ratings

Kelly young · Post by **Kelly young** » 01 Mar 2005, 12:01

why has all rating been changed again and who doing the ratings as
who can G telford be rated better than C Mc Neil and Gary Young in your
standing Friday 24th Young had 1372

DavidPayne · Post by **DavidPayne** » 01 Mar 2005, 12:18

Everyone should have a look today - some algebra changes going on here because the ratings have been totally transformed.

Could someone explain the changes to the equations and the reasoning behind them?

jomothepure · Post by **jomothepure** » 01 Mar 2005, 12:35

If you look at world ratings, it looks like only the top 100 have changed - changed being a bit of an understatment. Bowe was 5th or 6th but is now in the 80s, and Audrey's up to 13th!

Can't be planned this, can it?

Freiheit · Post by **Freiheit** » 01 Mar 2005, 12:37

It is planned.

The mentioned fighters all have the same amount of points so technically they should hae the same ranking.

The formula has been posted on the editors forum.

computerrank · Post by **computerrank** » 01 Mar 2005, 13:01

Dear all,

please look at (for some explanations):

http://www.boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 23d#235324

Best regards
Martin

jomothepure · Post by **jomothepure** » 01 Mar 2005, 13:15

computerrank wrote:Dear all,

please look at (for some explanations):

http://www.boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 23d#235324

Best regards
Martin

Thanks

BubiScholz · Post by **BubiScholz** » 01 Mar 2005, 13:25

It´s a scandal! You only corrected the formula because the british dudes couldn´t see that Erdei is #1 in light heavy and not Johnson who is now the #1.

J · Post by J » 01 Mar 2005, 13:27

BubiScholz wrote:It´s a scandal! You only corrected the formula because the british dudes couldn´t see that Erdei is #1 in light heavy and not Johnson who is now the #1.

and quite rightly so.

BubiScholz · Post by **BubiScholz** » 01 Mar 2005, 13:38

J wrote:
BubiScholz wrote:It´s a scandal! You only corrected the formula because the british dudes couldn´t see that Erdei is #1 in light heavy and not Johnson who is now the #1.
and quite rightly so.

I know that I am discriminated here. without a little masochism i hadn´t made 1500 posts on this forum.

J · Post by J » 02 Mar 2005, 06:40

bollox as if you discriminated against you just sometimes talk shit like we all do.
You on erdei me on williams, you on heavyweights in general, me on Audley harrison. It happens dude you cant get it right all the time its half the fun.

BubiScholz · Post by **BubiScholz** » 02 Mar 2005, 06:50

J wrote:bollox as if you discriminated against you just sometimes talk shit like we all do.
You on erdei me on williams, you on heavyweights in general, me on Audley harrison. It happens dude you cant get it right all the time its half the fun.

let´s have some drinks together soon. roll on June.

J · Post by J » 02 Mar 2005, 06:52

oh yes lets have a keg load

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 02 Mar 2005, 06:57

BubiScholz wrote:
J wrote:
BubiScholz wrote:It´s a scandal! You only corrected the formula because the british dudes couldn´t see that Erdei is #1 in light heavy and not Johnson who is now the #1.
and quite rightly so.
I know that I am discriminated here. without a little masochism i hadn´t made 1500 posts on this forum.

Don't feel special, throughout history the mentally compromised have long been persecuted. It's to ostracise the feeble of mind and protect the gene pool.

J · Post by J » 02 Mar 2005, 07:02

ere Jim ive worked out who you really remin me of remember the geezer that used to present the Sunday show, Paul Tomkinson, he wa son tv the other night I nearly fell off my chair, dead ringer.

he's also a mouthy twat

just messing.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 02 Mar 2005, 07:07

Two words....

"Double seat.."

BubiScholz · Post by **BubiScholz** » 02 Mar 2005, 07:11

J wrote:oh yes lets have a keg load

do you think James will join us?

J · Post by J » 02 Mar 2005, 07:20

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Two words....

"Double seat.."

HAHA I DONT LOOK LIKE HIM THOUGH.
just rant like him,

Bubi come what may you will meet James mate probably Kev and and maybe Ian if he is at the hatton fight..

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 02 Mar 2005, 07:32

If I can get my hands on a ticket, I will be going, may have sourced one, we will see.

BubiScholz · Post by **BubiScholz** » 02 Mar 2005, 08:19

jamesmcdonnell wrote:If I can get my hands on a ticket, I will be going, may have sourced one, we will see.

i will cheer for Ricky Hatton and won´t talk about Erdei or Johnson.

Kelly young · Post by **Kelly young** » 03 Mar 2005, 13:21

I have just log on and the rating have been changed again i feel
all your are doing is confusing the people who take an interest in the forum and individual boxers for exsample at one point a boxer had
1476 point after 6 contest then use changed it again he then had 1210 point he has boxed on average 5 bouts a year all wins he was 1370
3 times in 6 month and was raised to 1410 but he only has 993 points now this is crazy and needs to fixed and stop messing with the ratings

computerrank · Post by **computerrank** » 03 Mar 2005, 14:26

Kelly young wrote:I have just log on and the rating have been changed again i feel
all your are doing is confusing the people who take an interest in the forum and individual boxers for exsample at one point a boxer had
1476 point after 6 contest then use changed it again he then had 1210 point he has boxed on average 5 bouts a year all wins he was 1370
3 times in 6 month and was raised to 1410 but he only has 993 points now this is crazy and needs to fixed and stop messing with the ratings

Kelly young,

sorry for any inconvenience.

But there were some necessary improvements in the ratings - step by step. Now:

- a boxer's rating is much more limited by the rating of his best defeated opponent

- this limit is additionaly reduced for the first 8 bouts of the boxer - stepping up with number of bouts

- this limit is additionaly reduced, if opponents have less than 8 bouts themselves

So this should explain the results, you can see in current ratings.

The rating rules are consolidated again now - and should be unchanged for some time.

Best regards
Martin

computerrank · Post by **computerrank** » 03 Mar 2005, 14:27

Kelly young wrote:I have just log on and the rating have been changed again i feel
all your are doing is confusing the people who take an interest in the forum and individual boxers for exsample at one point a boxer had
1476 point after 6 contest then use changed it again he then had 1210 point he has boxed on average 5 bouts a year all wins he was 1370
3 times in 6 month and was raised to 1410 but he only has 993 points now this is crazy and needs to fixed and stop messing with the ratings

Kelly young,

sorry for any inconvenience.

But there were some necessary improvements in the ratings - step by step. Now:

- a boxer's rating is much more limited by the rating of his best defeated opponent

- this limit is additionaly reduced for the first 8 bouts of the boxer - stepping up with number of bouts

- this limit is additionaly reduced, if opponents have less than 8 bouts themselves

So this should explain the results, you can see in current ratings.

The rating rules are consolidated again now - and should be unchanged for some time.

Best regards
Martin

computerrank · Post by **computerrank** » 03 Mar 2005, 14:27

Kelly young wrote:I have just log on and the rating have been changed again i feel
all your are doing is confusing the people who take an interest in the forum and individual boxers for exsample at one point a boxer had
1476 point after 6 contest then use changed it again he then had 1210 point he has boxed on average 5 bouts a year all wins he was 1370
3 times in 6 month and was raised to 1410 but he only has 993 points now this is crazy and needs to fixed and stop messing with the ratings

Kelly young,

sorry for any inconvenience.

But there were some necessary improvements in the ratings - step by step. Now:

- a boxer's rating is much more limited by the rating of his best defeated opponent

- this limit is additionaly reduced for the first 8 bouts of the boxer - stepping up with number of bouts

- this limit is additionaly reduced, if opponents have less than 8 bouts themselves

So this should explain the results, you can see in current ratings.

The rating rules are consolidated again now - and should be unchanged for some time.

Best regards
Martin