Suggestions for BoxRec - Archived

[Emaster]

The following proposals pertain to the BoxRec database. Suggestions on both BoxRec and the encyclopaedia can be found at the top of this page. Below is a list of wishes written from a user’s standpoint. There might be technical obstacles or other reasons which prevent the proposals from being realized, of course.

Next to the results on title fights lists (e.g. this list), BoxRec's Version 2 offered links to the corresponding fight pages in the encyclopaedia. The book icons did not return after Version 3 had come out. I'd like to have them back.

The schedule page provides various menus. I suggest another one: nationality. It would list the upcoming fights which feature at least one fighter of the selected nationality. Moreover, users should be able to combine choices of different menus, for instance in order to find all scheduled heavyweight fights in the United States. Having the opportunity to select several choices within a menu by checking boxes next to them would be another welcome improvement, which would also benefit the location page, the title search and the division menu of the fighterfinder. For instance, on the schedule page users could create a list showing the upcoming fights from the lightweight division downwards with the WBA or WBC world title at stake held in Japan.

The name search uses one box for the first name and another one for the last name. If users have copied a name from another place and want to search for it in the database, only one box for the whole name would save them further copy and paste actions.

After one year of inactivity boxers are not rated as active fighters any more. There could be a function which allows users themselves to adjust the period of inactivity after which fighters are excluded from the ratings. The same applies to the fighterfinder.

Scheduled bouts are "subject to commission approval / change" according to BoxRec. Maybe rumored bouts could somehow be distinguished from officially announced ones.

A ratings page lists 20 boxers. In the past it showed 25 or even 50. Couldn't the number be raised again? I wouldn't mind seeing 75 or 100 boxers on one page.

The boxers' residences could be replaced by the dates of their next fights and the names of their next opponents. Thus, schedules sorted by BoxRec's ratings would be created.

What’s the purpose of the black question mark which appears when pointing at a flag icon?

It should be marked on title fights lists which version of a title was on the line (interim, full, or super). Furthermore, the number of the defense and the name of the defending champion could be added to each title fight on the BoxRec boxer pages. For instance, instead of "IBF middleweight title" the line could read "IBF middleweight title (Hopkins's 10th defense)". As proposed in this section the information that a fight has not been the only one between the two contestants could already be shown on the BoxRec boxer pages (especially valuable to encyclopaedia editors who move fight pages to new titles).

There should be a definition regarding the additional information to be given on fights in BoxRec. I suggest noting basic information, that is, above all, knockdowns and point deductions. The information should be presented as precisely as possible (rather "Smith down twice in the first and three times in the third round" than "Smith down five times"; rather either "Smith twice deducted one point in round ten" or "Smith deducted two points at once in round ten" than "Smith deducted two points in round ten") and in consistent and graceful style: either "first round"/"round one" (which I propose) or "1st round"/"round 1", either "three times" (which I propose) or "3 times", either "round"/"rounds" (which I propose) or "rd."/"rds.", and either "rounds one and two" (which I propose) or "rounds one & two". To me "Smith down twice in the first round and three times in round two" is aesthetically more pleasing than "Smith down twice in the 1st rd. & 3 times in rd. 2."

The way knockdowns happened should only be added in the encyclopaedia (even the often-seen "body shot" comment, which can be a matter of interpretation.) Adding what caused referees to deduct points may be a borderline case. Why a bout was stopped/ruled a TKO, an NC/ND or a DQ could already be addressed in BoxRec. The same applies to extraordinary situations, e.g. if a title was at stake for one fighter only as the other one had failed to make the weight or if a sanctioning body did not recognize the ruling of the competent commission. Also data on attendances, gates, or agreed-upon catchweights could be mentioned in the database. Everything else should be elaborated on in the encyclopaedia, which would mean that a lot of information would have to be shifted there from BoxRec pages (e.g. from Jack Dempsey's page).

The boxers' records do not only show their opponents' names, but also their opponents' records from before their contests, e.g. 40-20-10. I suggest including stoppage information as well: 40(20)-20(10)-10. NCs should also be included: 40(20)-20(10)-10-5. As opposed to stoppage information, NCs are missing on boxers' profiles: won 40 (KO 20) + lost 20 (KO 10) + drawn 10 = 75. I propose including NCs: won 40 (KO 20) + lost 20 (KO 10) + drawn 10 + NCs 5 = 75. The representation of the records should also change in so far as draws should only appear on an opponent's record or a boxer's profile if the opponent or boxer has fought to at least one draw or No Contest ("15(12)-9(6)" or "won 15 (KO 12) + lost 9 (KO 6)" rather than "15(12)-9(6)-0" or "won 15 (KO 12) + lost 9 (KO 6) + drawn 0", "15(12)-9(6)" or "won 15 (KO 12) + lost 9 (KO 6)" rather than "15(12)-9(6)-0-0" or "won 15 (KO 12) + lost 9 (KO 6) + drawn 0 + NCs 0", but "15(12)-9(6)-0-1" or "won 15 (KO 12) + lost 9 (KO 6) + drawn 0 + NCs 1"). NCs should only show up on an opponent's record or a boxer's profile if that result has at least once occurred. Furthermore, no stoppage information is required in W or L columns which still show 0s ("0-0-1" or "won 0 + lost 0 + drawn 1" rather than "0(0)-0(0)-1" or "won 0 (KO 0) + lost 0 (KO 0) + drawn 1").

The boxers' profiles on the BoxRec boxer pages should also show the combined opponents' records including stoppages and NCs.

BoxRec pages could feature encyclopaedia pages, for instance below the advertisement banner. There could be kind of an encyclopaedia link of the day or week or month to a significant page or category in the encyclopaedia, which would probably introduce it to a broader circle of BoxRec users. New BoxRec features could be presented the same way to make users aware of them.

[SteveO]

Some very good suggestions there Emaster, particularly adding the NC's to a fighters record and the amount of stoppage losses.

[_TF_]

Sounds good mate

[Asterix]

Next to the results on title fights lists (e.g. this list), BoxRec's Version 2 offered links to the corresponding fight pages in the encyclopaedia. The book icons did not return after Version 3 had come out. I'd like to have them back. They could also appear next to the results given on the results page.

Agreed.

The schedule page provides various adjustable categories. I suggest another one: nationality. It would list the upcoming fights which feature at least one fighter of the selected nationality. Moreover, users should be able to combine categories, for instance in order to find all scheduled heavyweight fights in the United States. And having the opportunity to select several options which a category provides by checking boxes next to them would as well be a welcome improvement which would also benefit the location page, the title search and the division category of the boxer location function. For instance, on the schedule page users could create a list which shows the upcoming fights from the lightweight division downwards with the WBA or WBC world title at stake held in Japan.

I'm indifferent on this.

The name search uses one box for the first name and another one for the last name. If users have copied a name from another place and want to search for it in the database, only one box for the whole name would save them further copy and paste actions. An exact name search option would help prevent the search machine from finding a myriad of results, which happens, for example, when typing in Joe Louis.

Couldn't agree more. Two boxes is thoroughly annoying and the results aren't the best.

After one year of inactivity boxers are not rated as active fighters any more. There could be a function which allows users themselves to adjust the period of inactivity after which fighters are excluded from the ratings. The same applies to the boxer location function.

I'm very happy with the way it currently is. I don't believe it should be up to the user.

Scheduled bouts are "subject to commission approval / change" according to BoxRec. Maybe rumored bouts could somehow be distinguished from officially announced ones.

That would be nice. Boxrec's schedule lacks some credibility on the forums because of rumoured bouts not coming to fruition yet being up on Boxrec already.

A ratings page lists 20 boxers. In the past it showed 25 or even 50. Couldn't the number be raised again? I wouldn't mind seeing 75 or 100 boxers on one page. Moreover, the boxers' residences could be replaced by the dates of their next fights and the names of their next opponents. Thus, schedules sorted by BoxRec's ratings would be created.

I don't mind either way. I'm happy with it as it is.

What’s the purpose of the black question mark which appears when pointing at a flag icon?

The question mark denotes that there is a title attributed to the element, so if you hover over it text will appear.

The title fights lists should distinguish between interim title bouts and those with the full version of the title on the line. Furthermore, the number of the defense and the name of the defending champion could be added to each title fight on the BoxRec boxer pages. For instance, instead of "IBF middleweight title" the line could read "IBF middleweight title (Hopkins's 10th defense)". As proposed in this section the information that a fight has not been the only one between the two contestants could already be shown on the BoxRec boxer pages (especially valuable to encyclopaedia editors who move fight pages to new titles).

Good ideas.

There should be a definition regarding the additional information to be given on fights in BoxRec (below the title(s) at stake). I suggest noting basic information that is, above all, knockdowns and point deductions. The information should be presented as precisely as possible (rather "he was knocked down twice in the first and three times in the third round" than "he was knocked down five times" and "he was deducted one point on each of two separate occasions in round ten" rather than "he was deducted two points in round ten") and in consistent style (for aesthetical reasons): either "first round"/"round one" (which I propose) or "1st round"/"round 1" and either "round"/"rounds" (which I propose) or "rd."/"rds." The way knockdowns happened and what caused referees to deduct points should only be added in the encyclopaedia. Why a bout was stopped/ruled a TKO, an NC/ND or a DQ could already be addressed in BoxRec with an explanatory line. The same applies to extraordinary situations, e.g. if a title was at stake for one fighter only as the other one had failed to make the weight or if a sanctioning body did not recognize the ruling of the competent commission. Also data on attendances, gates, or agreed-upon catchweights could be mentioned in the database. Everything else should be elaborated in the encyclopaedia, which would mean that a lot of information would have to be shifted there from BoxRec pages (e.g. from Jack Dempsey's page).

Good ideas.

The boxers' records do not only show their opponents' names, but also their opponents' records from before their contests, e.g. 40-20-10. I suggest including stoppage information as well: 40 (20)-20 (10)-10. NCs should also be included: 40 (20)-20 (10)-10-5. As opposed to stoppage information, NCs are missing on boxers' profiles: won 40 (KO 20) + lost 20 (KO 10) + drawn 10 = 75. I propose including NCs: won 40 (KO 20) + lost 20 (KO 10) + drawn 10 + NCs 5 = 75. The representation of the records should also change in so far as draws should only appear on an opponent's record or a boxer's profile if the opponent or boxer has fought to at least one draw or No Contest ("15 (12)-9 (6)" or "won 15 (KO 12) + lost 9 (KO 6)" rather than "15 (12)-9 (6)-0" or "won 15 (KO 12) + lost 9 (KO 6) + drawn 0", "15 (12)-9 (6)" or "won 15 (KO 12) + lost 9 (KO 6)" rather than "15 (12)-9 (6)-0-0" or "won 15 (KO 12) + lost 9 (KO 6) + drawn 0 + NCs 0", but "15 (12)-9 (6)-0-1" or "won 15 (KO 12) + lost 9 (KO 6) + drawn 0 + NCs 1"). NCs should only show up on an opponent's record or a boxer's profile if that result has at least once occurred. Furthermore, no stoppage information is required in W or L columns which still boast an 0 ("0-0-1" or "won 0 + lost 0 + drawn 1" rather than "0 (0)-0 (0)-1" or "won 0 (KO 0) + lost 0 (KO 0) + drawn 1").

I agree about stoppage losses (which is very important to me), but does anyone actually care about NC results? I don't mind, though, just questioning whether it's needed considering it takes up space.

The boxers' profiles on the BoxRec boxer pages should also show the combined opponents' records including stoppages and NCs.

That would be a very nice statistic and would highlight boxers with padded records. Anything to show them up is a very good idea.

Not only the weight but also the height is adjustable with the "Lb", "St", and "Kg" functions on the BoxRec boxer pages so that renaming them seems to be appropriate. Two separate functions, one to adjust the weight unit, the other one to adjust the height unit would also be useful as even users who are more familiar with the International System of Units might have adapted to specify weight in pounds, but not height in foot and inches.

I don't mind either way, but I agree that as weight is adjustable height should be also. I'm completely converted to pounds now.

BoxRec pages could feature encyclopaedia pages, for instance below the advertisement banner. There could be kind of an encyclopaedia link of the day or week or month to a significant page or category in the encyclopaedia which would probably introduce it to a broader circle of BoxRec users. New BoxRec features (like those suggested above) could be presented the same way to make users aware of them.

Sounds fine to me. I don't completely understand what you mean, but have an idea.

[Emaster]

Comments on commented proposals:

After one year of inactivity boxers are not rated as active fighters any more. There could be a function which allows users themselves to adjust the period of inactivity after which fighters are excluded from the ratings. The same applies to the fighterfinder.

I'm very happy with the way it currently is. I don't believe it should be up to the user.

Being able to include all fighters who were active within the last two, five, or ten years would be intriguing to me.

The boxers' records do not only show their opponents' names, but also their opponents' records from before their contests, e.g. 40-20-10. I suggest including stoppage information as well: 40(20)-20(10)-10. NCs should also be included: 40(20)-20(10)-10-5. As opposed to stoppage information, NCs are missing on boxers' profiles: won 40 (KO 20) + lost 20 (KO 10) + drawn 10 = 75. I propose including NCs: won 40 (KO 20) + lost 20 (KO 10) + drawn 10 + NCs 5 = 75. The representation of the records should also change in so far as draws should only appear on an opponent's record or a boxer's profile if the opponent or boxer has fought to at least one draw or No Contest ("15(12)-9(6)" or "won 15 (KO 12) + lost 9 (KO 6)" rather than "15(12)-9(6)-0" or "won 15 (KO 12) + lost 9 (KO 6) + drawn 0", "15(12)-9(6)" or "won 15 (KO 12) + lost 9 (KO 6)" rather than "15(12)-9(6)-0-0" or "won 15 (KO 12) + lost 9 (KO 6) + drawn 0 + NCs 0", but "15(12)-9(6)-0-1" or "won 15 (KO 12) + lost 9 (KO 6) + drawn 0 + NCs 1"). NCs should only show up on an opponent's record or a boxer's profile if that result has at least once occurred. Furthermore, no stoppage information is required in W or L columns which still show 0s ("0-0-1" or "won 0 + lost 0 + drawn 1" rather than "0(0)-0(0)-1" or "won 0 (KO 0) + lost 0 (KO 0) + drawn 1").

I agree about stoppage losses (which is very important to me), but does anyone actually care about NC results? I don't mind, though, just questioning whether it's needed considering it takes up space.

NCs/NDs are counted as professional bouts and, in my opinion, should be shown as such. Besides, technical draws rendered in the same situations in which other commissions rule NCs are indeed included in the records’ draw totals.

Proposals originally posted in other threads:

In BoxRec, world titles are either represented as sanctioning body weight class title, e.g. IBF heavyweight title, or as sanctioning body World weight class title, e.g. WBA World heavyweight title. "World" should either always be included or excluded.

In BoxRec, the sanctioning bodies' names are either abbreviated, e.g. the NYSAC's (New York State Athletic Commission), or they are not, e.g. the National Boxing Association's (NBA). Sanctioning bodies should either always be abbreviated or never.

The title search lists titles by the alphabetical order of the sanctioning bodies' names. I suggest placing the world titles awarded by the major sanctioning bodies at the top of the list (NYSAC World, NBA World, WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO) and adding the title, which is refered to as the World Weight class Title, e.g. the World Heavyweight Title in BoxRec.

The result representation of D-TD either refers to a Technical Draw or a Technical Decision which has produced a draw. Without further information BoxRec users cannot tell if there’s been an NC-like Technical Draw or a Technical Decision Draw after tallying up the scores.

If the representation of Technical Decisions was altered from D-TD to D-TPTS or D-MD, D-TD would solely refer to Technical Draws. Such a change would also agree with the representation of nontechnical decisions, which in case of a draw are represented as D-PTS or D-MD, but not D-D.

Why not represent technical decision wins/losses the same way that nontechnical decisions are shown (W/L-TPTS, W/L-TUD, W/L-TMD, or W/L-TSD instead of W/L-TD)?

[Nodecision]

A related matter: You probably should not publish results until you get the fighters' names just right. Repeating names on the same fight card is ridiculous and isn't funny. This isn't the first time this has happened.

Just look at these results, for instance. The names Tony Oakey, Courtney Fry, Carl Dilks and Darren Stubbs appear multiple times. What are your editors doing?

Friday 20 February 2009

York Hall, Bethnal Green, London, United Kingdom

light heavyweight Tony Oakey 28 (7) - 4 (1) - 1 W Billy Boyle 11 (7) - 1 (0) - 0 PTS 3 3
light heavyweight Courtney Fry 13 (5) - 2 (0) - 0 W Shon Davies 7 (3) - 3 (1) - 0 PTS 3 3
light heavyweight Bob Ajisafe 6 (2) - 1 (0) - 0 L Carl Dilks 10 (4) - 1 (0) - 0 PTS 3 3
light heavyweight Darren Stubbs 19 (8) - 5 (2) - 0 W Steven Spartacus 19 (11) - 6 (3) - 0 TKO 2 3 ~ time: 2:44 ~
light heavyweight Courtney Fry 13 (5) - 2 (0) - 0 L Tony Oakey 28 (7) - 4 (1) - 1 PTS 3 3
light heavyweight Carl Dilks 10 (4) - 1 (0) - 0 L Darren Stubbs 19 (8) - 5 (2) - 0 SD 3 3
light heavyweight Tony Oakey 28 (7) - 4 (1) - 1 W Darren Stubbs 19 (8) - 5 (2) - 0 UD 3 3

[John]

A related matter: You probably should not publish results until you get the fighters' names just right. Repeating names on the same fight card is ridiculous and isn't funny. This isn't the first time this has happened.

Just look at these results, for instance. The names Tony Oakey, Courtney Fry, Carl Dilks and Darren Stubbs appear multiple times. What are your editors doing?

Friday 20 February 2009

York Hall, Bethnal Green, London, United Kingdom

light heavyweight Tony Oakey 28 (7) - 4 (1) - 1 W Billy Boyle 11 (7) - 1 (0) - 0 PTS 3 3
light heavyweight Courtney Fry 13 (5) - 2 (0) - 0 W Shon Davies 7 (3) - 3 (1) - 0 PTS 3 3
light heavyweight Bob Ajisafe 6 (2) - 1 (0) - 0 L Carl Dilks 10 (4) - 1 (0) - 0 PTS 3 3
light heavyweight Darren Stubbs 19 (8) - 5 (2) - 0 W Steven Spartacus 19 (11) - 6 (3) - 0 TKO 2 3 ~ time: 2:44 ~
light heavyweight Courtney Fry 13 (5) - 2 (0) - 0 L Tony Oakey 28 (7) - 4 (1) - 1 PTS 3 3
light heavyweight Carl Dilks 10 (4) - 1 (0) - 0 L Darren Stubbs 19 (8) - 5 (2) - 0 SD 3 3
light heavyweight Tony Oakey 28 (7) - 4 (1) - 1 W Darren Stubbs 19 (8) - 5 (2) - 0 UD 3 3

Those results are correct .

[Nodecision]

You mean this was really a round-robin tournament among these boxers on the same day? Is that allowable?

[JibJab]

A Picture of the fighter.

[JCS]

A Picture of the fighter.

That would be annoying, unless they were all high-quality, and the same size. In other words.. consistent.

[Asterix]

A Picture of the fighter.

Click on the encyclopaedia link and there will be one there for the more popular fighters.

[JibJab]

A Picture of the fighter.

Click on the encyclopaedia link and there will be one there for the more popular fighters.

It just seems like they should be right there for the world to see as soon as they clink on the record link. Ali, Frazier, Louis, Dempsey all in the primes above their records. Plus it would be fun to put a face with a name with colorful fighters like Reggie Strickland and Bruce Strauss.

[bretthyham]

how do i get intouch with somebody in australia about having updates that i have found on a boxers career
thanks Brett Hyham

[Doni_albo]

I have a suggestion about the new "rating country" system.

Maybe its better to make it like this. In the ratings boxers are rated in that country where they fight, but instead of the "rating country" to bring back just the "nationality" section. For example you can rate an Albanian boxer in USA, but put his nationality under that.

[Brutu]

Also if the fight was filmed or televised and then a link to what libraries or collectors have the original nitrate prints and in what condition its in.

[Ric]

how do i get intouch with somebody in australia about having updates that i have found on a boxers career
thanks Brett Hyham

try [email protected]

[Emaster]

A ratings page lists 20 boxers. In the past it showed 25 or even 50. Couldn't the number be raised again? I wouldn't mind seeing 75 or 100 boxers on one page.

The number has at least been raised back to 25 .

New proposals:

Sometimes BoxRec knows the judges and their scores but not which scores belong to which judges (see Zarate vs. Mathebula or Zegan vs. Sachbazjan.). In such a case, the judges' names could be inserted into the comment box with the scores being inserted into the scores fields. Thus, the left score would refer to that boxer whose BoxRec page is being watched. This is not the case if the scores are entered into the comment box with the judges going into the judges fields. On the other hand, only bouts whose judges have been inserted into the judges fields are listed on the judges' records. The latter argument should prevail.

No the scores are more important as they feed into the ratings

Another forum software which, for instance, numbers messages, simplifies naming links, and allows users to not only delete the latest message in a thread would be welcome.

Editors could inform users of their (dis)approvals of a correction or an update in a message which could automatically be conveyed to those users who have viewed the thread in which the correction or update had been reported and then delete the thread. Thus, only threads containing valuable discussions would survive. Others would be discarded after having fulfilled their purposes.

Like each page in the IMDb, each page in BoxRec could have an update button at the bottom so that users could forward their corrections or updates right to the BoxRec editors' section where they could be examined and would not be missed, which sometimes happens if they are posted on the forums.

[JCS]

Hi everyone,

Thought I would make a new thread for suggestions for the forum. Got a new section idea, ideas,etc? Feel free to post them here

Not promising immediate changes, but all us moderators do discuss the suggestions if I do not make the changes myself right away.

So what is on your mind?

And you are...?

[yanoboxing]

Boxrec alerts would basically be the same as Google alerts. People would have the option to click on a tab next to any active fighter's name and every time he had a bout scheduled, canceled, as well as fight results.

The person who clicked on the "Boxrec alerts" tab page would enter their email be notified via email about the news, just like the suspension list page. Boxrec alerts would be phenomenal for promoters, managers, matchmakers, fans, writers etc and is much easier than manually having to track each fighter.

Is this possible?

[Emaster]

the bouts are only sorted by date, we don't have a field for time as well

Certainly bout order would be a good field to have.

We cant edit the order of the fights, there is a "glitch" in the system.

If a fighter fought more than once on a given day, the order of his fights should be sorted chronologically.

New proposals:

Couldn't also timekeepers and cornermen (trainers, cutmen, 2nd assistants) be attributed to fights and obtain entries on the name search page? The fights they were involved in could be listed and the fight code could convey their respective assignments to encyclopaedia fight pages like the referees' and judges'.

The manager entry refers to managers or promoters who pay for the display of contact information on their BoxRec pages, which also list their clients or stables while no records are shown so that this entry's purpose differs from that of the others on the name search page. It could be moved to another place on the site.

Commissions and TV channels could be made searchable with the fight cards they were overseeing or televising being listed.

Does BoxRec save the sources of the data it contains? How about publishing them?

[informationnexus]

I would think these might be helpful.
More information on officials as well. Many fights still do not list all the officials and scores, etc. If a bout is stopped before a decision, the ref and judges should all be listed anyways, and, see if we can list the scores up to that point. That would be very interesting.

[Blue]

Tell it to the Commish!
We can't publish what we can't get. :(

The bigest problem is most usefull infornation is treated like "State Security Secrets".
Only a handfull of USA States fully cooperate, others partially, and some-do-not-at-all.
THAT is the real "glitch" in the system.

[Emaster]

How about a statistics page on which BoxRec data are analyzed?

[alexpaterson]

How about a Training and Nutrition part on the board index :??

(Couldnt think of the right word so said part)

[John]

How about a statistics page on which BoxRec data are analyzed?

could you expand on what you would stats like to see ?