57

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by Manrae »

computerrank wrote: 25 Feb 2022, 00:37
Manrae wrote: 24 Feb 2022, 21:17
computerrank wrote: 24 Feb 2022, 17:43 Because Wilder had only clear losses in 2020 as well as in 2021.
So... why would Muhammad Ali appear in the 1981 rankings? Were his loses in '80 & '81 not "clear"? Does the quality of opponent no longer apply for annual ratings?
Ali only had a clear loss in 1980 and so was not ranked in rhe 1980 annual ratings - no matter, how high ranked his opponent was. Ali had no counting achievements in that year.
But in 1981 he had an only close loss - and so he was ranked in the 1981 annual ratings.
So... the annual ratings are based on that specific year's achievements, yet are still influenced by whatever they were rated at the time?
For example, even though Ali had 0 wins and a "close" loss (according to the official scorecards) in '81 and was coming off of being unranked the previous year... not only makes the top 10, but is also placed over the guy that beat him. Correct?
computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2241
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by computerrank »

Manrae wrote: 25 Feb 2022, 01:05
computerrank wrote: 25 Feb 2022, 00:37
Manrae wrote: 24 Feb 2022, 21:17 So... why would Muhammad Ali appear in the 1981 rankings? Were his loses in '80 & '81 not "clear"? Does the quality of opponent no longer apply for annual ratings?
Ali only had a clear loss in 1980 and so was not ranked in rhe 1980 annual ratings - no matter, how high ranked his opponent was. Ali had no counting achievements in that year.
But in 1981 he had an only close loss - and so he was ranked in the 1981 annual ratings.
So... the annual ratings are based on that specific year's achievements, yet are still influenced by whatever they were rated at the time?
For example, even though Ali had 0 wins and a "close" loss (according to the official scorecards) in '81 and was coming off of being unranked the previous year... not only makes the top 10, but is also placed over the guy that beat him. Correct?
Yes, depend on the achievements in that year. But the winner above loser rule is not regarded there currently.
Manrae
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 234
Joined: 28 Nov 2002, 18:57

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by Manrae »

computerrank wrote: 25 Feb 2022, 01:33
Manrae wrote: 25 Feb 2022, 01:05
computerrank wrote: 25 Feb 2022, 00:37 Ali only had a clear loss in 1980 and so was not ranked in rhe 1980 annual ratings - no matter, how high ranked his opponent was. Ali had no counting achievements in that year.
But in 1981 he had an only close loss - and so he was ranked in the 1981 annual ratings.
So... the annual ratings are based on that specific year's achievements, yet are still influenced by whatever they were rated at the time?
For example, even though Ali had 0 wins and a "close" loss (according to the official scorecards) in '81 and was coming off of being unranked the previous year... not only makes the top 10, but is also placed over the guy that beat him. Correct?
Yes, depend on the achievements in that year. But the winner above loser rule is not regarded there currently.
Could I see what it would look like for heavyweights if it were? If it's too much trouble, it's fine, I'm just curious.
Post Reply