Premier Boxing Organisation Top 100 rankings

Post Reply
Lennox
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1083
Joined: 26 May 2002, 12:35

Premier Boxing Organisation Top 100 rankings

Post by Lennox »

Mexi-Box
Welterweight
Posts: 3963
Joined: 24 Jan 2016, 16:19

Re: Premier Boxing Organisation Top 100 rankings

Post by Mexi-Box »

Always good for a laugh. :clap:
Ruthless-RKO
Welterweight
Posts: 101378
Joined: 24 Apr 2016, 11:59

Re: Premier Boxing Organisation Top 100 rankings

Post by Ruthless-RKO »

Cheers! :TU:
greg
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 5323
Joined: 23 Mar 2007, 07:44

Re: Premier Boxing Organisation Top 100 rankings

Post by greg »

Mexi-Box wrote: 31 Dec 2017, 17:39 Always good for a laugh. :clap:
..I actually consider the "quality opposition" column very informative and helpful.. :o
Ruthless-RKO
Welterweight
Posts: 101378
Joined: 24 Apr 2016, 11:59

Re: Premier Boxing Organisation Top 100 rankings

Post by Ruthless-RKO »

Lennox wrote: 31 Dec 2017, 11:01 Latest rankings uploaded;

www.premierboxingorganisation.com/heavyweight-200
What does L* mean?
Lennox
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1083
Joined: 26 May 2002, 12:35

Re: Premier Boxing Organisation Top 100 rankings

Post by Lennox »

Ruthless-RKO wrote: 03 Jan 2018, 07:21
Lennox wrote: 31 Dec 2017, 11:01 Latest rankings uploaded;

www.premierboxingorganisation.com/heavyweight-200
What does L* mean?
L* is when the fighter officially lost but there was sufficient subjective evidence that the result was grossly unfair and therefore the points allocation were altered.
JCS
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 6244
Joined: 17 Dec 2004, 13:27

Re: Premier Boxing Organisation Top 100 rankings

Post by JCS »

Lennox wrote: 03 Jan 2018, 14:06
Ruthless-RKO wrote: 03 Jan 2018, 07:21
Lennox wrote: 31 Dec 2017, 11:01 Latest rankings uploaded;

www.premierboxingorganisation.com/heavyweight-200
What does L* mean?
L* is when the fighter officially lost but there was sufficient subjective evidence that the result was grossly unfair and therefore the points allocation were altered.
Hmm, that's a hairy business to be in....
Ruthless-RKO
Welterweight
Posts: 101378
Joined: 24 Apr 2016, 11:59

Re: Premier Boxing Organisation Top 100 rankings

Post by Ruthless-RKO »

Lennox wrote: 03 Jan 2018, 14:06
Ruthless-RKO wrote: 03 Jan 2018, 07:21
Lennox wrote: 31 Dec 2017, 11:01 Latest rankings uploaded;

www.premierboxingorganisation.com/heavyweight-200
What does L* mean?
L* is when the fighter officially lost but there was sufficient subjective evidence that the result was grossly unfair and therefore the points allocation were altered.
I take it ~ is the opposite. I seen it place near a number (win) for example Hassan N'Dam ..
Gnome
Cruiserweight
Posts: 5407
Joined: 13 Nov 2010, 18:54

Re: Premier Boxing Organisation Top 100 rankings

Post by Gnome »

Really dig this ranking system. Good job. :TU:
Heretic
Super Middleweight
Posts: 2046
Joined: 28 Oct 2012, 07:18

Re: Premier Boxing Organisation Top 100 rankings

Post by Heretic »

Not a bad list...

Pulev bit too low.

Hammer, Teper and Duhaupas too high.

Not too far of anyways :TU:
Ruthless-RKO
Welterweight
Posts: 101378
Joined: 24 Apr 2016, 11:59

Re: Premier Boxing Organisation Top 100 rankings

Post by Ruthless-RKO »

Heretic wrote: 03 Jan 2018, 16:19 Not a bad list...

Pulev bit too low.

Hammer, Teper and Duhaupas too high.

Not too far of anyways :TU:
It's all based on who they fight..
Mimmy
Heavyweight
Heavyweight

Re: Premier Boxing Organisation Top 100 rankings

Post by Mimmy »

Before I take a peek can one tell me if this list has Tyson Fury in it?

If not I take it as a decent reliable list thats worth peeking.
Ruthless-RKO
Welterweight
Posts: 101378
Joined: 24 Apr 2016, 11:59

Re: Premier Boxing Organisation Top 100 rankings

Post by Ruthless-RKO »

nope
Badhusker
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4902
Joined: 19 Jun 2010, 23:57

Re: Premier Boxing Organisation Top 100 rankings

Post by Badhusker »

So is this the place we should all look for credible rankings? Just curious, as all seem to have an agenda of some sort.

I notice they have Manny Pacquiao ranked 3rd at welterweight, for example.
jamamb
Lightweight
Posts: 14329
Joined: 17 Sep 2017, 05:37

Re: Premier Boxing Organisation Top 100 rankings

Post by jamamb »

is there an agenda in computerized rankings. how is that built into the system for particular biases?
Heretic
Super Middleweight
Posts: 2046
Joined: 28 Oct 2012, 07:18

Re: Premier Boxing Organisation Top 100 rankings

Post by Heretic »

Ruthless-RKO wrote: 05 Jan 2018, 16:10
Heretic wrote: 03 Jan 2018, 16:19 Not a bad list...

Pulev bit too low.

Hammer, Teper and Duhaupas too high.

Not too far of anyways :TU:
It's all based on who they fight..
Ok then. I can see Duhaupas being there. Helenius and Charr are pretty good names. But who has Teper fought? Only Duhaupas there for him.... And I actually scored that fight for Duhaupas at the time.
Ruthless-RKO
Welterweight
Posts: 101378
Joined: 24 Apr 2016, 11:59

Re: Premier Boxing Organisation Top 100 rankings

Post by Ruthless-RKO »

Lennox wrote: 31 Dec 2017, 11:01 Latest rankings uploaded;

www.premierboxingorganisation.com/heavyweight-200
Quick question..

WASAKIL WANGEK THA 31 WBC W L W W W W W W 16 63 W W W W W W W 1 W 2

I'm sure Wangek didn't fight in between his two Chocolatito fights did he? This would suggest he did.
Ruthless-RKO
Welterweight
Posts: 101378
Joined: 24 Apr 2016, 11:59

Re: Premier Boxing Organisation Top 100 rankings

Post by Ruthless-RKO »

JESSE MAGDALENO is not showing an L after the Dogboe loss
Post Reply