Problem with Rankings...

Cap · 01-22-2005, 04:57 PM

I don't know how Tom Trunzo is going to fix the rankings. I wish him all the best. It's a tough job.

If you've got a guy who loses to a lesser ranked fighter he loses as much as 15 PP. He beats the same guy and gets 1 PP. Is that disparity too great? Right now, Luther McCarty is the No.1 contender in my AU. This in spite of the fact that he has had two cracks at the title and lost both times. Harry Wills is ranked below McCarty despite having beaten him while champion. Georges Carpentier just beat No.4 ranked Jack Renault, but is still ranked below McCarty (Although Carpentier has not beaten as many ranked contenders as McCarty). So what am I talking about?

Dave1877 · 01-22-2005, 06:15 PM

The rankings system in the game is flawed in a number of ways. I have never been a big fan of the 'performance point' system to be honest. For instance, here is an example. John Ruiz is ranked 5th in the world at heavyweight but loses to Monte Barrett who is ranked around 20th in the world. However, because Ruiz's performance points total is so much larger than Barrett's, the victory means absolutely nothing in terms of rankings. Barrett can probably expect 5 performance points at best from his win, which possibly doesn't even move him up the rankings even one place.

Surely (within reason) if one boxer beats another they should go above them in the rankings? The way I get around this problem is when a lower ranked fighter beats a higher ranked fighter, the winner automatically receives the EXACT amount of performance points as the higher ranked guy they just beat, PLUS the amount of performance points they earned from their victory. So if John Ruiz had 2000 PP and Barrett beat him, Barrett would get 2000 PP plus the amount of PP he earned beating Ruiz. It's slightly annoying to have to resort to doing things like this but I just find this more realistic.

Anyway Cap I am familiar with that problem you mentioned too. It is quite obvious the rankings system needs a big makeover for the next version.

Gunsmoke · 01-22-2005, 06:34 PM

Yeah they do but I'm not sure how they're going to fix them. I use my own ranking system now, which I manage in a spreadsheet. This of course allows me to alter the rankings slightly if I think they are out.

Mark

kenyan_cheena · 01-22-2005, 07:04 PM

When I've finished the initial tournaments in my universe, I'm going to use my own rankings. The fighters will be grouped into tiers of 12. I'm going to have 180 "world ranked" fighters, so there will be 15 tiers. They will simply be called 1st tier, 2nd tier, 3rd tier, or simply tier 1, tier 2, tier 3 etc. The rule will be that fighters from one tier can only fight against either a) fighters from within their own tier b) fighters from the tier immediately above them or c) fighters from the tier immediately below them.

I'm going to schedule fights so that an entire tier fights on a single fight card (12 fighters in a tier, 6 bouts on a fight card - perfect fit) or, when one tier's fighters is taking on the fighters from another tier, the two cards will take place within a couple of weeks of each other. I'll give you a simple example of how my rankings will work:

All of the fighters in the 1st tier are fighting on a single card. For simplicity, let's say it's:

#1 v #12
#2 v #11
#3 v #10
#4 v #9
#5 v #8
#6 v #7

These fights are taking place to determine who thetop 6 world ranked fighters will be.

Let's say that the results go like this:

#12 upsets #1
#2 beats #11
#10 takes out #3
#4 defeats #9
#5 knocksout #8
#7 edges #6

Okay, so in order of their rank before the fights, the winners were:
#2, #4, #5, #7, #10 & #12.

These six fighters will now be ranked as the top 6 world ranked fighters, like so:

#2 moves up to #1
#4 moves up to #2
#5 movers up to #3
#7 moves up to #4
#10 moves up to #5
#12 moves up to #6

Now for the losers of these fights. They were (in order of their ranking before the fights):
#1, #3, #6, #8, #9 & #11.

These six fighters will now be ranked as #7 - #12 in the world, like so:

#1 drops to #7
#3 drops to #8
#6 drops to #9
#8 drops to #10
#9 drops to #11
#11 drops to #12

So, even though #12 defeated the #1 ranked contender, he does not assume his rank. But he IS now ranked above him. He will be able to move even higher by defeating someone who is also ranked in the top 6, or by winning against lower ranked opposition while others ranked higher than him lose against the same lower ranked opposition. It all depends on what happens in all of the fights. The way I will be running the schedule is that fighters will be constantly either "defending" their rank, or "challenging" someone else in order to move up in rank. There will be no easy path to the World Championship.

When there are a group of twelve bouts between two different tiers, it will be possible for a fighter to move up a whole 12 ranking positions with one victory. Say for example, that tier 3 fights tier 4, and the fighter ranked #25 (first in tier 3) fights the guy ranked #48 (last in tier 4) and the #48 ranked fighter wins. Regardless of what else happens, the #48 fighter would jump to the ranking of #36 (last in tier 3) and the #25 ranked fighter would drop to the rank of #37 (first in tier 4). This is because all the winners would be ranked #25 - #36 (tier 3) (based on their ranking ebfore the fight) and all the losers would be ranked #37 - #48 (tier 4) (also based oon their ranking before the fight). I can envision this happening when I bring some of the legends into my universe that I have not introduced yet, such as Foreman, Frazier, Holyfield, Dempsey, Ali, Louis and Tyson. It will be exciting to watch them jump up the rankings month after month, with the fighters at the top looking down and seeing these unstoppable juggernauts coming for them.

Feel free to implement my system if you wish.

Cap · 01-23-2005, 12:52 AM

I manipulate my own rankings as well. Just too bad that something as essential to the sport as an international ranking system seems so impossible to implement correctly in this game.

CONN CHRIS · 01-23-2005, 09:06 AM

A few things:

1)It may be too complicated to code, but if we had something like the following, everyone would be happy:

Whatever ranking system they impliment, have the ability to move individual boxers up or down in the list. This would accomodate everyone's pet ranking peeves. I have seen accounting programs that I use have very simplisric up and down arrows, where you highlight a line and click the arrows till it is where you want it.

Furthermore, have "lock rankings" and "Re-Rank" buttons at the top. Then you could get the ranking the way you want, hit "lock ranking" and move on. The next month, you could hit "Re-Rank", fix what you do not like, Lock and move on again.

2)even if you do not care for them or never use them, it really would be nice to have a running total for performance points.

3) I really, really, really hope my little AU doesn't get destroyed by TBCB2. If I am forced to choose between it and upgrading, I may have to march with the do-do birds toward destruction and extinction.

CONN

bear · 01-23-2005, 11:30 AM

Chris
Very nice idea!

As far as ranking goes I've always been partial to the groups and tiers apprroach that was used in the old Ring Magazine annual rankings issue. Numeral rankings of boxers in group 1, group 2, group 3 and so forth followed by clumps of roughly equivalent men in group A, group B, group C and so on.

I'm still working on your scan. My source is a bound edition of 1941 Rings. Some of the magazines have pages that are separating from the binding. I want to handle it carefully. My 4 in 1 has a small screen and I'm worried about supporting the bulky fragile volume. I'll make a clean copy of the page on a zerox at work and scan that.

Bear

Quote:

Originally Posted by CONN CHRIS

A few things:

1)It may be too complicated to code, but if we had something like the following, everyone would be happy:

Whatever ranking system they impliment, have the ability to move individual boxers up or down in the list. This would accomodate everyone's pet ranking peeves. I have seen accounting programs that I use have very simplisric up and down arrows, where you highlight a line and click the arrows till it is where you want it.

Furthermore, have "lock rankings" and "Re-Rank" buttons at the top. Then you could get the ranking the way you want, hit "lock ranking" and move on. The next month, you could hit "Re-Rank", fix what you do not like, Lock and move on again.

2)even if you do not care for them or never use them, it really would be nice to have a running total for performance points.

3) I really, really, really hope my little AU doesn't get destroyed by TBCB2. If I am forced to choose between it and upgrading, I may have to march with the do-do birds toward destruction and extinction.

CONN

FrankFletcher · 01-23-2005, 11:45 AM

OK. I was messing around yesterday and found where you can add or subtract (PP) performance points from any fighter. I didn't know why it was in there until I read this thread. I went into an older data base and looked at WBO 38th ranked, Buster Douglas. I pulled up Buster's data and went into Stats. I clicked the little red arrow/triangle next to record and canceled through till I got to performance points. It listed 2.5 and I changed it to 20.5. I went back, refreshed the WBO ranks and Walah! Buster was ranked #1. If this is already known, then disregard.

If anyone wants to take this further by experimenting, I think there needs to be a seperate thread for all our input.

Thanks,
FrankFletcher

Cap · 01-23-2005, 12:05 PM

Actually, I've done a little of that. I don't know what collateral impact, if any, it may have in the game. Right now, this seems the only way to adjust rankings which are based on the Perf. Point system.

The central issue here may be that TBCB was not designed to simulate the sport of boxing, but was meant to simulate a sporting event, individual prize fights. However, this problem must be fixed in a role-playing version.

Cap

javier_83 · 01-23-2005, 01:32 PM

Maybe for TBCB2 a Ranking System editor :O

Rondo_GE · 01-26-2005, 03:30 PM

You guys may all laugh but I thought the ranking system was intentionally flawed (at least the systems used by the Boxing Associations). I mean does anybody agree with the actual ranking systems as they have historically played out in real life? You might agree with Ring Magazine over the years but most matchups at the top level never get based on their rankings at all.

mh2365 · 01-26-2005, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrankFletcher

OK. I was messing around yesterday and found where you can add or subtract (PP) performance points from any fighter. I didn't know why it was in there until I read this thread. I went into an older data base and looked at WBO 38th ranked, Buster Douglas. I pulled up Buster's data and went into Stats. I clicked the little red arrow/triangle next to record and canceled through till I got to performance points. It listed 2.5 and I changed it to 20.5. I went back, refreshed the WBO ranks and Walah! Buster was ranked #1. If this is already known, then disregard.

If anyone wants to take this further by experimenting, I think there needs to be a seperate thread for all our input.

Thanks,
FrankFletcher

my problem is I can't seem to adjust the pp..... if I type in -62.4 then save it comes up a completely different #. I don't know if that only happens with negative #'s or only on my game but it happens everytime for me.

ACGord · 01-26-2005, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mh2365

my problem is I can't seem to adjust the pp..... if I type in -62.4 then save it comes up a completely different #. I don't know if that only happens with negative #'s or only on my game but it happens everytime for me.

Try moving the decimal point over. (I.E.-6.24 = -62.4)

swampdragon · 01-31-2005, 02:47 AM

I think they should scrap the performance points completely and play with a ratings method similar to that used for chess rankings. It really would work better.

djday45 · 01-31-2005, 03:17 AM

Chess rankings? how does that work Swamp? Pls excuse my ignorance.

Dean

mh2365 · 01-31-2005, 03:42 AM

Dean ... did you ever do anything with the rankings for my fighters?

djday45 · 01-31-2005, 05:47 AM

No not had a chance yet sorry, these packs keeping me fully occupied lol

rgds
Dean

Cap · 01-31-2005, 09:09 AM

How do the chess rankings work?

Cap

mh2365 · 01-31-2005, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djday45

No not had a chance yet sorry, these packs keeping me fully occupied lol

rgds
Dean

no problem was just curious ... I'd also like to know how chess rankings work.

swampdragon · 01-31-2005, 10:24 AM

Each player has a rating and gains or loses points according to the result of his game and the preexisting rating. Translated to TBCB:

You could have a beginning rating of 100xfighter rating for each fighter. The base number for a win could be 50. Then you would add or subtract one point, up to 45 more, for each 10 point difference in the current ratings. So if Charley Mitchell (an 8 in my universe) fought John L. Sullivan (a 10), and Sullivan won, you would get the following results.

Sullivan would get 50 points for his win, less 20 for the 200 point rating differential, for a net of 30 points, and would now rate 1030. Mitchell would lose those 30 points for a new rating of 770. If mitchell had won, he would have gained 70 points at Sullivan's expense and would now be only 60 points behind him, 930 to 870. A draw would only redistribute the ratings differential points.

01-31-2005, 09:09 AM	#18
Cap Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Large Province in God's Country Posts: 7,988	How do the chess rankings work? Cap __________________ "...There were Giants in Those Days.."

01-22-2005, 04:57 PM	#1
Cap Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Large Province in God's Country Posts: 7,988	Problem with Rankings... I don't know how Tom Trunzo is going to fix the rankings. I wish him all the best. It's a tough job. If you've got a guy who loses to a lesser ranked fighter he loses as much as 15 PP. He beats the same guy and gets 1 PP. Is that disparity too great? Right now, Luther McCarty is the No.1 contender in my AU. This in spite of the fact that he has had two cracks at the title and lost both times. Harry Wills is ranked below McCarty despite having beaten him while champion. Georges Carpentier just beat No.4 ranked Jack Renault, but is still ranked below McCarty (Although Carpentier has not beaten as many ranked contenders as McCarty). So what am I talking about? __________________ "...There were Giants in Those Days.."

01-22-2005, 06:15 PM	#2
Dave1877 Major Leagues Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: West Midlands, United Kingdom Posts: 488	The rankings system in the game is flawed in a number of ways. I have never been a big fan of the 'performance point' system to be honest. For instance, here is an example. John Ruiz is ranked 5th in the world at heavyweight but loses to Monte Barrett who is ranked around 20th in the world. However, because Ruiz's performance points total is so much larger than Barrett's, the victory means absolutely nothing in terms of rankings. Barrett can probably expect 5 performance points at best from his win, which possibly doesn't even move him up the rankings even one place. Surely (within reason) if one boxer beats another they should go above them in the rankings? The way I get around this problem is when a lower ranked fighter beats a higher ranked fighter, the winner automatically receives the EXACT amount of performance points as the higher ranked guy they just beat, PLUS the amount of performance points they earned from their victory. So if John Ruiz had 2000 PP and Barrett beat him, Barrett would get 2000 PP plus the amount of PP he earned beating Ruiz. It's slightly annoying to have to resort to doing things like this but I just find this more realistic. Anyway Cap I am familiar with that problem you mentioned too. It is quite obvious the rankings system needs a big makeover for the next version.

01-22-2005, 06:34 PM	#3
Gunsmoke All Star Starter Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 1,012	Yeah they do but I'm not sure how they're going to fix them. I use my own ranking system now, which I manage in a spreadsheet. This of course allows me to alter the rankings slightly if I think they are out. Mark

01-22-2005, 07:04 PM	#4
kenyan_cheena Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia Posts: 9,037	When I've finished the initial tournaments in my universe, I'm going to use my own rankings. The fighters will be grouped into tiers of 12. I'm going to have 180 "world ranked" fighters, so there will be 15 tiers. They will simply be called 1st tier, 2nd tier, 3rd tier, or simply tier 1, tier 2, tier 3 etc. The rule will be that fighters from one tier can only fight against either a) fighters from within their own tier b) fighters from the tier immediately above them or c) fighters from the tier immediately below them. I'm going to schedule fights so that an entire tier fights on a single fight card (12 fighters in a tier, 6 bouts on a fight card - perfect fit) or, when one tier's fighters is taking on the fighters from another tier, the two cards will take place within a couple of weeks of each other. I'll give you a simple example of how my rankings will work: All of the fighters in the 1st tier are fighting on a single card. For simplicity, let's say it's: #1 v #12 #2 v #11 #3 v #10 #4 v #9 #5 v #8 #6 v #7 These fights are taking place to determine who thetop 6 world ranked fighters will be. Let's say that the results go like this: #12 upsets #1 #2 beats #11 #10 takes out #3 #4 defeats #9 #5 knocksout #8 #7 edges #6 Okay, so in order of their rank before the fights, the winners were: #2, #4, #5, #7, #10 & #12. These six fighters will now be ranked as the top 6 world ranked fighters, like so: #2 moves up to #1 #4 moves up to #2 #5 movers up to #3 #7 moves up to #4 #10 moves up to #5 #12 moves up to #6 Now for the losers of these fights. They were (in order of their ranking before the fights): #1, #3, #6, #8, #9 & #11. These six fighters will now be ranked as #7 - #12 in the world, like so: #1 drops to #7 #3 drops to #8 #6 drops to #9 #8 drops to #10 #9 drops to #11 #11 drops to #12 So, even though #12 defeated the #1 ranked contender, he does not assume his rank. But he IS now ranked above him. He will be able to move even higher by defeating someone who is also ranked in the top 6, or by winning against lower ranked opposition while others ranked higher than him lose against the same lower ranked opposition. It all depends on what happens in all of the fights. The way I will be running the schedule is that fighters will be constantly either "defending" their rank, or "challenging" someone else in order to move up in rank. There will be no easy path to the World Championship. When there are a group of twelve bouts between two different tiers, it will be possible for a fighter to move up a whole 12 ranking positions with one victory. Say for example, that tier 3 fights tier 4, and the fighter ranked #25 (first in tier 3) fights the guy ranked #48 (last in tier 4) and the #48 ranked fighter wins. Regardless of what else happens, the #48 fighter would jump to the ranking of #36 (last in tier 3) and the #25 ranked fighter would drop to the rank of #37 (first in tier 4). This is because all the winners would be ranked #25 - #36 (tier 3) (based on their ranking ebfore the fight) and all the losers would be ranked #37 - #48 (tier 4) (also based oon their ranking before the fight). I can envision this happening when I bring some of the legends into my universe that I have not introduced yet, such as Foreman, Frazier, Holyfield, Dempsey, Ali, Louis and Tyson. It will be exciting to watch them jump up the rankings month after month, with the fighters at the top looking down and seeing these unstoppable juggernauts coming for them. Feel free to implement my system if you wish.

01-23-2005, 12:52 AM	#5
Cap Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Large Province in God's Country Posts: 7,988	I manipulate my own rankings as well. Just too bad that something as essential to the sport as an international ranking system seems so impossible to implement correctly in this game. __________________ "...There were Giants in Those Days.."

01-23-2005, 09:06 AM	#6
CONN CHRIS Global Moderator Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 29,024	A few things: 1)It may be too complicated to code, but if we had something like the following, everyone would be happy: Whatever ranking system they impliment, have the ability to move individual boxers up or down in the list. This would accomodate everyone's pet ranking peeves. I have seen accounting programs that I use have very simplisric up and down arrows, where you highlight a line and click the arrows till it is where you want it. Furthermore, have "lock rankings" and "Re-Rank" buttons at the top. Then you could get the ranking the way you want, hit "lock ranking" and move on. The next month, you could hit "Re-Rank", fix what you do not like, Lock and move on again. 2)even if you do not care for them or never use them, it really would be nice to have a running total for performance points. 3) I really, really, really hope my little AU doesn't get destroyed by TBCB2. If I am forced to choose between it and upgrading, I may have to march with the do-do birds toward destruction and extinction. CONN __________________ Check Out My Cards!

01-23-2005, 11:45 AM	#8
FrankFletcher Bat Boy Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 7	How to adjust ranks. OK. I was messing around yesterday and found where you can add or subtract (PP) performance points from any fighter. I didn't know why it was in there until I read this thread. I went into an older data base and looked at WBO 38th ranked, Buster Douglas. I pulled up Buster's data and went into Stats. I clicked the little red arrow/triangle next to record and canceled through till I got to performance points. It listed 2.5 and I changed it to 20.5. I went back, refreshed the WBO ranks and Walah! Buster was ranked #1. If this is already known, then disregard. If anyone wants to take this further by experimenting, I think there needs to be a seperate thread for all our input. Thanks, FrankFletcher

01-23-2005, 12:05 PM	#9
Cap Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Large Province in God's Country Posts: 7,988	Actually, I've done a little of that. I don't know what collateral impact, if any, it may have in the game. Right now, this seems the only way to adjust rankings which are based on the Perf. Point system. The central issue here may be that TBCB was not designed to simulate the sport of boxing, but was meant to simulate a sporting event, individual prize fights. However, this problem must be fixed in a role-playing version. Cap __________________ "...There were Giants in Those Days.."

01-23-2005, 01:32 PM	#10
javier_83 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 3,091	Maybe for TBCB2 a Ranking System editor :O

01-26-2005, 03:30 PM	#11
Rondo_GE Minors (Single A) Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 59	You guys may all laugh but I thought the ranking system was intentionally flawed (at least the systems used by the Boxing Associations). I mean does anybody agree with the actual ranking systems as they have historically played out in real life? You might agree with Ring Magazine over the years but most matchups at the top level never get based on their rankings at all.

01-31-2005, 02:47 AM	#14
swampdragon Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2002 Location: The Lonely Mountain Posts: 2,509	I think they should scrap the performance points completely and play with a ratings method similar to that used for chess rankings. It really would work better.

01-31-2005, 03:17 AM	#15
djday45 All Star Starter Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 1,502	Chess rankings? how does that work Swamp? Pls excuse my ignorance. Dean

01-31-2005, 03:42 AM	#16
mh2365 Banned Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: louisville Posts: 14,941 Infractions: 0/2 (101)	Dean ... did you ever do anything with the rankings for my fighters?

01-31-2005, 05:47 AM	#17
djday45 All Star Starter Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 1,502	No not had a chance yet sorry, these packs keeping me fully occupied lol rgds Dean

01-31-2005, 10:24 AM	#20
swampdragon Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2002 Location: The Lonely Mountain Posts: 2,509	Each player has a rating and gains or loses points according to the result of his game and the preexisting rating. Translated to TBCB: You could have a beginning rating of 100xfighter rating for each fighter. The base number for a win could be 50. Then you would add or subtract one point, up to 45 more, for each 10 point difference in the current ratings. So if Charley Mitchell (an 8 in my universe) fought John L. Sullivan (a 10), and Sullivan won, you would get the following results. Sullivan would get 50 points for his win, less 20 for the 200 point rating differential, for a net of 30 points, and would now rate 1030. Mitchell would lose those 30 points for a new rating of 770. If mitchell had won, he would have gained 70 points at Sullivan's expense and would now be only 60 points behind him, 930 to 870. A draw would only redistribute the ratings differential points.