Heavyweight Rankings
Heavyweight Rankings
How do you rank them right now? Division is looking interesting.
Fury, Wlad, Wilder, Povetkin, Ortiz, Joshua, Martin, Parker. A lot of interesting fights to be made here. Hopefully Parker is stepped up soon.
Fury, Wlad, Wilder, Povetkin, Ortiz, Joshua, Martin, Parker. A lot of interesting fights to be made here. Hopefully Parker is stepped up soon.
-
Syntax Error
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 9011
- Joined: 22 Apr 2005, 08:00
Re: Heavyweight Rankings
It's funny how one result can open up a division & make it interesting again.
Right now, Fury is the best as far as I'm concerned.
Things could change in the rematch with Wladimir of course, but I can't see it..
Fury is supremely confident in his own ability & appears totally unfazed & fearless.
He's also got a good team that did not allow Wladimir & his mob to dictate & bully them.
With regards to the others, there's many variables, but Ortiz & Povetkin are probably the next best.
I'm not sure about Wilder, although it wouldn't surprise me if he ended up as top dog, but I just don't know right now.
Right now, Fury is the best as far as I'm concerned.
Things could change in the rematch with Wladimir of course, but I can't see it..
Fury is supremely confident in his own ability & appears totally unfazed & fearless.
He's also got a good team that did not allow Wladimir & his mob to dictate & bully them.
With regards to the others, there's many variables, but Ortiz & Povetkin are probably the next best.
I'm not sure about Wilder, although it wouldn't surprise me if he ended up as top dog, but I just don't know right now.
-
asdfjkl
- Heavyweight

Re: Heavyweight Rankings
It matters in what way you're thinking, in the historybook till this point I'd say:
Wladimir
Povetkin
Fury
Joshua
Ortiz
Martin
Parker
The ranking I expect to get when they had a tournament right now:
Joshua
Fury
Ortiz
Parker
Klitschko
Wilder
Povetkin
Martin
As an all time highest peak moment if you look back in about 30 years I expect something like:
Klitschko
Joshua
Povetkin
Fury
Parker
Wilder
Ortiz
Martin
It really matters in what way you're looking at the rankings.
Wladimir
Povetkin
Fury
Joshua
Ortiz
Martin
Parker
The ranking I expect to get when they had a tournament right now:
Joshua
Fury
Ortiz
Parker
Klitschko
Wilder
Povetkin
Martin
As an all time highest peak moment if you look back in about 30 years I expect something like:
Klitschko
Joshua
Povetkin
Fury
Parker
Wilder
Ortiz
Martin
It really matters in what way you're looking at the rankings.
Re: Heavyweight Rankings
Combining talent, achievement, and predicted success, I'd go something like this:
1. Fury
2. Wlad
3. Povetkin
4. Wilder
5. Ortiz
6. Martin
7. Joshua
8. Parker
7&8 have a huge UP Arrow.
1. Fury
2. Wlad
3. Povetkin
4. Wilder
5. Ortiz
6. Martin
7. Joshua
8. Parker
7&8 have a huge UP Arrow.
Re: Heavyweight Rankings
Good point, there are many ways to look at this.asdfjkl wrote:It matters in what way you're thinking, in the historybook till this point I'd say:
Wladimir
Povetkin
Fury
Joshua
Ortiz
Martin
Parker
The ranking I expect to get when they had a tournament right now:
Joshua
Fury
Ortiz
Parker
Klitschko
Wilder
Povetkin
Martin
As an all time highest peak moment if you look back in about 30 years I expect something like:
Klitschko
Joshua
Povetkin
Fury
Parker
Wilder
Ortiz
Martin
It really matters in what way you're looking at the rankings.
My crystal ball in 2019 would go something like this:
1. Joshua
2. Tyson Fury
3. Parker
4. Wilder
5. Hughie Fury
Martin, Povetkin, Ortiz, and Browne will provide us with some outgoing entertainment before then.
-
lowlefthand
- Super Welterweight
- Posts: 151
- Joined: 21 May 2015, 04:44
Re: Heavyweight Rankings
Martin is #8 in any list, no matter how you make it.Tony1244 wrote:Combining talent, achievement, and predicted success, I'd go something like this:
1. Fury
2. Wlad
3. Povetkin
4. Wilder
5. Ortiz
6. Martin
7. Joshua
8. Parker
7&8 have a huge UP Arrow.
He must have the biggest target on his forehead.
Ask any of the other 7 if they'll fight him for his IBF belt and they'll say "HELL YEAH!!!"
-
asdfjkl
- Heavyweight

Re: Heavyweight Rankings
That's why I hope Martin will chose Anthony Joshua as his next fight, then Wilder can't avoid Anthony Joshua for example any more.lowlefthand wrote:Martin is #8 in any list, no matter how you make it.Tony1244 wrote:Combining talent, achievement, and predicted success, I'd go something like this:
1. Fury
2. Wlad
3. Povetkin
4. Wilder
5. Ortiz
6. Martin
7. Joshua
8. Parker
7&8 have a huge UP Arrow.
He must have the biggest target on his forehead.
Ask any of the other 7 if they'll fight him for his IBF belt and they'll say "HELL YEAH!!!"
Re: Heavyweight Rankings
Not The IBFs list.lowlefthand wrote:Martin is #8 in any list, no matter how you make it.Tony1244 wrote:Combining talent, achievement, and predicted success, I'd go something like this:
1. Fury
2. Wlad
3. Povetkin
4. Wilder
5. Ortiz
6. Martin
7. Joshua
8. Parker
7&8 have a huge UP Arrow.
He must have the biggest target on his forehead.
Ask any of the other 7 if they'll fight him for his IBF belt and they'll say "HELL YEAH!!!"
Re: Heavyweight Rankings
Come on, Charles Martin was ranked something like 38th by Boxrec yesterday and he won against a feather fisted guy who was ranked somewhere near the 10 mark by KTFO (knee totally fell off) and now he's ranked top 5 because he has an strap round his waist.
The guy isn't top 10. He's not even as good a champion as Stiverne was
The guy isn't top 10. He's not even as good a champion as Stiverne was
-
asdfjkl
- Heavyweight

Re: Heavyweight Rankings
Wilder isn't top 4 either, Teper isn't that good either, Stiverne same story. But it's computer based, it's based on numbers. Glazkov had several very lucky wins, so the computer ranked him high and martin koed him in three rounds, so it makes sense that the computer ranks him this high. The computer can't see the difference between a lucky win, or a dominating win.davie wrote:Come on, Charles Martin was ranked something like 38th by Boxrec yesterday and he won against a feather fisted guy who was ranked somewhere near the 10 mark by KTFO (knee totally fell off) and now he's ranked top 5 because he has an strap round his waist.
The guy isn't top 10. He's not even as good a champion as Stiverne was
Re: Heavyweight Rankings
I wasn't critisising the computer based ranking, I'm fully aware of their short comings.asdfjkl wrote:Wilder isn't top 4 either, Teper isn't that good either, Stiverne same story. But it's computer based, it's based on numbers. Glazkov had several very lucky wins, so the computer ranked him high and martin koed him in three rounds, so it makes sense that the computer ranks him this high. The computer can't see the difference between a lucky win, or a dominating win.davie wrote:Come on, Charles Martin was ranked something like 38th by Boxrec yesterday and he won against a feather fisted guy who was ranked somewhere near the 10 mark by KTFO (knee totally fell off) and now he's ranked top 5 because he has an strap round his waist.
The guy isn't top 10. He's not even as good a champion as Stiverne was
I'm criticising the inane chat in here by supposed boxing fans who should know better. In the this case the computer based rankings are whupping their asses because anyone who ranks Joshua, Martin or Parker ahead of say Pulev is jumping the gun
Too much hype surrounding some prosepcts who are as yet unproven and too much weight given to belt holders I'm not sure some of these guys should be ranked ahead of the likes of Takam, Stiverne, Jennings or Chagaev and I wouldn't say one or 2 of them are even neccesarily ready to fight a fighter of that calibre at fringe level, let alone beat them
Heck, there's a thread asking who is the top heavyweight right now (started by boxrecs no1 boxing expert) that lists these relative novice pro's and doesn't even have Povetkin as an option, despite the fact he'd wipe the fornicating floor with half of them
-
asdfjkl
- Heavyweight

Re: Heavyweight Rankings
That's correct, I wouldn't even be that surprised if Povetkin beats Fury. Klitschko just wanted to beat Fury from a distance, but that's impossible against a guy with a longer reach. Wlad just didn't fight smart.davie wrote:I wasn't critisising the computer based ranking, I'm fully aware of their short comings.asdfjkl wrote:Wilder isn't top 4 either, Teper isn't that good either, Stiverne same story. But it's computer based, it's based on numbers. Glazkov had several very lucky wins, so the computer ranked him high and martin koed him in three rounds, so it makes sense that the computer ranks him this high. The computer can't see the difference between a lucky win, or a dominating win.davie wrote:Come on, Charles Martin was ranked something like 38th by Boxrec yesterday and he won against a feather fisted guy who was ranked somewhere near the 10 mark by KTFO (knee totally fell off) and now he's ranked top 5 because he has an strap round his waist.
The guy isn't top 10. He's not even as good a champion as Stiverne was
I'm criticising the inane chat in here by supposed boxing fans who should know better. In the this case the computer based rankings are whupping their asses because anyone who ranks Joshua, Martin or Parker ahead of say Pulev is jumping the gun
Too much hype surrounding some prosepcts who are as yet unproven and too much weight given to belt holders I'm not sure some of these guys should be ranked ahead of the likes of Takam, Stiverne, Jennings or Chagaev and I wouldn't say one or 2 of them are even neccesarily ready to fight a fighter of that calibre at fringe level, let alone beat them
Heck, there's a thread asking who is the top heavyweight right now (started by boxrecs no1 boxing expert) that lists these relative novice pro's and doesn't even have Povetkin as an option, despite the fact he'd wipe the effing floor with half of them
-
eastezrider
- Middleweight
- Posts: 142
- Joined: 09 Sep 2013, 21:33
Re: Heavyweight Rankings
1. Wilder
Re: Heavyweight Rankings
Purely on ability
1. Ortiz
2. Fury
3. Wlad
4. Haye
5. Pov
6. Joshua
1. Ortiz
2. Fury
3. Wlad
4. Haye
5. Pov
6. Joshua
-
jezzamundo
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 3127
- Joined: 16 Jun 2004, 13:11
Re: Heavyweight Rankings
You're overstating the importance of reach - Wach also had a longer reach than Wlad. David Haye beat Valuev from a distance. I agree Wlad fought a stupid fight against Fury though, he will need to be far more aggressive in the rematch.asdfjkl wrote:That's correct, I wouldn't even be that surprised if Povetkin beats Fury. Klitschko just wanted to beat Fury from a distance, but that's impossible against a guy with a longer reach. Wlad just didn't fight smart.davie wrote:I wasn't critisising the computer based ranking, I'm fully aware of their short comings.asdfjkl wrote: Wilder isn't top 4 either, Teper isn't that good either, Stiverne same story. But it's computer based, it's based on numbers. Glazkov had several very lucky wins, so the computer ranked him high and martin koed him in three rounds, so it makes sense that the computer ranks him this high. The computer can't see the difference between a lucky win, or a dominating win.
I'm criticising the inane chat in here by supposed boxing fans who should know better. In the this case the computer based rankings are whupping their asses because anyone who ranks Joshua, Martin or Parker ahead of say Pulev is jumping the gun
Too much hype surrounding some prosepcts who are as yet unproven and too much weight given to belt holders I'm not sure some of these guys should be ranked ahead of the likes of Takam, Stiverne, Jennings or Chagaev and I wouldn't say one or 2 of them are even neccesarily ready to fight a fighter of that calibre at fringe level, let alone beat them
Heck, there's a thread asking who is the top heavyweight right now (started by boxrecs no1 boxing expert) that lists these relative novice pro's and doesn't even have Povetkin as an option, despite the fact he'd wipe the effing floor with half of them
-
MDINJACKSON
- Welterweight
- Posts: 20
- Joined: 07 Sep 2015, 13:58
Re: Heavyweight Rankings
As far as the most talented fighters at this point in time, my top 10 would be:
1: Fury
2: Klitschko
3: Povetkin
4: Ortiz
5: Wilder
6: Joshua
7: Pulev
8: Parker
9: Chagaev
10: Jennings
1: Fury
2: Klitschko
3: Povetkin
4: Ortiz
5: Wilder
6: Joshua
7: Pulev
8: Parker
9: Chagaev
10: Jennings
-
asdfjkl
- Heavyweight

Re: Heavyweight Rankings
Yea, but Wach is quite slow and Valuev had pain in every bone in his body and according to many people he still was better as David Haye, but appearantly the referees thought differend.jezzamundo wrote:You're overstating the importance of reach - Wach also had a longer reach than Wlad. David Haye beat Valuev from a distance. I agree Wlad fought a stupid fight against Fury though, he will need to be far more aggressive in the rematch.asdfjkl wrote:That's correct, I wouldn't even be that surprised if Povetkin beats Fury. Klitschko just wanted to beat Fury from a distance, but that's impossible against a guy with a longer reach. Wlad just didn't fight smart.davie wrote:
I wasn't critisising the computer based ranking, I'm fully aware of their short comings.
I'm criticising the inane chat in here by supposed boxing fans who should know better. In the this case the computer based rankings are whupping their asses because anyone who ranks Joshua, Martin or Parker ahead of say Pulev is jumping the gun
Too much hype surrounding some prosepcts who are as yet unproven and too much weight given to belt holders I'm not sure some of these guys should be ranked ahead of the likes of Takam, Stiverne, Jennings or Chagaev and I wouldn't say one or 2 of them are even neccesarily ready to fight a fighter of that calibre at fringe level, let alone beat them
Heck, there's a thread asking who is the top heavyweight right now (started by boxrecs no1 boxing expert) that lists these relative novice pro's and doesn't even have Povetkin as an option, despite the fact he'd wipe the effing floor with half of them
Re: Heavyweight Rankings
Here's my list, of course subjective.
1. Fury (how long, we will see)
2. Klitschko
3. Povetkin
4. Wilder
5. Ortiz
6. Pulev
7. Haye
8. Martin
9. Chagaev
10. Joshua
11. Jennings
12. Stiverne
13. Parker
14. Browne
15. Ustinov
1. Fury (how long, we will see)
2. Klitschko
3. Povetkin
4. Wilder
5. Ortiz
6. Pulev
7. Haye
8. Martin
9. Chagaev
10. Joshua
11. Jennings
12. Stiverne
13. Parker
14. Browne
15. Ustinov
-
jezzamundo
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 3127
- Joined: 16 Jun 2004, 13:11
Re: Heavyweight Rankings
I don't disagree with anything you've said - just took objection to your saying it's impossible to win from a distance against someone with longer reach. I think a more accurate statement would be that it is difficult to win from a distance against someone with a longer reach, decent handspeed and good use of spacing. Wlad has never learnt to punch to the body or fight inside and at 40 it's a bit late to be learning these things. What he can do differently is be more aggressive and be willing to take Fury's jabs to land his own power punches. Neither guy has the strongest chin but Wlad has far greater power, so it's to his advantage if they start trading shots. Wlad certainly has a bit puncher's chance, but considering his age, I'm taking Fury.asdfjkl wrote:Yea, but Wach is quite slow and Valuev had pain in every bone in his body and according to many people he still was better as David Haye, but appearantly the referees thought differend.jezzamundo wrote:You're overstating the importance of reach - Wach also had a longer reach than Wlad. David Haye beat Valuev from a distance. I agree Wlad fought a stupid fight against Fury though, he will need to be far more aggressive in the rematch.asdfjkl wrote: That's correct, I wouldn't even be that surprised if Povetkin beats Fury. Klitschko just wanted to beat Fury from a distance, but that's impossible against a guy with a longer reach. Wlad just didn't fight smart.
-
asdfjkl
- Heavyweight

Re: Heavyweight Rankings
Oke, but you sure need a hell of a lot more skills, Szpilka and Povetkin got a very short reach for top boxers, even Cunningham for example got a 7 inch reach advantage, that's a lot! I think that disadvantage is significant, you really need to be a lot better as your opponend to beat his reach advantage.jezzamundo wrote:I don't disagree with anything you've said - just took objection to your saying it's impossible to win from a distance against someone with longer reach. I think a more accurate statement would be that it is difficult to win from a distance against someone with a longer reach, decent handspeed and good use of spacing. Wlad has never learnt to punch to the body or fight inside and at 40 it's a bit late to be learning these things. What he can do differently is be more aggressive and be willing to take Fury's jabs to land his own power punches. Neither guy has the strongest chin but Wlad has far greater power, so it's to his advantage if they start trading shots. Wlad certainly has a bit puncher's chance, but considering his age, I'm taking Fury.asdfjkl wrote:Yea, but Wach is quite slow and Valuev had pain in every bone in his body and according to many people he still was better as David Haye, but appearantly the referees thought differend.jezzamundo wrote:
You're overstating the importance of reach - Wach also had a longer reach than Wlad. David Haye beat Valuev from a distance. I agree Wlad fought a stupid fight against Fury though, he will need to be far more aggressive in the rematch.
-
jezzamundo
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 3127
- Joined: 16 Jun 2004, 13:11
Re: Heavyweight Rankings
Who did Cunningham have a 7 inch reach advantage over? Unfortunately for him, Cunningham was never a good fit for heavyweight because of his average power and chin and then the fact that he thrived on being the longer, rangier guy.
If you know how to use it, a lack of height and short reach can be as much of an advantage as a disadvantage. See Tyson, Frazier, Marciano, Qawi, Toney etc.
If you know how to use it, a lack of height and short reach can be as much of an advantage as a disadvantage. See Tyson, Frazier, Marciano, Qawi, Toney etc.
-
world ranked
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 2199
- Joined: 21 Jan 2008, 14:21
Re: Heavyweight Rankings
Why wasn't he a good fiy yes he was a blown up cruser but he has only lost one clear time and that's against the heavyweight champ of the world and Steve had him down he's a clear overachiever.jezzamundo wrote:Who did Cunningham have a 7 inch reach advantage over? Unfortunately for him, Cunningham was never a good fit for heavyweight because of his average power and chin and then the fact that he thrived on being the longer, rangier guy.
If you know how to use it, a lack of height and short reach can be as much of an advantage as a disadvantage. See Tyson, Frazier, Marciano, Qawi, Toney etc.
-
jezzamundo
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 3127
- Joined: 16 Jun 2004, 13:11
Re: Heavyweight Rankings
I agree he's an overachiever - he arguably deserved decisions over Adamek, Glazkov and Tarver. That doesn't change my opinion that he is the type of fighter who is least suited to going up in weight because he loses his physical advantages.
Re: Heavyweight Rankings
You must say this once a month. I know he has acromegaly and will have complications from that. How severe they are or were I don't know, but I don't remember reading he had pain in every bone or that he was in constant pain.asdfjkl wrote:Valuev had pain in every bone in his body