The v2 Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Ranking System

+8
Rowley
TopHat24/7
mobilemaster8
davidemore
JabMachineMK2
Union Cane
Fists of Fury
Valero's Conscience
12 posters

Go down

Ranking System Empty Ranking System

Post by Valero's Conscience Tue 25 Sep 2012, 1:16 pm

I was on the BBC Boxing page and saw their ranking of the top 10 UK fighters.

I was shocked that they had Cleverley and Brook ranked above Khan.

It appears to me Khan's been dropped a few places for losing to Garcia and Brook and Cleverley promoted for beating people far below the level of Khan's opponents.

My question is should someone be punished (in ranking terms) for losing to a Top 10 fighter over a fighter who beats someone of much less ability?

I don't think so personally but what do you think.

Valero's Conscience

Posts : 2096
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 38
Location : Kent/London

Back to top Go down

Ranking System Empty Re: Ranking System

Post by Fists of Fury Tue 25 Sep 2012, 1:18 pm

If the other guys beat someone that we had even heard of then it could become a possibility (but still harsh), but in this instance I completely agree with you.

There is no way that they can rank ahead of Khan based on the level they've been fighting at.

Fists of Fury
Admin
Admin

Posts : 11721
Join date : 2011-02-17
Age : 36
Location : Birmingham, England

http://bloxhamcricket.tumblr.com/

Back to top Go down

Ranking System Empty Re: Ranking System

Post by Union Cane Tue 25 Sep 2012, 1:41 pm

I wouldn't take too much notice if I were you, it is the BBC boxing page after all.

Cleverley and Brook are undefeated and I would say that matters more to the "man on the street" (which is where the BBC's coverage is aimed I should imagine) than the level of opposition faced.

I detect a similar thing with Channel 5's growing stable of talent, and wonder what will happen once of their men is beaten?

He'll be dropped quicker than marbles held by Jesus.


Last edited by Union Cane on Tue 25 Sep 2012, 2:04 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Similie required re-wording.)
Union Cane
Union Cane
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 11328
Join date : 2011-01-27
Age : 48
Location : Whatever truculent means, if that's good, I'm that.

Back to top Go down

Ranking System Empty Re: Ranking System

Post by JabMachineMK2 Tue 25 Sep 2012, 1:45 pm

I think Cleverley has a case in terms of the fact that although we've got a good grasp of the drivvel he's been facing and rank him accordingly, if you mention to average joe he's undefeated, holds a major (well...) belt and boxes regularly they'll consider him better than someone who has lost twice on the bounce - they don't care about the opposition.

Have no idea how Kell Brook is above him, thats insane.

JabMachineMK2

Posts : 2383
Join date : 2012-02-09
Age : 104

Back to top Go down

Ranking System Empty Re: Ranking System

Post by davidemore Tue 25 Sep 2012, 2:21 pm

Clev should not be above Khan. He has fought awful opponents.

davidemore

Posts : 2693
Join date : 2011-12-21

Back to top Go down

Ranking System Empty Re: Ranking System

Post by mobilemaster8 Tue 25 Sep 2012, 2:23 pm

Cleverly should be below Matthew Hatton let alone Amir Khan!

Based on opposition faced, Matthew has fought Saul Alvarez at least and went the full distance!


mobilemaster8

Posts : 4302
Join date : 2012-05-10
Age : 37
Location : Stoke on Trent

Back to top Go down

Ranking System Empty Re: Ranking System

Post by davidemore Tue 25 Sep 2012, 2:28 pm

Here, here mobile.

davidemore

Posts : 2693
Join date : 2011-12-21

Back to top Go down

Ranking System Empty Re: Ranking System

Post by TopHat24/7 Tue 25 Sep 2012, 2:33 pm

Had this same discussion with Seanus on Twitter a few days back.

Can't agree that Khan's defeats cause him to fall back behind a Brook who, as much as I like the guy and want him to do well, hasn't really achieved anything.

Still tempted to have Khan #2 behind Froch tbh. Think Burns might be knocking on the door of my top5 now also. Not sure what to do about Haye......

TopHat24/7

Posts : 17008
Join date : 2011-07-01
Age : 40
Location : London

Back to top Go down

Ranking System Empty Re: Ranking System

Post by JabMachineMK2 Tue 25 Sep 2012, 2:35 pm

I'm not saying its right that Clev is above Khan, I'm pointing out why the BBC would have him there.

JabMachineMK2

Posts : 2383
Join date : 2012-02-09
Age : 104

Back to top Go down

Ranking System Empty Re: Ranking System

Post by TopHat24/7 Tue 25 Sep 2012, 2:39 pm

Boxrec's list:

Carl Froch
David Haye
Ricky Burns
Kell Brook
Tyson Fury
Matthew Macklin
Ola Afolabi
Amir Khan
Tony Bellew
Nathan Cleverly
Martin Murray
David Price
George Groves
Gavin Rees
Darren Barker
Carl Frampton
Billy Joe Saunders
Lee Purdy
Kevin Mitchell
James DeGale

Hit's Khan hard for his losses and is very generous to Fury given his record is no better than Clev, can't see how he's rated so highly.

TopHat24/7

Posts : 17008
Join date : 2011-07-01
Age : 40
Location : London

Back to top Go down

Ranking System Empty Re: Ranking System

Post by Rowley Tue 25 Sep 2012, 2:47 pm

Kind of also struggle to see how they have Bellew above Cleverly. I know Cleverly is personally and solely responsible for every ill that blights boxing currently from PED’s to Manny and Floyd not fighting but Cleverly did beat Bellew when they fought, realise that does not give him the right to remain above him for eternity but has Bellew really done enough to warrant overtaking him just yet?

Boxrec is in many ways an invaluable and excellent website but dear god how they arrive at their rankings is anyone’s guess.

Rowley
Admin
Admin

Posts : 22053
Join date : 2011-02-17
Age : 51
Location : I'm just a symptom of the modern decay that's gnawing at the heart of this country.

Back to top Go down

Ranking System Empty Re: Ranking System

Post by TopHat24/7 Tue 25 Sep 2012, 2:49 pm

Boxrec's are pretty unreliable/skewed (someone once posted on here the crazy formula they use) but a useful starting point at least.

Think mine woudl be:

Froch
Khan
Haye
Burns
Brook

TopHat24/7

Posts : 17008
Join date : 2011-07-01
Age : 40
Location : London

Back to top Go down

Ranking System Empty Re: Ranking System

Post by superflyweight Tue 25 Sep 2012, 2:55 pm

Has Haye done enough to rank ahead of Burns? It's probably close either way but I'd probably have them switched around.

superflyweight
Superfly
Superfly

Posts : 8534
Join date : 2011-01-26

Back to top Go down

Ranking System Empty Re: Ranking System

Post by TopHat24/7 Tue 25 Sep 2012, 3:02 pm

Strength of his CW CV for me.

TopHat24/7

Posts : 17008
Join date : 2011-07-01
Age : 40
Location : London

Back to top Go down

Ranking System Empty Re: Ranking System

Post by Rowley Tue 25 Sep 2012, 3:09 pm

Not for me superfly, can't live of his cruiser exploits for ever. He fights with ridiculous infrequency and his last three fights are a meaningless blow out over the consistently ordinary Audley, a win over Chisora and getting his arse handed to him by Wlad. Burns is above him for me no question.

Rowley
Admin
Admin

Posts : 22053
Join date : 2011-02-17
Age : 51
Location : I'm just a symptom of the modern decay that's gnawing at the heart of this country.

Back to top Go down

Ranking System Empty Re: Ranking System

Post by TopHat24/7 Tue 25 Sep 2012, 3:21 pm

Both 2 weight world champs. Both coming off decent domestic wins (Mitchell shouldn't be a great win, no matter how 50:50 it seemed going into it) but Haye can a) be said to have been #1 in his division and unified titles which Burns has never done; and b) at least challenged a divisional #1 even if he did lose, which is more than Ricky has done in either division.

Not a Ricky witchhunt by any means, just think it is genuinely close between the two with Haye's fight infrequency being the only thing I can find worse than Ricky's.

TopHat24/7

Posts : 17008
Join date : 2011-07-01
Age : 40
Location : London

Back to top Go down

Ranking System Empty Re: Ranking System

Post by Rowley Tue 25 Sep 2012, 3:27 pm

Can see the argument tophat and my final sentence may have made it sound like the gap was wider than it is but do think there comes a point in these things where a line has to be drawn under past acheivements. Haye did well at cruiser no question, unquestionably better than Ricky has done at either of his divisions but am loath to put too much emphasis on it because it was, in relative terms a long time ago.

Also don't give him too much kudos for the Wlad fight because it was hardly a heroic failure or herculean effort on his part was it?

Rowley
Admin
Admin

Posts : 22053
Join date : 2011-02-17
Age : 51
Location : I'm just a symptom of the modern decay that's gnawing at the heart of this country.

Back to top Go down

Ranking System Empty Re: Ranking System

Post by Soldier_Of_Fortune Tue 25 Sep 2012, 3:30 pm

rowley wrote:Kind of also struggle to see how they have Bellew above Cleverly. I know Cleverly is personally and solely responsible for every ill that blights boxing currently from PED’s to Manny and Floyd not fighting but Cleverly did beat Bellew when they fought, realise that does not give him the right to remain above him for eternity but has Bellew really done enough to warrant overtaking him just yet?

Boxrec is in many ways an invaluable and excellent website but dear god how they arrive at their rankings is anyone’s guess.

Formula

If a boxer with a rating of r_a before the fight defeats a boxer b with a rating of r_b before the fight with result of value v and clear decision factor cd, the new ratings r_a_new and r_b_new after a fight are, earn_f is 33.3%:

earn = earn_f * v * (r_b*cd + (r_b-r_a)/(1+2*cd));
r_a_new = r_a + earn
r_b_new = r_b - earn
Additional points (no additional loss points accounted):

opponent in launch state n: v * cd * (25*n - r_a) * max(6*(n+1),min(r_b,25*n)) / (25*n) * max(r_a,18) / (max(r_a,18) + max(r_b,18))
Rating reduction caused by missing opponent quality:

r_new = r_old * (1 - 0.5*(1 - best_opp/r_old/0.5))

And thats why Bellew is above Clev. Simple really when you look at it.

Soldier_Of_Fortune

Posts : 4420
Join date : 2011-03-14
Location : Liverpool JFT96 YNWA

Back to top Go down

Ranking System Empty Re: Ranking System

Post by Rowley Tue 25 Sep 2012, 3:34 pm

Cheers for that soldier, can't believe I couldn't work it out for myself

Rowley
Admin
Admin

Posts : 22053
Join date : 2011-02-17
Age : 51
Location : I'm just a symptom of the modern decay that's gnawing at the heart of this country.

Back to top Go down

Ranking System Empty Re: Ranking System

Post by manos de piedra Tue 25 Sep 2012, 4:38 pm

On form I think Burns deserves to be higher than both Khan and Haye. Ranking purely on talent or ability maybe not, although he does seem to be getting better and better.

Khan has lost two in row now to guys that were just divisional contenders rather than elite fighters. You have to go back to Valuev probably before Haye has managed a meaningful win. Chisora, Audley, Ruiz and a loss to Wlad is pretty thin over the last couple of years.

manos de piedra

Posts : 5274
Join date : 2011-02-21

Back to top Go down

Ranking System Empty Re: Ranking System

Post by alanqlm Wed 26 Sep 2012, 11:07 pm

TopHat24/7 wrote:Both 2 weight world champs. Both coming off decent domestic wins (Mitchell shouldn't be a great win, no matter how 50:50 it seemed going into it) but Haye can a) be said to have been #1 in his division and unified titles which Burns has never done; and b) at least challenged a divisional #1 even if he did lose, which is more than Ricky has done in either division.

Not a Ricky witchhunt by any means, just think it is genuinely close between the two with Haye's fight infrequency being the only thing I can find worse than Ricky's.

Forgive me if Im mistaken but pretty sure Martinez was ranked as number 1 at SFW before Ricky beat him.

Asfor Brook beig ahead of Kha it does seem riduclous based on todays take on p4p but, was it not originally used to determine which fighter would win if they were a same weight etc....Given Brook and Khan pretty much are with all Khans talk of moving to WW and the large amount of people thinking this is a fight Brook would win maybe it isn't so strange.

Though Boxrec's p4p rankings are terrible and place far too much emphasis on the higher weights.

alanqlm

Posts : 635
Join date : 2011-03-19

Back to top Go down

Ranking System Empty Re: Ranking System

Post by TopHat24/7 Thu 27 Sep 2012, 9:47 am

I was pretty sure at least the two Japs were ahead of him in the divisional rankings.

Not discrediting the win at all, was fantastic, and Martinez was definitely (from memory) top ranked (i.e. top5) but I don't remember him being #1 and certainly not as dominant and unequivocable as Wlad at HW.

TopHat24/7

Posts : 17008
Join date : 2011-07-01
Age : 40
Location : London

Back to top Go down

Ranking System Empty Re: Ranking System

Post by manos de piedra Thu 27 Sep 2012, 11:59 am

Martinez was ranked number 2 by the Ring when Burns beat him. I think Fana was ranked number 1 but there was no "Ring" champion in the division.

manos de piedra

Posts : 5274
Join date : 2011-02-21

Back to top Go down

Ranking System Empty Re: Ranking System

Post by mobilemaster8 Thu 27 Sep 2012, 12:57 pm

TopHat24/7 wrote:Boxrec's list:

Carl Froch
David Haye
Ricky Burns
Kell Brook
Tyson Fury
Matthew Macklin
Ola Afolabi
Amir Khan
Tony Bellew
Nathan Cleverly
Martin Murray
David Price
George Groves
Gavin Rees
Darren Barker
Carl Frampton
Billy Joe Saunders
Lee Purdy
Kevin Mitchell
James DeGale
Hit's Khan hard for his losses and is very generous to Fury given his record is no better than Clev, can't see how he's rated so highly.

The EBU Champ?? Madness

mobilemaster8

Posts : 4302
Join date : 2012-05-10
Age : 37
Location : Stoke on Trent

Back to top Go down

Ranking System Empty Re: Ranking System

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum