BoxRec Forum HW TOP 15 Ranking update - Kabayel, Ortiz

[dagilechia]

Current ranking:

1. Anthony Joshua - 22(21) 0 0 - 29 I 6'6''/198cm I 82''/208cm I 245lbs/111,2kg - next fight: 1.6.2019 v Jarrell Miller

2. Tyson Fury - 27(19) 0 1 - 30 I 6'9''/206cm I 85''/216cm I 256,5lbs/116,3kg - next fight: TBA

3. Deontay Wilder - 40(39) 0 1 - 33 I 6'7''/201cm I 83''/211cm I 212,5lbs/96,4kg - next fight: 18.5.2019 v TBA

4. Dillian Whyte - 25(18) 1(1) 0 - 30 I 6'4''/193cm I 78''/198cm I 246,5lbs/111,8kg - next fight: TBA

5. Alexander Povetkin - 34(24) 2(1) 0 - 39 I 6'2''/188cm I 75''/191cm I 222lbs/100,7kg - next fight: TBA

6. Luis Ortiz - 31(26) 1(1) 0 - 39 I 6'4''/193cm I 78''/198cm I 239lbs/108,3kg - next fight: TBA

7. Kubrat Pulev - 26(13) 1(1) 0 - 37 I 6'4,5''/194cm I 80''/203cm I 240,5lbs/109,1kg - next fight: 23.3.2019 v Bogdan Dinu

8. Jarrell Miller - 23(20) 0 1 - 30 I 6'4/193cm I 78''/198cm I 315lbs/143kg - next fight: 1.6.2019 v Anthony Joshua

9. Joseph Parker - 25(19) 2(0) 0 - 27 I 6'4/193cm I 76''/193cm I 240,5lbs/109,2kg - next fight: TBA

10. Adam Kownacki - 19(15) 0 0 - 29 I 6'3''/191cm I 76''/193cm I 258,5lbs/117,3kg - next fight: TBA

11. Dominic Breazeale - 20(18) 1(1) 0 - 33 I 6'7''/201cm I 81,5''/207cm I 256,5lbs/116,3kg - next fight: TBA

12. Óscar Rivas - 26(18) 0 0 - 31 I 6'0,5''/184cm I 76,5''/194cm I 234lbs/106,1kg - next fight: TBA

13. Dereck Chisora - 29(21) 9(3) 0 - 35 I 6'1,5''/187cm I 74''/188cm I 246lbs/111,7kg - next fight: TBA

14. Filip Hrgović - 7(5) 0 0 - 26 I 6'6''/198cm I 80''/203cm I 232,5lbs/105,5kg - next fight: TBA

15. Agit Kabayel - 19(13) 0 0 - 26 I 6'3''/191cm I 76''/193cm I 235lbs/106,5kg - next fight: TBA



Question A: How are the rankings affected by Agit Kabayel's (#15) UD 12 win over Andriy Rudenko (unranked)?

My vote: Kabayel remains at #15, Rudenko remains unranked

Question B: How are the rankings affected by Luis Ortiz's (#6) UD 10 win over Christian Hammer (unranked)?

My vote: Ortiz remains at #6, Hammer remains unranked

The voting will last until the end of 9.3.2019

[Onetimeonly]

Ortiz remains at 6, kaybel 15.

[conan_the_cribber]

Ortiz remains at #6, Hammer remains unranked

Kabayel remains at #15, Rudenko remains unranked

[conan_the_cribber]

Ortiz remains at 6, kaybel out.

I mean sure, theortetically you could unrank someone for a poor performance. But if they won by wide margins like Kabayel did, then that doesn't seem too logical. Let somebody else do something better and earn their ranking, I say.

[Onetimeonly]

Ortiz remains at 6, kaybel out.

I mean sure, theortetically you could unrank someone for a poor performance. But if they won by wide margins like Kabayel did, then that doesn't seem too logical. Let somebody else do something better and earn their ranking, I say.

I didn't have him in my initial 15. Beating rudenko doesn't change that.

[conan_the_cribber]

Ortiz remains at 6, kaybel out.

I mean sure, theortetically you could unrank someone for a poor performance. But if they won by wide margins like Kabayel did, then that doesn't seem too logical. Let somebody else do something better and earn their ranking, I say.

I didn't have him in my initial 15. Beating rudenko doesn't change that.

I think the point of this exercise is to accept the consensus of the voters and not make it about "my list". I can't remember where I voted him and I don't care. Other people voted, he ended up 15, so now it's my job to access his latest performance with regards to this ranking. His performance was not terrible, but not impressive, so he stays where he is.

This is how it worked when Jezzamundo ran it. In two years time, if it continues, all of your original votes don't matter either. Any of the fighters that you voted for get their chance to enter the top 15 provided they win their next fight.

[Onetimeonly]

I know, my vote will likely be overruled like it was initially, but I wouldn't do it if I wasn't offering my own opinion. That's the same way I did it before. Not sure why that's an issue.

[dagilechia]

Ortiz remains at 6, kaybel out.

I mean sure, theortetically you could unrank someone for a poor performance. But if they won by wide margins like Kabayel did, then that doesn't seem too logical. Let somebody else do something better and earn their ranking, I say.

I didn't have him in my initial 15. Beating rudenko doesn't change that.

I think the point of this exercise is to accept the consensus of the voters and not make it about "my list". I can't remember where I voted him and I don't care. Other people voted, he ended up 15, so now it's my job to access his latest performance with regards to this ranking. His performance was not terrible, but not impressive, so he stays where he is.

This is how it worked when Jezzamundo ran it. In two years time, if it continues, all of your original votes don't matter either. Any of the fighters that you voted for get their chance to enter the top 15 provided they win their next fight.

i also didn't ranked Kabayel in my top 15 and i still don't rank him in my personal top 15 but still i've voted him to remain at 15, if he was voted to 15 by us i accept it so i won't remove him from the list after this average performance (not bad though, Rudenko is underrated). but of course, if someone wants to vote him out, it's his choice. let's see how other posters will vote... i don't think that he will be voted out after casting the votes.

[DrDuke]

No changes required.

[Lennox]

Kaybel to 13. Beating Rudenko (top 50) is reasonable in the scheme of things (fighting top 50 oponents is rare). He also beat Chisora.

[conan_the_cribber]

Not wanting to make a mountain out of a molehill, but I personally would prefer it if these rankings were in general compliant with the Ali Act. That way we are playing by the same rules as the other rating organisations.

Paraphrased, the rules are

a) the rankings are based on official results (i.e. not opinions) and activity or inactivity.
b) the rules for inactivity must be defined somewhere
c) a boxer may only go up due to his results or someone else's inactivity.
d) a boxer may only go down due to their results, their inactivity or another boxer's better results.

Then there's some waffly guff covering drug cheats and exceptional circumstances e.g. a fighter should be declared inactive, but it actually wasn't his fault, his opponent didn't make weight so the fight was cancelled. In that case the committee can decide to preserve his rating etc.

To be clear about point a), you can't say "I don't agree with the decision, so I will rank Golovkin over Alvarez although Alvarez beat Golovkin by split decision". If Golovkin vs Alvarez was the last fight for both these fighters, you have to respect the official result and rank Alvarez before Golovkin.

[dagilechia]

Not wanting to make a mountain out of a molehill, but I personally would prefer it if these rankings were in general compliant with the Ali Act. That way we are playing by the same rules as the other rating organisations.

Paraphrased, the rules are

a) the rankings are based on official results (i.e. not opinions) and activity or inactivity.
b) the rules for inactivity must be defined somewhere
c) a boxer may only go up due to his results or someone else's inactivity.
d) a boxer may only go down due to their results, their inactivity or another boxer's better results.

Then there's some waffly guff covering drug cheats and exceptional circumstances e.g. a fighter should be declared inactive, but it actually wasn't his fault, his opponent didn't make weight so the fight was cancelled. In that case the committee can decide to preserve his rating etc.

To be clear about point a), you can't say "I don't agree with the decision, so I will rank Golovkin over Alvarez although Alvarez beat Golovkin by split decision". If Golovkin vs Alvarez was the last fight for both these fighters, you have to respect the official result and rank Alvarez before Golovkin.

fighters that are inactive for 9 months will be voted on whether they should be removed from the list or not. fighters inactive for 12 months will be automatically removed.

i do not agree with the a) rule, i don't think that blatant robberies should be accepted just because they're official.

[conan_the_cribber]

Not wanting to make a mountain out of a molehill, but I personally would prefer it if these rankings were in general compliant with the Ali Act. That way we are playing by the same rules as the other rating organisations.

Paraphrased, the rules are

a) the rankings are based on official results (i.e. not opinions) and activity or inactivity.
b) the rules for inactivity must be defined somewhere
c) a boxer may only go up due to his results or someone else's inactivity.
d) a boxer may only go down due to their results, their inactivity or another boxer's better results.

Then there's some waffly guff covering drug cheats and exceptional circumstances e.g. a fighter should be declared inactive, but it actually wasn't his fault, his opponent didn't make weight so the fight was cancelled. In that case the committee can decide to preserve his rating etc.

To be clear about point a), you can't say "I don't agree with the decision, so I will rank Golovkin over Alvarez although Alvarez beat Golovkin by split decision". If Golovkin vs Alvarez was the last fight for both these fighters, you have to respect the official result and rank Alvarez before Golovkin.

fighters that are inactive for 9 months will be voted on whether they should be removed from the list or not. fighters inactive for 12 months will be automatically removed.

i do not agree with the a) rule, i don't think that blatant robberies should be accepted just because they're official.

Well, you know, it all depends what the point of the ratings are. If you want to compare the boxrec forum HW ratings to the WBC, IBF etc, then you should be using the same rules. Even the boxrec.com ratings are based on this.

But if your objective is to have a bit of fun and the comparisons to any other set of rankings is irrelevant, then what the heck, do whatever. Just don't complain when 15 eastside posters vote for Pulev to be #1 after a wide points decision loss to Joshua.

[dagilechia]

Not wanting to make a mountain out of a molehill, but I personally would prefer it if these rankings were in general compliant with the Ali Act. That way we are playing by the same rules as the other rating organisations.

Paraphrased, the rules are

a) the rankings are based on official results (i.e. not opinions) and activity or inactivity.
b) the rules for inactivity must be defined somewhere
c) a boxer may only go up due to his results or someone else's inactivity.
d) a boxer may only go down due to their results, their inactivity or another boxer's better results.

Then there's some waffly guff covering drug cheats and exceptional circumstances e.g. a fighter should be declared inactive, but it actually wasn't his fault, his opponent didn't make weight so the fight was cancelled. In that case the committee can decide to preserve his rating etc.

To be clear about point a), you can't say "I don't agree with the decision, so I will rank Golovkin over Alvarez although Alvarez beat Golovkin by split decision". If Golovkin vs Alvarez was the last fight for both these fighters, you have to respect the official result and rank Alvarez before Golovkin.

fighters that are inactive for 9 months will be voted on whether they should be removed from the list or not. fighters inactive for 12 months will be automatically removed.

i do not agree with the a) rule, i don't think that blatant robberies should be accepted just because they're official.

Well, you know, it all depends what the point of the ratings are. If you want to compare the boxrec forum HW ratings to the WBC, IBF etc, then you should be using the same rules. Even the boxrec.com ratings are based on this.

But if your objective is to have a bit of fun and the comparisons to any other set of rankings is irrelevant, then what the heck, do whatever. Just don't complain when 15 eastside posters vote for Pulev to be #1 after a wide points decision loss to Joshua.

this will not happen though. but what if Pulev was awarded the win despite the fact that he was obviously the worse fighter & clearly lost like 10 out of 12 rounds? should he be ranked above AJ?

of course that i don't want to compare this ranking with ABC organizations rankings because their rankings are a total joke. this one is much better.

[Onetimeonly]

Not wanting to make a mountain out of a molehill, but I personally would prefer it if these rankings were in general compliant with the Ali Act. That way we are playing by the same rules as the other rating organisations.

Paraphrased, the rules are

a) the rankings are based on official results (i.e. not opinions) and activity or inactivity.
b) the rules for inactivity must be defined somewhere
c) a boxer may only go up due to his results or someone else's inactivity.
d) a boxer may only go down due to their results, their inactivity or another boxer's better results.

Then there's some waffly guff covering drug cheats and exceptional circumstances e.g. a fighter should be declared inactive, but it actually wasn't his fault, his opponent didn't make weight so the fight was cancelled. In that case the committee can decide to preserve his rating etc.

To be clear about point a), you can't say "I don't agree with the decision, so I will rank Golovkin over Alvarez although Alvarez beat Golovkin by split decision". If Golovkin vs Alvarez was the last fight for both these fighters, you have to respect the official result and rank Alvarez before Golovkin.

Seems a mountain, confusing why you would care. I can not vote if you think ranking the guys where I think they belong, inside the guidelines that were always in place and how I've always voted, diminishes the rankings. No big deal.

[oogiebe]

Ortiz no change.
Kabayel no change (although I didn't have him in my top 15, this fight doesn't push him down).

[Onetimeonly]

: I voted kaybel 15th originally.

[candyslim]

A win over Rudenko should be worth some kudos but the question is whether it should raise him above Hrgovic. Hrgovic hasn't fought since beating Kevin Johnson in December but owes his ranking to his previous demolition over Amir Mansour which is a result which looks a lot better on paper owing to Mansour having suddenly got old.

Rudenko is also showing signs of decline. He's still very tough but he was blowing out of his arse before the halfway point. I blame his affliction which is the worst case of "Greyscale" I've seen outside of GOT

It's close but I'd be inclined to move him up one, although I'm sure he'll be eating the Croat's dust before the year is out. Kabayel is a tidy boxer but I don't see him climbing much higher.

[HyacinthusTurnipseed]

Ortiz down to #9

No changes for the rest.

[candyslim]

Ortiz did exactly what was expected of him so he earns kudos for the win but not a great deal. I don't believe it's enough to propel him above Povetkin who has also laboured to a dull win over Hammer but there would have to be a pretty compelling reason in my view for a fighter to lose a place in the rankings despite winning.

Maybe someone below him got an outstanding win, that could do it.

[Deleted_Scenes]

No changes needed.

[Heretic]

My vote...

Ortiz no change.

Ortiz did what he was expected to do.

Kabayel up to #14.

Rudenko is good win and I think he's done more than what Hrgovic has so far.

[HyacinthusTurnipseed]

Ortiz did exactly what was expected of him so he earns kudos for the win but not a great deal. I don't believe it's enough to propel him above Povetkin who has also laboured to a dull win over Hammer but there would have to be a pretty compelling reason in my view for a fighter to lose a place in the rankings despite winning.

Maybe someone below him got an outstanding win, that could do it.

I don't know, I can't see any problem with taking a freer approach to these kinds of rankings. If a fighter looks bad and like some of those ranked below him would most likely beat him (based on more than one showing especially) I don't see anything wrong in dropping them down whatever the result. We don't have any responsibility to either the fighters or the earlier versions of ourselves that put them there before to necessarily keep them there now. And I don't think the version we've seen of Ortiz lately would stand a chance with Kubrat Pulev (who I'm certainly no fan of) at least.

Just call it as you see it I say. But one way or another I'm in the minority in this case it seems.

[493dart]

ortiz to 4 --bump down whyte / pov.

how in the HELL is Chisora even on this list ???

[candyslim]

@HT :

I can see where you're coming from but I prefer a little more structure or the range of differing opinions is going to get wider. I don't think that (without a good reason) you don't drop down the rankings as a result of winning is a bad basic principle.

Talking of Ortiz looking unimpressive, I can only really think of three impressive performances, one win over a well past his best Tony Thompson, a demolition job over Bryant Jennings who recently lost a fight he looked almost certain to win just a couple of minutes before the stoppage, and then there's the Wilder challenge which he lost.

I was in awe of that crushing of Bryant Jennings, but it doesn't look such an achievement looking back now, and he hasn't really built on it, whether that's his fault or not. That bogeyman reputation was built on (The Jennings fight +) his Cuban Amateur career, but although his win / loss ratio was impressive, he didn't win an Olympic medal or dominate in International competition did he?

I'm wondering if I haven't been guilty of overrating him from when he first came to my attention or maybe that's revisionist and unfair