Rating formula at BOXREC.COM revised recently

Scoman · 08-09-2006, 09:10 PM

This from Boxrec.com:The ratings program has recently been updated. The new formula is optimised to give the best prediction rate and is statistically more accurate than the old one. Our ratings are created to give the maximum objective accuracy and not to "look good", reflect intuition or bow to opinion. We are aware that there are perceived anomalies at the moment and we continue our efforts to make them as perfect as mathematically possible.

I noticed this tonight,For the Alltime HW division they use to have Ezzard Charles #1,Now he is #4,with Ali ,Louis,Tyson,1-3. I still have to wonder about the accuracy of these ratings. Jimmy Bivins #10 ,James Toney#14,Chris Byrd#25,just to name a few. Any thoughts on the accuracy of their ratings now?

meade95 · 08-09-2006, 09:29 PM

If they have James Toney ranked as the 14th best HEAVYWEIGHT of all time.....then they clearly have a flaw in their formula somewhere.

Not to mention Byrd at #25 or Ezzard Charles at #4 (and I'm a big fan of his).

Boxrec is a great site....but their all time ratings are somewhat off....

Scoman · 08-09-2006, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by meade95

If they have James Toney ranked as the 14th best HEAVYWEIGHT of all time.....then they clearly have a flaw in their formula somewhere.

Not to mention Byrd at #25 or Ezzard Charles at #4 (and I'm a big fan of his).

Boxrec is a great site....but their all time ratings are somewhat off....

Yeah,id have to agree,i mean they have Tunney with 1 loss in 87 pro fights,at #24,and Micheal Grant at #22 alltime,go figure.It would be nice if they could get more in line with our games ratings,would be a great reference point,but i guess thats asking too much.

Mad Bomber · 08-11-2006, 12:40 PM

One thing for sure it does make for interesting discussion,
and the Heavyweight division is not the only division that
should be questioned.

Greg

meade95 · 08-11-2006, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad Bomber

One thing for sure it does make for interesting discussion,
and the Heavyweight division is not the only division that
should be questioned.

Greg

Agreed. Like I mentioned above boxrec.com is definitely a good site. Wealth of info usually.

But at times there "all-time" ratings seem out in left field.

Mr Big · 08-11-2006, 04:56 PM

Their current heavyweight ratings still leave something to be desired. I see that they still have Calvin Brock rated #1. What championships has he won and who has he beaten to deserve such a designation? And if they think that #s 7-9, Thompson, Skelton and McCline are better than WBO Champ Sergui Lyakhovich, they are sadly mistaken. How can they place him at #19, behind the likes of Tye Fields and Brian Minto? Ridiculous!

a87star · 08-11-2006, 04:59 PM

This has been discussed before and the Boxrec rating are very questionable at best.

08-11-2006, 04:56 PM	#6
Mr Big All Star Starter Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 1,238	Their current heavyweight ratings still leave something to be desired. I see that they still have Calvin Brock rated #1. What championships has he won and who has he beaten to deserve such a designation? And if they think that #s 7-9, Thompson, Skelton and McCline are better than WBO Champ Sergui Lyakhovich, they are sadly mistaken. How can they place him at #19, behind the likes of Tye Fields and Brian Minto? Ridiculous! __________________ The M.O.B. Isaiah 54:17

08-09-2006, 09:10 PM	#1
Scoman All Star Starter Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: heath ohio Posts: 1,831	Rating formula at BOXREC.COM revised recently This from Boxrec.com:The ratings program has recently been updated. The new formula is optimised to give the best prediction rate and is statistically more accurate than the old one. Our ratings are created to give the maximum objective accuracy and not to "look good", reflect intuition or bow to opinion. We are aware that there are perceived anomalies at the moment and we continue our efforts to make them as perfect as mathematically possible. I noticed this tonight,For the Alltime HW division they use to have Ezzard Charles #1,Now he is #4,with Ali ,Louis,Tyson,1-3. I still have to wonder about the accuracy of these ratings. Jimmy Bivins #10 ,James Toney#14,Chris Byrd#25,just to name a few. Any thoughts on the accuracy of their ratings now?

08-09-2006, 09:29 PM	#2
meade95 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 2,095	If they have James Toney ranked as the 14th best HEAVYWEIGHT of all time.....then they clearly have a flaw in their formula somewhere. Not to mention Byrd at #25 or Ezzard Charles at #4 (and I'm a big fan of his). Boxrec is a great site....but their all time ratings are somewhat off....

08-11-2006, 12:40 PM	#4
Mad Bomber All Star Starter Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,566	One thing for sure it does make for interesting discussion, and the Heavyweight division is not the only division that should be questioned. Greg __________________ Keep on Punchin' There are three things that go on a fighter, first your reflexes go, then your chin goes, and then your friends go. Willie Pep

08-11-2006, 04:59 PM	#7
a87star Hall Of Famer Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Staten Island, NY Posts: 4,850	This has been discussed before and the Boxrec rating are very questionable at best.