The box Rec alogorithym

[Robbie Barrett]

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.

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.

[removed]

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.

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 ****** as you claim now can i?

Anyway, you bore me son, i'm looking forward to seeing your "proof" later!

[Robbie Barrett]

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 ****** as you claim now can i?

Anyway, you bore me son, i'm looking forward to seeing your "proof" later!

I have more clue than you. You didn't know clicking the little triangle on a quote takes you to the post FFS. You said your worked in computers too.


Don't know what to believe with you TBH. You're an obvious bull****ter, guess that's why you're attracted to Fury.

[Citizen Koba]

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..

[Eff Pandas]

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:



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..

Fair play then. I guess its working if its bumped it up that much.

[deathofaclown]

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

[Boxing-1013]

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.

[Kezzer]

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

[Boxing-1013]

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.

[daggum]

men lie women lie boxrec never lies!