Because he defeated #2dawudboxer wrote: ↑07 Oct 2023, 13:34 Why are boxrec rankings so God awful? And how the hell is Chris Eubank Jr rated number one in the world???
Ratings - please read before commenting
-
- Editor
- Posts: 2451
- Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59
Re: Ratings - please read before commenting
-
- Super Bantamweight
- Posts: 37012
- Joined: 22 Jul 2019, 15:43
Re: Ratings - please read before commenting
boxrec loves some chris eubank jr, not his first time at #1
-
- Light Heavyweight
- Posts: 632
- Joined: 26 May 2010, 23:15
Re: Ratings - please read before commenting
Are the undercard fights on Fury-Ngannou going to count in the ratings? I assume that Fury-Ngannou won't since it isn't listed. Who makes the call on this?
Re: Ratings - please read before commenting
Dubai commission who normally supervise there told us they think the event is unsanctioned.SportsRatings wrote: ↑13 Oct 2023, 01:17 Are the undercard fights on Fury-Ngannou going to count in the ratings? I assume that Fury-Ngannou won't since it isn't listed. Who makes the call on this?
-
- Welterweight
- Posts: 183
- Joined: 01 Feb 2014, 05:33
Re: Ratings - please read before commenting
And how is Liam Smith number two? Canelo is number one, there are many others better than Smith.computerrank wrote: ↑07 Oct 2023, 14:51Because he defeated #2dawudboxer wrote: ↑07 Oct 2023, 13:34 Why are boxrec rankings so God awful? And how the hell is Chris Eubank Jr rated number one in the world???
-
- Editor
- Posts: 2451
- Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59
Re: Ratings - please read before commenting
You think many others are better than Smith - BoxRec ratings evaluation of the bouts does not ...dawudboxer wrote: ↑22 Oct 2023, 07:55And how is Liam Smith number two? Canelo is number one, there are many others better than Smith.computerrank wrote: ↑07 Oct 2023, 14:51Because he defeated #2dawudboxer wrote: ↑07 Oct 2023, 13:34 Why are boxrec rankings so God awful? And how the hell is Chris Eubank Jr rated number one in the world???
Alvarez is not assigned to Middleweight, but to Super Middleweight.
Smith's defining win is against Vargas valid 15.6 points.
Nursaltanov's defining win is against Takesado valid 8.1 points.
Adames' defining win is against Derevanchenko valid 6.7 points.
Alimkhanyl's definign win is against Gualtierei valid 3.5 points.
Re: Ratings - please read before commenting
How has Fury slipped to 3rd behind Usyk and Joshua?
Also Wilder and Otiz not appearing due to inactivity I presume? If the cut off is 12 months I think that’s too short a period for fighters to be unranked.
Also Wilder and Otiz not appearing due to inactivity I presume? If the cut off is 12 months I think that’s too short a period for fighters to be unranked.
-
- Editor
- Posts: 2451
- Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59
Re: Ratings - please read before commenting
The inactivity limit is again 12 months as it was before COVID-19.
Re: Ratings - please read before commenting
How does that explain Fury dropping to 3 though?computerrank wrote: ↑23 Oct 2023, 13:27The inactivity limit is again 12 months as it was before COVID-19.
-
- Editor
- Posts: 2451
- Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59
Re: Ratings - please read before commenting
Fury's rating is defined by his best win against Wilder. But it is 24 months ago now. It once was worth 40.5 points, but now only 16.6 points. Whyte win is worth 14.3 points. Chisora win only 8 points.Cobwebcat wrote: ↑23 Oct 2023, 13:31How does that explain Fury dropping to 3 though?computerrank wrote: ↑23 Oct 2023, 13:27The inactivity limit is again 12 months as it was before COVID-19.
Usyk's best against Joshua is worth 30.3 points.
Joshua's best performance, his close loss against Usyk is worth 20.7 points.
Re: Ratings - please read before commenting
Fair enough. Is the time time decay of Fury’s 40.5 points part of the standard Whole History algorithm or is it something that has been bolted on? If it’s the latter does that decision improve predictability?computerrank wrote: ↑23 Oct 2023, 14:09Fury's rating is defined by his best win against Wilder. But it is 24 months ago now. It once was worth 40.5 points, but now only 16.6 points. Whyte win is worth 14.3 points. Chisora win only 8 points.Cobwebcat wrote: ↑23 Oct 2023, 13:31How does that explain Fury dropping to 3 though?computerrank wrote: ↑23 Oct 2023, 13:27 The inactivity limit is again 12 months as it was before COVID-19.
Usyk's best against Joshua is worth 30.3 points.
Joshua's best performance, his close loss against Usyk is worth 20.7 points.
Re: Ratings - please read before commenting
Is it a joke? Beterbiev #33 p4p
-
- Editor
- Posts: 2451
- Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59
-
- Editor
- Posts: 2451
- Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59
Re: Ratings - please read before commenting
Inactive time, winner above loser rule, ratings cap by best performance within a recent time period with decaying value of performances are BoxRec additions to the generalized Whole History algorithm - indroduced independent of the predictability optimisation of the Whole History algorithm.
See https://boxrec.com/wiki/index.php/BoxRe ... escription
The generalized Whole History algorithm would have; Fury 66.47, Usyk 32,46 and Joshua 27.25.
Re: Ratings - please read before commenting
Question regarding Rating
https://boxrec.com/en/box-pro/660104
On the whatif Feature before the fight happened (Vs. Abraham Ramirez)if Wagner won he would go to #16. He won by TKO and he didnt move to #16. Even still if i do the Whatif it says #16.
Can i get a better understanding on why please
thankyou
https://boxrec.com/en/box-pro/660104
On the whatif Feature before the fight happened (Vs. Abraham Ramirez)if Wagner won he would go to #16. He won by TKO and he didnt move to #16. Even still if i do the Whatif it says #16.
Can i get a better understanding on why please
thankyou
-
- Editor
- Posts: 2451
- Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 18:59
Re: Ratings - please read before commenting
Sorry, whatif Wagner vs Ramirez shows #29 as best outcome for Wagner, who is now #29 after his win against Ramirez.Donnymac wrote: ↑24 Oct 2023, 07:53 Question regarding Rating
https://boxrec.com/en/box-pro/660104
On the whatif Feature before the fight happened (Vs. Abraham Ramirez)if Wagner won he would go to #16. He won by TKO and he didnt move to #16. Even still if i do the Whatif it says #16.
Can i get a better understanding on why please
thankyou
And I additionally tested it with this win eliminated, and I get the same whatif: Wagner is #29 and is #29 after a best win against Ramirez.
-
- Light Heavyweight
- Posts: 632
- Joined: 26 May 2010, 23:15
Re: Ratings - please read before commenting
Have they changed their mind since the BBBofC sanctioned it ?John wrote: ↑13 Oct 2023, 03:23Dubai commission who normally supervise there told us they think the event is unsanctioned.SportsRatings wrote: ↑13 Oct 2023, 01:17 Are the undercard fights on Fury-Ngannou going to count in the ratings? I assume that Fury-Ngannou won't since it isn't listed. Who makes the call on this?
Re: Ratings - please read before commenting
#15 HW Joseph Parker vs #34 HW Simon Kean - 3 star fight
#12 HW Martin Bakole vs #19 HW Carlos Takam - 2 star fight
Shouldn't the bout rating be the other way around according to the rankings?
#12 HW Martin Bakole vs #19 HW Carlos Takam - 2 star fight
Shouldn't the bout rating be the other way around according to the rankings?
Re: Ratings - please read before commenting
Will be interesting to see where Ngannou is ranked tomorrow....
-
- Light Heavyweight
- Posts: 632
- Joined: 26 May 2010, 23:15
Re: Ratings - please read before commenting
I'd expect Fury to shift very little... after all, Ngannou is the unknown debutant. Fury's rating is a very proven one -- even though he looked like total crap... Ngannou has no history at all..SportsRatings wrote: ↑28 Oct 2023, 19:47and Fury, too after barely beating a novice in the system!
I don't know how WHR handles that
-
- Light Heavyweight
- Posts: 632
- Joined: 26 May 2010, 23:15
Re: Ratings - please read before commenting
I think Fury looked about like he usually does—sloppy but gets the job done. Against Ngannou he just found a guy he couldn't bully around the ring.JCS wrote: ↑28 Oct 2023, 19:49I'd expect Fury to shift very little... after all, Ngannou is the unknown debutant. Fury's rating is a very proven one -- even though he looked like total crap... Ngannou has no history at all..SportsRatings wrote: ↑28 Oct 2023, 19:47and Fury, too after barely beating a novice in the system!
I don't know how WHR handles that
I'm more shocked at how good Ngannou's defense and actual boxing was. I thought he'd be a punching bag after a while but he kept his defense up and didn't gas.
But yeah Ngannou will have to be rated compared to Fury, in some systems though Fury might be penalized. In ELO, what would happen to Carlsen if he almost lost to a guy who never played chess before? (maybe nothing, apparently you can't really lose significant rank even from a draw in ELO)
Re: Ratings - please read before commenting
I thought Fury was very inaccurate with his punching... and timid, but perhaps he felt the power.SportsRatings wrote: ↑28 Oct 2023, 20:41I think Fury looked about like he usually does—sloppy but gets the job done. Against Ngannou he just found a guy he couldn't bully around the ring.JCS wrote: ↑28 Oct 2023, 19:49I'd expect Fury to shift very little... after all, Ngannou is the unknown debutant. Fury's rating is a very proven one -- even though he looked like total crap... Ngannou has no history at all..SportsRatings wrote: ↑28 Oct 2023, 19:47
and Fury, too after barely beating a novice in the system!
I don't know how WHR handles that
I'm more shocked at how good Ngannou's defense and actual boxing was. I thought he'd be a punching bag after a while but he kept his defense up and didn't gas.
But yeah Ngannou will have to be rated compared to Fury, in some systems though Fury might be penalized. In ELO, what would happen to Carlsen if he almost lost to a guy who never played chess before? (maybe nothing, apparently you can't really lose significant rank even from a draw in ELO)
Also surprised by Ngannou's tank. Wonder if there was drug testing??
The K-factor is pretty low in chess... so Magnus would not lose much.
Re: Ratings - please read before commenting
Only #587 for Ngannou? Man that's rough.
-
- Light Heavyweight
- Posts: 632
- Joined: 26 May 2010, 23:15
Re: Ratings - please read before commenting
Where would Ngannou have debuted if he had gotten a majority draw, with the two 95-94 judges calling it even?