Joshua ranked 5th in world by Boxing Monthly

[squared circle]

Apologies if already mentioned in the various AJ threads elsewhere but I just had a great double take flicking through the BM rankings. Number 5!!!

I am a big Josh fan - and actually bumped into him on the afternoon of the O2 card in canary wharf - but isnt that a bit mad.

I assume BM do their ratings on consensus view from their writing team but he is still hugely raw and unproven. I would have expected for him to have got to euro title level before featuring but I suppose there is an argument he is already there, albeit without the strap to prove it.

[Rob3_142]

I think the various rankings are a little bit odd, I mean he's ranked second in the WBC contender rankings! It seems that he's bumped up because they want to see him compete for their belt, or be pushed to a big fight.

I personally really like the BoxRec rankings as they seem a little less biased. Then again, I still don't know how AJ has made it to 13 in 13 fights without actually fighting anyone. Maybe you get more points for rearranging their face in the first round?

He's deffo at least 5th in the world based on potential, but rankings have to be earned in my book.

[moogie101]

Yeah I agree, even amongst such a weak Heavyweight division I can't fathom how he's ranked even in the top ten yet alone no. 5.

Fair enough he clearly has the potential to be a world beater but rankings are meant to be based on what you've actually done in the ring.

[crusader]

LOL--and there was argument simply over him breaking into the top 15 in the CS's HW rankings following the Johnson win.

He's looking good but I think 5th is too high.

[arlovski]

ludicrous.

This country has gone AJ mad, seen and heard loads of proper knowledgeable boxing people proclaiming him to be a potential all time great heavyweight, yes using those words, definitely going to be Britain's most successful ever heavyweight, eclipse Lennox's achievements etc

He literally hasn't hardly taken a punch in his professional career, and barely had an opponent who had legitimately turned up to win and give in a real effort. The hype is out of all control, i can't take it

[keithmoonhangover]

Boxing Monthly are definitely balls deep on my AJ choo choo train survey.

[crusader]

ludicrous.

This country has gone AJ mad, seen and heard loads of proper knowledgeable boxing people proclaiming him to be a potential all time great heavyweight, yes using those words, definitely going to be Britain's most successful ever heavyweight, eclipse Lennox's achievements etc

He literally hasn't hardly taken a punch in his professional career, and barely had an opponent who had legitimately turned up to win and give in a real effort. The hype is out of all control, i can't take it

I agree.

Who is the most dangerous opponent he's fought? Kevin 'I'm not going to throw punches but I'll walk straight to the ropes for you to tee-off' Johnson? Bakhtov? AJ has definitely impressed with the manner of his wins, but I think he needs to prove significantly more before he's deserving of a top 5 spot.

[the_doctor]

The best way to look at it is, how many HWs could you put him in with where he wouldn't be the favourite?

Wlad, Povetkin certainly. Wilder and Fury probably, on experience as much as anything. After that...? That's not to say he would be a heavy favourite against Pulev, Jennings et al but if you had to put Monet on one or the other, how many HWs out there would you back against AJ? Genuine question, would be interested to see what the consensus is on here.

[squared circle]

I got stung before by Price doing almost the same thing. Around the time he smashed up McDermott on the back of Fury's struggles with him.

Lost money on the first Thompson fight, and just sat in disbelief at the second when he tanked out.

Joshua looks less stiff but that might just be being a couple of inches smaller and a different body type (not that price was ever in bad nick but you take my point). Also he is obviously yet to wear one from anybody.

I hope he is going to be the next Lennox but it's still very early. Top five in world seems nuts to me.

I kind of agree it's hard to think of too many he wouldn't start a betting favourite against, but equally there is at least six names below the "top four" that him losing too wouldn't be a huge surprise at this stage of his career.

[crusader]

The best way to look at it is, how many HWs could you put him in with where he wouldn't be the favourite?

Wlad, Povetkin certainly. Wilder and Fury probably, on experience as much as anything. After that...? That's not to say he would be a heavy favourite against Pulev, Jennings et al but if you had to put Monet on one or the other, how many HWs out there would you back against AJ? Genuine question, would be interested to see what the consensus is on here.

Joshua hasn't fought one opponent who was dangerous as a world level or even fringe world level fighter, so it's very hard for me to say how he matches up with current contenders. When it comes to rankings I think what a fighter has proven is worth more than speculation, and while Joshua has looked good it's been against a relatively low level of competition that was made for him to shine in that his opponents were notably limited offensively (is Bakhtov the best offensive fighter he's faced?) and showed very little resistance. What he's doing now isn't much different than what David Price was doing--blasting people out impressively in one-way fights and thus being rated very highly--but he's yet to show how he copes with a good opponent who tries to win.

Fighters like Jennings and Pulev may not look as destructive, but they have proven themselves against better opponents who actually tried to beat them, and to me that has more weight than looking great against people like Airich, Bahktov, and Johnson---especially when the latter was in full-on journeyman mode, hardly threw a punch, and immediately backed to the ropes where AJ could start heavybag practice.

[Grilling Machine]

I wouldn't put Monet on him until we know if his boat's made of water lillies or the cliffs of Etretat. Big Pollocks, though, I reckon. Duchamp potential for sure, and there's no doubting his Bosch. Bare mans fallin' on their Botticellis.

[Graham Houston]

I don't actually compile the BM ratings, but I have the last word. The poster who suggested that Joshua would be the betting favourite over boxers ranked below him has got it right.

The ratings (well, the way I like to see them) are based to a large degree on current form and activity.

If a fighter is, say, ranked No. 5 in his division but hasn't boxed in eight months and has no fights scheduled, while boxers ranked below him have been fighting and winning, say have had two or three wins in the eight-month span, then I like to "reward" the active boxers by moving them up.

I mean, if every fighter just sat on his ranking -- protected the ranking by not boxing, if you like -- it doesn't help boxing much.

Let's look at the fighters ranked below AJ in the Boxing Monthly ratings.

Bermane Stiverne. Looked terrible in losing just about every round to Deontay Wilder -- couldn't get off all night, came within a hair's breadth of getting stopped in the seventh round. Barely got past an ancient Ray Austin. His biggest wins were the two against Chris Arreola, who is game but limited, and Stiverne hasn't won a fight in 13 months (and has no bouts scheduled).

Vyacheslav Glazkov. Tough guy, excellent amateur pedigree, and he can fight, but he had what I think most will agree was a close call with Steve Cunningham, and before that only just eked out a win over glorified trial horse Derric Rossy in a bout that was one round from being scored a draw. He would be the small man in the ring versus AJ.

Bryant Jennings. Was spirited in his loss to Wladimir, but was well-beaten nonetheless. Had a very close win over Mike Perez, who has just been blown away in 75 seconds by Povetkin. He would be the small man in the ring with AJ, giving up 3 inches in height and about 20 pounds in weight.

Kubrat Pulev. Fine amateur record and he has scored some excellent wins as a professional, unbeaten until challenging Wladimir for the title, but Wladimir absolutely wrecked him. It was a mismatch and honestly there were times when I wanted to avert my eyes as Wladimir teed off on him. Just brutal. That was the sort of crunching defeat that can end a boxer's career. Has had just one bout in 14 months (the Wladimir debacle) and has nothing scheduled as far as I know.

Artur Szpilka. I like Artur, but the fact is he was dropped in each of his bouts with the game but slow and ordinary Mike Mollo, and Bryant Jennings outclassed Artur, although I think Szpilka is a better fighter than he looked against Jennings. I do think size matters as a general rule in boxing (though obviously not always), and, again, Szpilka would be the small man in the ring versus AJ.

I look at it this way, and it's very simple, perhaps simplistic, but here goes: If your gambling-mad millionaire uncle told you: "I want to bet 20 grand on this Joshua kid's next fight and I will trust your judgment, my boy — and I will give you 15% of our winnings" Would you, in all honesty, bet that 20 grand on Szpilka, Jennings, Pulev, Glazkov or Stiverne to win versus AJ? I know I sure as hell wouldn't.

It's not just who AJ has beaten, it is how he has beaten them. That Olympic gold medal isn't easily won. As a comparatively inexperienced boxer he was a silver medallist in the world championships, losing by one point on the electronic scoring system in the final, away from home in Azerbaijan against a tough and inspired boxer from the host country. That sort of amateur background counts a lot with me.

I would make AJ 12-1 on vs Szpilka, 6-1 on versus Pulev, 4-1 vs Jennings, maybe 4-1 vs Glazkov and maybe 4-1 vs Stiverne, and I bet that guy who sets the lines for Paddy Power would go higher on these odds.

Let me say that Glyn did it a different way. Glyn's view was, broadly speaking: "You can't move a boxer up the ratings until he has beaten someone rated above him. You can't demote a boxer until he has lost to someone rated below him or until he has been inactive for 12 months."

That, if you like, is the textbook way or doing it.

I do it a bit differently. I go by what I believe I am seeing with my own eyes, what logic tells me, and, as said, I put a lot of store by activity, and Joshua is certainly an active heavyweight.

Look, ratings are subjective. I would not want nor expect people to agree with everything in our ratings. (Ardent ratings-watchers might find our middleweight ratings interesting in the next issue, but as ever I am happy to explain the reasons behind the ratings. The buck stops with me.)

[surfthehurf]

^^^^^^ Brilliant stuff Graham. Let's remember that AJ's level of opponents is being escalated, because he is tearing up the script every time he fights. Can't wait for him to fight a top tenner

[Gnome]

I agree with Graham. Great analysis. I don't think I would have Joshua the favourite in fights against Jennings or Pulev, but the idea of him being top 5 isn't outlandish for me (I would have him in the lower top 10 personally).

[crusader]

Joshua's argument for being 5th is certainly stronger if the rankings are largely a case of who someone thinks would win in head-to-head matches. However, I believe ranking him that highly by such a measure still involves a great degree of speculation when his best opponent is the same Kevin Johnson who has lost 6 of his last 7, shown virtually no ambition for years, hardly threw a punch at Joshua, and almost immediately headed to the ropes with his hands down--a recipe for disaster against AJ. I don't believe that Joshua has fought someone who was determined to win, nor do I believe that he's fought someone who was better offensively than limited Euro-circuit journeyman Denis Bakhtov. It's easy to say that he'll just keep walking through everyone, but a fighter's ability to give is very different from their ability to take (see David Price), and Joshua has yet to answer important questions about his chin, defense, stamina, and general ability to cope with a good opponent trying to win like many of the division's contenders have.

I agree that recent form and activity should certainly be factors in rankings and Joshua has looked good. Obviously his win over Johnson was impressive and he stopped Zumbano and Bakhtov in record time, but keep in mind that most of his opponents have a history of early knockout losses and guys like Zumbano and Bakhtov generally weren't facing top opponents who would be in competition with AJ for a ranking. To me simply beating some opponents more impressively than other top contenders says less than actually beating guys in, say, the top 10-30 who possess far more tools than Joshua's opponents to date do. As an extension of this, I don't agree that people like Pulev and Jennings should be marked down relative to AJ because of their showings against Wlad and/or Mike Perez (of course Jennings outclassed Artur too) when far worse opponents like Gavern, Zumbano, and journeyman Johnson are being used to judge AJ's recent form and activity.

Of course rankings are hugely subjective, but using a mix of accomplishments and perceived ability as I do Joshua is still not a candidate for my top 5 and I strongly disagree that he should be propelled there based on his win against the current version of Johnson, who is not even a fringe-contender. AJ seems to be getting moved fairly well though, so perhaps it won't be long before he proves himself against a higher-level of opposition and moves to a similar spot in my rankings.

[johnswan1]

Much respect to Graham for coming on here to defend his decision as person with the final say on the rankings. I think it is a shame that Glyn’s view, which I would expect to be the most widely accepted view, has not been continued. As impressive as Joshua has looked in his time as a pro, I feel it is very wrong to gift rankings on potential alone, or on blowing out the latest bum of the month (Tye Fields anyone?).

Olympic golds are not awarded cheaply, but the case of Audley Harrison will forever stand as one of the most potent reminders of how achievements as an amateur don’t necessarily translate to equivalent levels of success in the professional game.

In terms of the odds suggested by Graham, I am a betting man and I can guarantee that these odds are ludicrous. All of these men can fight and have been through tough fights which they have won. Joshua is yet to do this.

Forget Szpilla and Glazkov, but if Joshua was 1/6 Pulev, 1/4 Jennings and 1/4 Stiverne, then that would make those opponents somewhere in the region of 11/2, 7/2 & 7/2 respectively. At those odds I would happily suggest my uncle place the twenty grand (plus whatever else he could afford to lose) on the opponent, each of whom would represent an outstanding betting opportunity at this stage of AJ’s career.

Pulev and Stiverne can both punch, while Jennings has showed enough ring smarts to be able to survive 12 rounds with the best heavyweight of this era. Ranking on one or a few persons views of betting odds, especially if they are not professional oddsmakers themselves, carries about as much weight as Horse’s rankings.

[crusader]

^

And about winning the Olympic gold...while he was obviously an elite amateur I don't think that AJ deserved to make it out of the first round of the tournament and thus have that accomplishment to his name.

[crusader]

On another note . ....what is the basis for having Povetkin beneath Fury and Wilder? He seems like a clear #2 to me.

Overall I must say the BM rankings are very good though.

[ILikeBeer]

ludicrous.

This country has gone AJ mad, seen and heard loads of proper knowledgeable boxing people proclaiming him to be a potential all time great heavyweight, yes using those words, definitely going to be Britain's most successful ever heavyweight, eclipse Lennox's achievements etc

He literally hasn't hardly taken a punch in his professional career, and barely had an opponent who had legitimately turned up to win and give in a real effort. The hype is out of all control, i can't take it

You'll see, man.

AJ is going to beat both Klitschkos in the same night, with one hand tied behind his back and his eyes closed.

AJ is going to cure cancer.

AJ is going to invent a time machine, and go back in time to kill Hitler.

The character of Batman was based on AJ, but they made Batman slightly less bad-ass.


It's all coming up AJ.

[Graham Houston]

On another note . ....what is the basis for having Povetkin beneath Fury and Wilder? He seems like a clear #2 to me.

Overall I must say the BM rankings are very good though.

Povetkin's widely scored loss to Wladimir was taken into account whereas Fury and Wilder are still unbeaten, and Wilder did look very good vs Stiverne, not so much subsequently vs E. Molina. ... Fury did twice beat Chisora, second time very comfortably, and Dereck gave Vitali a rough go of it. This is where subjectivity comes into it: Who goes above whom, and why.

[jamesmcdonnell]

On another note . ....what is the basis for having Povetkin beneath Fury and Wilder? He seems like a clear #2 to me.

Overall I must say the BM rankings are very good though.

Povetkin's widely scored loss to Wladimir was taken into account whereas Fury and Wilder are still unbeaten, and Wilder did look very good vs Stiverne, not so much subsequently vs E. Molina. ... Fury did twice beat Chisora, second time very comfortably, and Dereck gave Vitali a rough go of it. This is where subjectivity comes into it: Who goes above whom, and why.

It's tricky isn't it - I would say however, that Chisora seemed very motivated against Vitali (it was a world title fight after all), and was by terns lethargic and then utterly desolate in the fights with Fury. So I would temper Fury's wins over Chisora with that personally.

It's hard to rate the heavyweights at the moment, the achievements of most are pretty slim, as few of the prospects have faced one another.

[Graham Houston]

Much respect to Graham for coming on here to defend his decision as person with the final say on the rankings. I think it is a shame that Glyn’s view, which I would expect to be the most widely accepted view, has not been continued. As impressive as Joshua has looked in his time as a pro, I feel it is very wrong to gift rankings on potential alone, or on blowing out the latest bum of the month (Tye Fields anyone?).

Olympic golds are not awarded cheaply, but the case of Audley Harrison will forever stand as one of the most potent reminders of how achievements as an amateur don’t necessarily translate to equivalent levels of success in the professional game.

In terms of the odds suggested by Graham, I am a betting man and I can guarantee that these odds are ludicrous. All of these men can fight and have been through tough fights which they have won. Joshua is yet to do this.

Forget Szpilla and Glazkov, but if Joshua was 1/6 Pulev, 1/4 Jennings and 1/4 Stiverne, then that would make those opponents somewhere in the region of 11/2, 7/2 & 7/2 respectively. At those odds I would happily suggest my uncle place the twenty grand (plus whatever else he could afford to lose) on the opponent, each of whom would represent an outstanding betting opportunity at this stage of AJ’s career.

Pulev and Stiverne can both punch, while Jennings has showed enough ring smarts to be able to survive 12 rounds with the best heavyweight of this era. Ranking on one or a few persons views of betting odds, especially if they are not professional oddsmakers themselves, carries about as much weight as Horse’s rankings.

I'll say this, you can believe me or not, but when I did a free website for four and a half years and posted my own odds (often before the professional oddsmakers posted their own odds), I had hate emails about wrong picks (goes with the territory) but no one EVER made adverse comments about the odds themselves.

I remember when Naoya Inoue fought Omar Narvaez in only his 7th bout last Dec. and was installed as something like a 12-1 on favourite, people on the betting forum at this site were saying: "Wow, those odds! Isn't there value in the much more experienced Narvaez?"

Here's how I see it. Judging from your email, you'd have Joshua maybe 2-1 on favourite over Pulev, given as 6-1 on is ludicrous, right? So, as 6-1 on is outlandish, in your view, 2-1 on seems a fair guess as to what your odds would be.

If a betting firm installed AJ as a 2-1 favourite over Pulev, IMO the sharps would jump all over that line and it would be pushed north to a much higher number.

Also, the rating was not based purely on speculation, it was based, as I thought I made clear, on recent form and current results/activity. Stiverne has had one fight in the last 13-odd months and got wiped out on the scorecards, Pulev has boxed once in the past 14 months and was demolished in a scary-type KO defeat in that bout (admittedly by the best heavyweight in the world). I like Jennings, he's a good fighter, but he did have a struggle with Mike Perez (one point from the fight being scored a draw) and Perez didn't look a world-beater in his last fight. It seems to me that some people in the boxing business who know a little bit about the game see Joshua as being a fighter who is a bit special. Others are sceptical. It's all a matter of opinion.

To reiterate, the rankings are influenced to a large extent by current form and activity -- I thought that was made pretty clear in my initial response -- and not on, as you put it, "one or a few person's views of betting odds". Let's try to keep it fair.

[johnswan1]

Hi Graham, fair point regarding the betting aspect of it, that was the bit I was focusing on.

On the subjects of form and activity, I think it’s fair to say that any genuine prospect in his first couple of years as a pro should be winning in style against the level of opponent Joshua has been in with.

In addition to that, a prospect will always have a higher level of activity than a top rated fighter. I’m not sure what odds book I would form myself if AJ was to fight any of the mentioned trio now – and it would of course have to factor in supply and demand as you mentioned, but whoever was made odds against in any of those match ups are who I would be sticking my money on. 2/1 or better on any of those opponents at this stage of AJ’s career would represent significant value to me.

Consider that each of the trio have either been world champion (Stiverne) or have beaten other ranked contenders (Pulev) or have held their own at times and survived the distance against the champ (Jennings). How can Joshua be top five world when he is yet to beat a top 5 contender in his own country? And has he achieved any more than Price or Kiwi Joseph Parker or Lucas Browne?

[Graham Houston]

Hi Graham, fair point regarding the betting aspect of it, that was the bit I was focusing on.

On the subjects of form and activity, I think it’s fair to say that any genuine prospect in his first couple of years as a pro should be winning in style against the level of opponent Joshua has been in with.

In addition to that, a prospect will always have a higher level of activity than a top rated fighter. I’m not sure what odds book I would form myself if AJ was to fight any of the mentioned trio now – and it would of course have to factor in supply and demand as you mentioned, but whoever was made odds against in any of those match ups are who I would be sticking my money on. 2/1 or better on any of those opponents at this stage of AJ’s career would represent significant value to me.

Consider that each of the trio have either been world champion (Stiverne) or have beaten other ranked contenders (Pulev) or have held their own at times and survived the distance against the champ (Jennings). How can Joshua be top five world when he is yet to beat a top 5 contender in his own country? And has he achieved any more than Price or Kiwi Joseph Parker or Lucas Browne?

I did a piece in BM last December comparing Joshua's first 9 opponents with the opponents of past Olympic gold medal winners at the same (nine-bout) stage of their careers who went on to win a pro heavyweight title. The original idea was to focus on Olympic heavyweight/super heavy gold medallists but close to deadline I decided to include Floyd Patterson (middleweight gold medallist) in the piece, and unfortunately the Spinks brothers (these things seem inevitable with a last-moment change of plan) got lost in the shuffle. I'll probably do an updated piece for the website.

Anyway, Joshua's opponents at the nine-bout stage stacked up very well indeed against the first nine opponents of past Olympic gold medal winners who became pro world heavyweight champions. Not all of the gold medallists blazed through their first nine opponents. Floyd Patterson struggled to win a split decision over a journeyman pro named Dick Wagner. ... Povetkin had to go the full six rounds against trial horse Friday Ahunanya. ... Leon Spinks, of course, was held to a draw by Scott LeDoux. ... Some of the opponents faced by the Olympic gold medallist/future heavyweight champions bordered on the pathetic as regards quality of opponent, although George Foreman fought Chuck Wepner (then 18-4-2) in his fourth bout as a pro.

Now, betting lines.

Two things have fascinated me for years: betting odds and scoring fights.

Let's say AJ is matched with Kubrat Pulev.

An oddsmaker (well, one who is worth his salt) will look at a number of factors.

One of them is: Which man is the house fighter (the "promoted" fighter)?

The leading promoters, the ones who build profitable businesses out of boxing, are usually very, very good at making matches. Mickey Duff was brilliant, the best boxing mind I ever knew. A gentleman whose first name is Frank and last name starts with "W" (I don't think I am allowed to mention his name on a BoxRec forum): very, very astute. Bob Arum's matchmaker, Bruce Trampler, also very astute. Barry Hearn: Very, very knowledgeable. Eddie Hearn: Seems to me to have a sharp boxing mind, and he has his dad's years of experience and wisdom on site. There are others I consider sharp boxing minds. The point is -- and the oddsmakers know this -- these people don't often make mistakes in their matchmaking.

So, an oddsmaker will take this into account when setting his line. He isn't just setting a betting line on the fighter, he's taking into account the promotional machine behind the fighter. So he will think: "Eddie/Mickey/Trampler [whoever] feels their guy is ready for this step up and they have a big investment at stake -- I don't like going against this boxer/promoter."

The oddsmaker takes into account public perception. He knows that a huge section of the public will be looking to bet on AJ in a step-up fight. The oddsmaker doesn't want to be out on a limb. Parlays/accumulators can be a killer for the betting firm as well as for the player. A smart player might think: "I don't want to risk 3-1 [or whatever] on AJ against Pulev but I'll put AJ in an accumulator with some big favourites, guys who really shouldn't lose their fights, and get the odds down to something more manageable for me, around 7-4 on."

If an oddsmaker gets it wrong with his pricing on an Anthony Joshua fight, it can cost his company big money.

That is why I think you will always see "inflated" odds on an AJ fight. The oddsmakers, too, don't often make mistakes.

I would want a lot better than +200 odds to go against AJ and the Matchroom machine in an AJ vs Pulev/Stiverne/Jennings bout.

[johnswan1]

I would also put forward that any fighter with the offensive force that AJ is will be less likely to struggle against journeymen etc. because of his power. As soon as he starts landing, his opponent is hurt and less likely to offer much offensive threat of their own and goes into a survival mode where they do not even attempt to test the prospect. Really do you think any Olympic gold medal winner would struggle to beat the version of each AJ opponent as he has faced?

I don’t think you can make comparisons based on first ten fights etc. because guys without the offence tools that AJ has at his disposal will of course do more rounds with the journeymen they face, and will of course take more shots as a result of doing those rounds, but that is all part of the learning experience – an experience that AJ, like Price before him is not getting.

As for odds and house fighters. I agree if the match up is made by a shrewd matchmaker then you have to consider the matchmaker factor you described, but as of now the promotional company has not put forward any of Stiverne/Pulev/Jennings as a targeted opponent, and hence the factor is not actually a factor at all when compiling theoretical odds which are supposedly based on if two fighters were forced to meet, not if AJs matchmaker were to choose him as an opponent.

Bottom line, AJ has not been hit, he hasn’t been in with an opponent who can hit, he hasn’t been put under pressure, he hasn’t yet been in with a guy whose gameplan is anything other than damage limitation. The questions with AJ for now are what will happen when the bully gets bullied, and what has he learned during his pro apprenticeship to date to get him through that time when it inevitably comes?