The box Rec alogorithym

men lie women lie boxrec never lies!

The difference really is AJ has not only beaten Klitschko as you say but when you compare Ortiz to others - well Joshua has numerous you can compare ; Povetkin, Parker, whyte, etc. So it comes to consistency and quantity which is why I would expect an algorithm to bring that out. Wilders other opponents are lower ranked in comparison. Those 3 are not the only odd ones though. Chisora for example is ranked 9th yet he’s now lost ten fights in total! Within that are kabayel, helenius and to a lesser extent Pulev - so not all top end fighters. I just can’t work out how he is so high Their rankings overall are funky, as I mentioned in another post. I just have no issue personally with AJ at 3 at this time.

I think Ruiz is a pretty bad loss. I don't think AJ should be ranked ahead of Wilder at this time. I think Wilder's two wins over Ortiz are comparable to anything AJ has on his list. Wlad is the best win either has but after that it is close and debatable. I think most of AJ's opponents have been hand selected. We have all wanted AJ-Fury or AJ-Wilder for the longest time. There is 1 guy who hasn't mixed it up with those other 2. AJ is a good fighter, but he has definitely been carefully managed. Just like any other star in boxing really. The difference really is AJ has not only beaten Klitschko as you say but when you compare Ortiz to others - well Joshua has numerous you can compare ; Povetkin, Parker, whyte, etc. So it comes to consistency and quantity which is why I would expect an algorithm to bring that out. Wilders other opponents are lower ranked in comparison. Those 3 are not the only odd ones though. Chisora for example is ranked 9th yet he’s now lost ten fights in total! Within that are kabayel, helenius and to a lesser extent Pulev - so not all top end fighters. I just can’t work out how he is so high

The point wasn’t about the individual fighters - but more the algorithm. If you look at Fights on paper etc it’s quite clear Joshua should be above wilder. Fury is more debatable because he’s unbeaten but the score gap between the two fighters doesn’t make sense given fury only has a couple credible wins. Posted on my last post but it appears the formula largely credits anyone within top 15% fighters with the same weighting now which means some of the weaker opponents fury (and wilder) they get given the same credit for it would seem I think Ruiz is a pretty bad loss. I don't think AJ should be ranked ahead of Wilder at this time. I think Wilder's two wins over Ortiz are comparable to anything AJ has on his list. Wlad is the best win either has but after that it is close and debatable. I think most of AJ's opponents have been hand selected. We have all wanted AJ-Fury or AJ-Wilder for the longest time. There is 1 guy who hasn't mixed it up with those other 2. AJ is a good fighter, but he has definitely been carefully managed. Just like any other star in boxing really.

Lets make a bet. I got Joshua, you got Fury, whoever loses hands the winner their account? Yeah sure, it’s a bet Pointless bet because you will just use another account haha But we can do it

Yea I remember talking about our own specific takes on the points now that you mention it. WERE these turns made to get to more accurate takes on picking winners? I guess adding in the actual scorecard difference & scheduled rounds would lean more into the more skilled guys & more experienced guys getting more points & both those things are usually gonna lead to picking some % increase in winners for those reasons I'd assume. I haven't messed with the boxrec forum very often in the last several years so there direction is lost on me these days. And yea just for their record keeping it's a insanely valuable resource for any serious boxing fan. The ranking system is simply another perk of what they do if you wanna take it into account at all. Respect to boxrec even doe I'm not a fan of the new point system or maybe I just need to stfu & adapt to it. It's not so much that the target is to help people pick winners so much as the purpose of a successful ranking system should be to tell you who's better than who... which in general for boxing means who would beat who. 'Winner Prediction Ratio' is simply the metric they decided to use to decide how good their ratings system was and increasing that is apparently the reason for the various changes. Found this little snippet in the ratings discussion thread at Boxrec from 14th April: For the old Boxrec r_41 release: - raw winner prediction ratio based on the old rating only = 0.7482 - winner prediction ratio for r_41 with 16 additional parameters = 0.8345 For WHR: - raw winner prediction ratio based on the WHR rating only = 0.8308 - winner prediction ratio for r_41 with 16 additional parameters = 0.8402 So the raw winner prediction ratio of the old rating was much lower by more than 8 percent points (better the error was 25 percent against 17 percent, so the error ratio of the old rating was 50 percent higher). The raw prediction power of the old rating was much worse than that of the new WHR. 16 additional parameters could nearly compensate that, but WHR is nearly as good without the 16 additional parameters. There's also some discussion there raising some of the precise objections I did FWIW about Boxing being different to Chess or Go and whether Winner Prediction Ratio is really the best metric of success to use given that it frequently throws up outcomes that diverge sharply from public perception. So yeah, they reckon the guy with most points should win about 83% of the time up from about 75% in terms of 'raw prediction power' whatever the f#ck that is..:lol1:

How would the mods know? There's ways around it. Posting at the same time all the time going back months/years, will be undeniable proof. Will be hilarious exposing you as a ****ing weirdo talking to yourself. :lol1: Stop talking about stuff you don't understand Robbie, you have no clue about technology or moderating vBulletin. Anyway, myself and deathofaclown have racked up 25,000 posts between us, if I've successfully hidden my identity from the mods, i can't be as stupid as you claim now can i? Anyway, you bore me son, i'm looking forward to seeing your "proof" later! :lol1: :lol1:

I will later. I'll show you post at the same time. Might make it in the dome. You're a clown. A bit weird. Always lying and claiming victories when you get slapped about and now been caught talking to yourself with alts. Haha no you won't, and even if you do, nobody will take any notice of it I'm a far more liked & respected poster than you are. :) You're the guy who always wins worst poster of the year/decade, not me. You're the guy who constantly gets banned for being an insufferable bellend, whereas I've never had a single infraction in all my years of posting, let alone a ban. But yeah, ask one of the mods if myself and deathofaclown are alts, i'm sure they'll be happy to tell you.

No balls. Stop using alts to talk yourself you freak. :lol1: All people have to do is go through both you and deathofaclowns posts to see you're always on together. No matter what time of day. Denium posts at 10pm GMT there's deathofaclown posting, Denium posts at 8am there's deathofaclown. :lol1: Alright, post some screengrabs and prove it. :) I know you go through all my posts because you're completely obsessed with me and think about me 24/7, that's why you put me in your sig. Every post you make mentions my name, and you get a bit erect when you see "denium" on the screen.

No balls. Stop using alts to talk yourself you freak. :lol1: You're the guy who uses alts not me. I'm the original Fury massive on here, all the other Fury fans came after me, i don't need to use alts. I suspect you use them though, you only worked out how to set an avatar and sig a few months ago despite you being a member for years. Most of your AJ fan alts don't have avatars or sigs either, plus they only have a few hundred posts. I'll think i'll do some analysis later and prove it.

Stop replying to yourself weirdo. Everyday you and him post on the forum at the exact same time. Be it early morning or late at night. Always both on together. You aren't very bright. :lol1: Yeah whatever son. :lol1: Nobody wants your crappy account, considering that you're by far and away the worst poster of the decade. Have you checked the results recently? It's a landslide!!

Face it, AJ is number 3 in the world The computer doesn't lie. Fury and Wilder both KO Joshua, so yeah, 3.

Were you drunk when you typed that thread title OP? :lol1:

Of course they can. They can change the numbers to favour any fighter they want. Face it, AJ is number 3 in the world

It’s an algorithm it has no objective thinking. It doesn’t know what happened in the fight. It only knows who won and lost and calculates from there. So Tom Schwarz must’ve amassed more points from his wins than Wallin. That's the problem with BoxRec. A guy like Tim Bradley has only lost to Pacquiao, but he also has a win over Pac. It doesn't take into account the fact that the win was a bad decision, plus all of the close calls he had.

Boxrec is stupid. The fact that Curt Henning used it to prove that Tank Davis has had a better career than Kosei Tanaka is ****ing laughable.

I looked at their historical p4p ranking and looks like its been tweaked since whenever i last looked at it. Its weird, Ezzard Charles is way higher than anyone else, Pacquaio's current score and histotrical score are different numbers so historical is calculated differently. Calaghe is at #7 of all time, apparently being undefeated really helps your score but at the same time Charles' losses dont seem to hurt him. Chavez is down at 24 so his huge win streak against bums didnt help him much. Valuev is nowhere to be found despite long win streaks and wins in the top 10 and a 50-2 record, so for Calzaghe to be so high, i guess they count hopkins and roy wins with a lot of weight. It does seem to not penalize too harshly for fighters with late career losses. Also with GGG and Hatton in the top 50 seems like there is some point inflation over time. Just looking at the list its kind of hard to tell what the algorithm is favoring, it seems to be all over the place.

How is Schwarz ranked above Wallin. The each only have one loss. It's to the same person: Tyson Fury. But Fury was just playing around with Schwarz and stopped him easily.Wallin on the other hand cut Fury, then gave him the toughest 12 round fight of his career. It’s an algorithm it has no objective thinking. It doesn’t know what happened in the fight. It only knows who won and lost and calculates from there. So Tom Schwarz must’ve amassed more points from his wins than Wallin.

Boxrec seems to change it's algorithm every few months. Before the Fury-Wilder rematch Joshua was #1 after beating Ruiz. Now the loser of the Fury-Wilder rematch has leapfrogged him? GTFOH. The numbers don’t lie Numbers aren’t swayed by the Sky Sports hype machine AJ isn’t a top 2 HW

If I’m reading it right it weights anyone within top 15% active fighters the same. So I guess wilders 40x wins vs bums (bums being a bit excessive ... but in comparison) gets a better score than 15x wins vs top end opponents. Fury clearly benefits from this too with a number of his fights. It’s similarly odd on other weights, I did think it looked pretty sensible last year - so does look like the latest iteration of changes has made the formal somewhat worse/less realistic Not quite, although that relates another point that I ain't so keen on though I haven't fully wrapped my head around all the implications. It's basically saying you get extra rewards for beating guys in the top 15% who have themselves beaten a top 15% fighter over and above what you'd get anyway... I think this stayed in from the last iteration too, and I didn't understand the rationale behind it then either. I may give it some more thought though see if I can make sense of why they've done it that way, but certainly my first instinct is that it would create an unbalance in favour of more successful fighters, hard to imagine they ain't understood that though, so it probably warrants a little more invstigation... if I could just be arsed.:lol1: So the points for beating a top 15%er who's beaten a top 15%er has a base equal to that fighters own points within the range 8 - 40 modified in various ways, then added to the points for a regular win (between 0.01 and 1.11) before being operated on again. – when defeating an opponent within the top 15 percent of all active boxers, who already defeated an opponent within the top 15 percent of all active boxers (top 15 percent limit 2019: men = 4.89 points, women = 1.87 points) — 8 points at least — as much points as the defeated opponent had before the bout — 40 points at most — with weight = 1, when the opponent had no loss after his top win, with weight = 1/2 after 1 loss, with weight = 1/4 after 2 losses etc — with weight = 1 within 18 months after the opponents top bout, with weight = 1/2 thereafter and decreasing by a factor of 1/2 per another 18 months – all with weight = cd * v; cd = clear decision factor and v = bout value Boxer a SD 8 boxer b, scores 77:75 77:75 75:77, a has 100 points, b has 50 points, opponent within the top 15 percent of all active boxers and with an own win against such a top 15 percent boxer 23 months ago and 1 following loss A 8 rounder is rewarded with 8/12, v=0.667 SD is rewarded with cd=0.5 at maximum mean score difference per judge is (2+2-2)/3 = 0.667, which is rewarded in direct proportion to half the rounds boxed 0.667/4 at maximum so cd=0.167 earn= 1/3 * 0.667 * (50*0.167 + (50-100)/(1+2*0.167)) = -6.48 r_a_new = 100 – 6.48 = 93.52 r_b_new = 50 + 6.48 = 56.48 Winner additionally gets 0.01 points + 0.1 points for opponent with win + 1 point for opponent with a win against a winner + 40 points for opponent with top 15 percent win with weight=1/2 for 1 following loss and weight=0.41 for top win before 23 months and overall weight = cd*v = 0.5*0.67= 0.333 additional points = (1.11 + 40*0.5*0.41)*0.333 = 3.10 points r_a_new = 93.52 + 3.10 = 96.62 If you look at the final example in the long ass algorithm quote above the 40pts added is before modifications for such things as following losses and time since the top 15% win and so on (so in this example that 40pts ultimately was factored down again to 8.2, added to the other victory points 1.11 and divided by 3 for a total 3.10), so it ain't a flat 40points but it is still a very significant factor seperating the top 15ish % from everyone else in what seems a rather arbitrary manner.