Ratings - please read before commenting

Post Reply
John
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 8181
Joined: 28 Dec 2001, 20:00

Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by John »

A full explanation of the ratings can be found here http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/BoxRe ... escription
computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2369
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

release 1.1.7 live

Post by 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
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 5957
Joined: 17 Dec 2004, 13:27

Re: release 1.1.7 live

Post by JCS »

computerrank wrote: 17 Aug 2021, 10:44 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
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 274
Joined: 28 Nov 2002, 18:57

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by 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!! :witzend:



...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 :OhYes:
margaret thatcher
Bantamweight
Posts: 34915
Joined: 22 Jul 2019, 15:43

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by margaret thatcher »

first manny post of the new thread :yay:

now we just need mike in here too :OhYes:
computerrank
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2369
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

Re: release 1.1.7 live

Post by computerrank »

JCS wrote: 17 Aug 2021, 21:17
computerrank wrote: 17 Aug 2021, 10:44 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
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2369
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by computerrank »

Manrae wrote: 17 Aug 2021, 21:39 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!! :witzend:



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

Regarding his last loss, it depends to whom you lose.
Manrae
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 274
Joined: 28 Nov 2002, 18:57

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by Manrae »

computerrank wrote: 18 Aug 2021, 04:06
Manrae wrote: 17 Aug 2021, 21:39 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!! :witzend:



...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 :OhYes:
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
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2369
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by computerrank »

Manrae wrote: 18 Aug 2021, 21:44
computerrank wrote: 18 Aug 2021, 04:06
Manrae wrote: 17 Aug 2021, 21:39 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!! :witzend:



...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 :OhYes:
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
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 5957
Joined: 17 Dec 2004, 13:27

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by 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
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2369
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by computerrank »

JCS wrote: 04 Sep 2021, 12:26 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
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2369
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

inactivity back to 12 months cut off

Post by computerrank »

Inactivity is now back to a 12 month cut off, we are at 90% of the number prior to COVID.
pugilisticspecialist
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 242
Joined: 19 May 2009, 16:23

Re: inactivity back to 12 months cut off

Post by pugilisticspecialist »

computerrank wrote: 23 Sep 2021, 10:55 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
Super Middleweight
Posts: 589
Joined: 26 May 2010, 23:15

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by 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
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2369
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by computerrank »

SportsRatings wrote: 07 Oct 2021, 14:07 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
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 5957
Joined: 17 Dec 2004, 13:27

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by JCS »

computerrank wrote: 08 Oct 2021, 16:17

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
Super Middleweight
Posts: 589
Joined: 26 May 2010, 23:15

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by SportsRatings »

computerrank wrote: 08 Oct 2021, 16:17
SportsRatings wrote: 07 Oct 2021, 14:07 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
Super Middleweight
Posts: 589
Joined: 26 May 2010, 23:15

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by SportsRatings »

JCS wrote: 08 Oct 2021, 16:19
computerrank wrote: 08 Oct 2021, 16:17

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
Bantamweight
Posts: 34915
Joined: 22 Jul 2019, 15:43

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by 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
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 242
Joined: 19 May 2009, 16:23

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by pugilisticspecialist »

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

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by computerrank »

pugilisticspecialist wrote: 10 Oct 2021, 19:51
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
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
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 242
Joined: 19 May 2009, 16:23

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by pugilisticspecialist »

computerrank wrote: 11 Oct 2021, 06:58
pugilisticspecialist wrote: 10 Oct 2021, 19:51
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
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
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2369
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

Re: Ratings - please read before commenting

Post by computerrank »

pugilisticspecialist wrote: 11 Oct 2021, 20:27
computerrank wrote: 11 Oct 2021, 06:58
pugilisticspecialist wrote: 10 Oct 2021, 19:51

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
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 274
Joined: 28 Nov 2002, 18:57

Re: inactivity back to 12 months cut off

Post by Manrae »

computerrank wrote: 23 Sep 2021, 10:55 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
Editor
Editor
Posts: 2369
Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59

Re: inactivity back to 12 months cut off

Post by computerrank »

Manrae wrote: 13 Oct 2021, 03:18
computerrank wrote: 23 Sep 2021, 10:55 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.
Post Reply