Your HW ratings

[Finkel]

I say the Ruiz from the first AJ fight would murder Wilder in the ring. Nothing obvious about those two

Fury said this before Ruiz kicked Joshua's butt, when Joshua was still undefeated.



Now imagine what he would say about Joshua after Ruiz fights

Wilder > Joshua is debatable, Ruiz comes third, and only if he gets into shape again.

Debatable as a head to head, but at this point in time it really isn't in terms of rankings. Kownacki was going through mutual opponents of Wilder like a warm knife through butter. And not many would put Kownacki top 15 following the way he lost to Helenius.

Resultantly Wilder's resume is in tatters.
He is coming off a bad loss.
His two best wins are Stiverne 1 and Ortiz 1
And Ortiz has a very thin resume himself.
And now Wilder doesn't have a belt.

Ring have Wilder at #4, that should give you pause given how pro-America they are.

[candyslim]

I wouldn't take too much notice of what Tyson Fury says. He's an intelligent man but he's insightful and inciteful in equal measure.

He knows and knew beforehand, that he had the measure of Deontay Wilder. He recognizes that the main threat, both domestically and on the world stage, is Joshua. He will do whatever he can to discredit him and to get under his skin and inside his head, until such time as he can be certain he has Joshua's measure too.

That doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't believe what he says, neither does it mean that he does. He frequently contradicts himself and he couldn't care less about that.

Nice summation Finky btw.

[margaret thatcher]

Just join us again dag, we love you man

[oogiebe]

Just join us again dag, we love you man

x2

[Aaron Feigenbaum]

It's my 4th attempt to post this message, I hope it's not going to get deleted again.

I'll be back to the board only if my original account gets unbanned, hovewer, probability of it getting done is lesser than getting infected by a COVID-19 causing virus.

I liked to maintain the rankings (I've made some other stats), doing stats, rankings etc is a good time killer when I have nothing to do and it's actually relaxing to me. Now, due to Coronavirus outbreak and panic (I'm in Spain) I have even more time and I'm bored most of time, but as I said, there is no way of my old account getting unbanned so I hope that someone, for example Finkel, will continue maintaining it. I will make my first and most likely last vote now. So bad that I got banned before the big things happened in HW, it could result in some decent discussions.

My top 15 is:

1. Tyson Fury - 30(21) 0 1
The Gypsy King - BoxRec ranking: #2

2. Anthony Joshua - 23(21) 1(1) 0
AJ - BoxRec ranking: #1

3. Deontay Wilder - 42(41) 1(1) 1
The Bronze Bomber - BoxRec ranking: #5

4. Alexander Povetkin - 34(24) 2(1) 1
Russkij Vityaz - BoxRec ranking: #7

5. Luis Ortiz - 31(26) 2(2) 0
King Kong - BoxRec ranking: #9

6. Kubrat Pulev - 28(14) 1(1) 0
The Cobra - BoxRec ranking: #8

7. Dillian Whyte - 27(18) 1(1) 0
The Body Snatcher - BoxRec ranking: #6

8. Joseph Parker - 27(21) 2(0) 0
Lupesoliai La'auliolemalietoa - BoxRec ranking: #12

9. Oleksandr Usyk - 17(13) 0 0
The Cat - BoxRec ranking: #3

10. Michael Hunter - 18(12) 1(0) 1
The Bounty - BoxRec ranking: #11

11. Dereck Chisora - 32(23) 9(3) 0
War - BoxRec ranking: #10

12. Óscar Rivas - 26(18) 1(0) 0
Kaboom - BoxRec ranking: #17

13. Andy Ruiz Jr - 33(22) 2(0) 0
Destroyer - BoxRec ranking: #4

14. Filip Hrgović - 10(8) 0 0
El Animal - BoxRec ranking: #15

15. Agit Kabayel - 19(13) 0 0
The Kurdish Warrior - BoxRec ranking: unranked due to inactivity, previously #25

[Aaron Feigenbaum]

some people seem to have a problem with how to rank Kownacki-Helenius-Washington-Martin issue.

The most obvious way to rank them is:

Helenius
Kownacki
Martin
Washington

[computerrank]

some people seem to have a problem with how to rank Kownacki-Helenius-Washington-Martin issue.

The most obvious way to rank them is:

Helenius
Kownacki
Martin
Washington

This is against the ladder logics.

You have to neglect the oldest results in order to break the cycles.

The oldest result is Kownacki vs Martin from 2018-09-08. But Kownacki, Helenius and Washington are still in a cycle then.

So you have to neglect the oldest in this cycle too - Kownacki vs Washington.

Now the hierarchy is clear:

Martin defeated Washington
Washington defeated Helenius
Helenius defeated Kownacki

Martin - Washington - Helenius - Kownacki

[Aaron Feigenbaum]

some people seem to have a problem with how to rank Kownacki-Helenius-Washington-Martin issue.

The most obvious way to rank them is:

Helenius
Kownacki
Martin
Washington

This is against the ladder logics.

You have to neglect the oldest results in order to break the cycles.

The oldest result is Kownacki vs Martin from 2018-09-08. But Kownacki, Helenius and Washington are still in a cycle then.

So you have to neglect the oldest in this cycle too - Kownacki vs Washington.

Now the hierarchy is clear:

Martin defeated Washington
Washington defeated Helenius
Helenius defeated Kownacki

Martin - Washington - Helenius - Kownacki

Helenius defeated Kownacki so he must be above him, Martin defeated Washington so he must be above him, Martin did what Kownacki did as well and in total his resume is weaker than Kownacki's and he lost to Kownacki as well. Martin did nothing to get the spot above Kownacki.

[computerrank]

This is against the ladder logics.

You have to neglect the oldest results in order to break the cycles.

The oldest result is Kownacki vs Martin from 2018-09-08. But Kownacki, Helenius and Washington are still in a cycle then.

So you have to neglect the oldest in this cycle too - Kownacki vs Washington.

Now the hierarchy is clear:

Martin defeated Washington
Washington defeated Helenius
Helenius defeated Kownacki

Martin - Washington - Helenius - Kownacki

Helenius defeated Kownacki so he must be above him, Martin defeated Washington so he must be above him, Martin did what Kownacki did as well and in total his resume is weaker than Kownacki's and he lost to Kownacki as well. Martin did nothing to get the spot above Kownacki.

Washington defeated Helenius

[Aaron Feigenbaum]

Helenius defeated Kownacki so he must be above him, Martin defeated Washington so he must be above him, Martin did what Kownacki did as well and in total his resume is weaker than Kownacki's and he lost to Kownacki as well. Martin did nothing to get the spot above Kownacki.

Washington defeated Helenius

Kownacki defeated Washington

Kownacki Washington

Washington defeated Helenius

Kownacki Washington Helenius

Martin defeated Washington (and previously lost to Kownacki)

Kownacki Martin Washington Helenius

Helenius defeated Kownacki

Helenius Kownacki Martin Washington

[candyslim]

I think you have to consider the fight as well as the result. Washington beat Helenius it's true, but Helenius was winning the fight and seemed to be the superior fighter. Helenius destroyed Kownacki, who was dominant against Washington and had a deserved but close win against Martin who also beat Washington.

So to summarize Washington loses two and has a win which came "against the run of play" to use a UK football expression. That puts him last. You might say Helenius was unfortunate to lose and has the most dominant win so he tops the pack. Martin won one lost one but his loss to Kownacki was respectable whereas Kownacki got battered by Helenius so i reckon Martin is slightly ahead of Kownacki, despite his one win against two. So in order Helenius, Martin, Kownacki, Washington.

I don't see a case for discarding the oldest result in this instance because none are so long ago as to rate as less significant on that basis.

[margaret thatcher]

some people seem to have a problem with how to rank Kownacki-Helenius-Washington-Martin issue.

The most obvious way to rank them is:

Helenius
Kownacki
Martin
Washington

This is against the ladder logics.

You have to neglect the oldest results in order to break the cycles.

The oldest result is Kownacki vs Martin from 2018-09-08. But Kownacki, Helenius and Washington are still in a cycle then.

So you have to neglect the oldest in this cycle too - Kownacki vs Washington.

Now the hierarchy is clear:

Martin defeated Washington
Washington defeated Helenius
Helenius defeated Kownacki

Martin - Washington - Helenius - Kownacki

Thankfully your own system doesn't even have bizarro ratings like like that, and BoXrEC has Wash several spots below all the others


How Washington ends up ahead of Kownacki and Helenius is just retarded. If you are going to keep him ahead of Helenius due to their H2H, Kownacki should be ahead of Wash due to their brutally one-sided H2H that happened just a few months before. The gap between the competivness of the H2H and overall resume is far greater between Kownacki and Washginton than it is Wash and Helenius. Kownacki has a vastly better record than Wash and brutalized him quick ; Helly has a better record than Wash if anything and was ahead until the KO. It is just a lack of common sense to have Wash ahead of both Kownacki and Helenius

Why do people adhere to these 'rules' that just produce stupidity?

[margaret thatcher]

I think you have to consider the fight as well as the result. Washington beat Helenius it's true, but Helenius was winning the fight and seemed to be the superior fighter. Helenius destroyed Kownacki, who was dominant against Washington and had a deserved but close win against Martin who also beat Washington.

So to summarize Washington loses two and has a win which came "against the run of play" to use a UK football expression. That puts him last. You might say Helenius was unfortunate to lose and has the most dominant win so he tops the pack. Martin won one lost one but his loss to Kownacki was respectable whereas Kownacki got battered by Helenius so i reckon Martin is slightly ahead of Kownacki, despite his one win against two. So in order Helenius, Martin, Kownacki, Washington.

I don't see a case for discarding the oldest result in this instance because none are so long ago as to rate as less significant on that basis.

Agree...the 'old' fight happened just last year ffs, only shortly before Helenius-Washington, a fight which seems to mean the world to our computer bois.

As I said, the advantage Kow has over Wash in terms of their h2h and overall records is way bigger than any advantage Wash has over Helenius (who like you say was winning their fight), yet somehow these guys put Wash ahead of Kow but not Helenius ahead of Wash.

Kownacki has clearly the best record overall. Helenius the best single win, beating the only guy who has multiple victories in the series. Washington ending up a winner from all this when he just got 5-0'd and KO'd by Chuck Martin is

[margaret thatcher]

I mean think about it, of course Kownacki was way ahead of Wash prior to their last fights

So then they both get knocked out, Kownacki while ahead and Washington while pitifully losing every round. Both stopped by opponents the other beat but Kow was being far more competitive.

Yet somehow now, off the back of a 5-0 KO loss to Chuck, Wash moves closer to the front of the pack, ahead of a guy who quickly KTFO him and has a vastly better record? I mean, I just can't see how there is really any good sense how this happens, unless perhaps you are also going to put Helenius ahead of Washington. After all, Helenius and Wash were much more evenly matched that Kow and Wash were, if Wash should be ahead of Kow, Helly should be ahead of Wash

And these guys treating Kow-Wash as 'old' ummmm, bruhs,well the most recent result in the series was Helly's win, yet that does nothing to keep him ahead of Wash like Wash is ahead of Kow??

[computerrank]

I mean think about it, of course Kownacki was way ahead of Wash prior to their last fights

So then they both get knocked out, Kownacki while ahead and Washington while pitifully losing every round. Both stopped by opponents the other beat but Kow was being far more competitive.

Yet somehow now, off the back of a 5-0 KO loss to Chuck, Wash moves closer to the front of the pack, ahead of a guy who quickly KTFO him and has a vastly better record? I mean, I just can't see how there is really any good sense how this happens, unless perhaps you are also going to put Helenius ahead of Washington. After all, Helenius and Wash were much more evenly matched that Kow and Wash were, if Wash should be ahead of Kow, Helly should be ahead of Wash

And these guys treating Kow-Wash as 'old' ummmm, bruhs,well the most recent result in the series was Helly's win, yet that does nothing to keep him ahead of Wash like Wash is ahead of Kow??

All, I wanted to say is - you can use various principles, all consistent for themselves - and in spite of this you will end up with very different results
The mess is, when you try to operate with doctrines ...
In reality, the rankings with every system are unsure at a level, where the boxers may be well ranked inside a range of 4 times higher or 1/4 of the rating points, eg. BoxRec ratings

[SportsRatings]

Washington defeated Helenius

Kownacki defeated Washington

Kownacki Washington

Washington defeated Helenius

Kownacki Washington Helenius

Martin defeated Washington (and previously lost to Kownacki)

Kownacki Martin Washington Helenius

Helenius defeated Kownacki

Helenius Kownacki Martin Washington

I agree with this logic, it's what I use generally. It's the "man who beat the man" principle, with most recent results taking precedence.

If Kownacki had been champ after beating Washington and Martin, would people still rank Helenius below those two after he beat Kownacki?

[margaret thatcher]

I mean think about it, of course Kownacki was way ahead of Wash prior to their last fights

So then they both get knocked out, Kownacki while ahead and Washington while pitifully losing every round. Both stopped by opponents the other beat but Kow was being far more competitive.

Yet somehow now, off the back of a 5-0 KO loss to Chuck, Wash moves closer to the front of the pack, ahead of a guy who quickly KTFO him and has a vastly better record? I mean, I just can't see how there is really any good sense how this happens, unless perhaps you are also going to put Helenius ahead of Washington. After all, Helenius and Wash were much more evenly matched that Kow and Wash were, if Wash should be ahead of Kow, Helly should be ahead of Wash

And these guys treating Kow-Wash as 'old' ummmm, bruhs,well the most recent result in the series was Helly's win, yet that does nothing to keep him ahead of Wash like Wash is ahead of Kow??

All, I wanted to say is - you can use various principles, all consistent for themselves - and in spite of this you will end up with very different results
The mess is, when you try to operate with doctrines ...
In reality, the rankings with every system are unsure at a level, where the boxers may be well ranked inside a range of 4 times higher or 1/4 of the rating points, eg. BoxRec ratings

You can have many different rating methods, but there are none which make Washington ahead of both Kownacki and Helenius a good rating. Perhaps when applied to most cases a certain method makes sense for computerized ratings that need to cover many fights, but applying it specifically to this case it will produce a poor ranking if it has Washington near the front of the pack at this moment, for all the reasons others have listed.

Who has the best single win? Helenius
Who has the best overall resume? Kownacki
What was the most recent fight? Helenius KO Kownacki
Who was the least competitive in defeat? Washington
Who lost their last fights? Kownacki and Washington, but Kow was far more competitive
The h2h gap was biggest between who? Kownacki and Washington, Martin and Wash. Wash lost every round and got KO'd both times. He is the only one of the 4 to lose to multiple other guys, and both were one-sided KOs

There is just no good basis on which Washington should be 2nd of the 4 coming off a 5-0 KO loss to Martin.If someone is going to keep Wash ahead of Kownacki despite the wide gap in their fight and records, it makes 0 good sense to still have Wash ahead of Helenius despite them being much closer matched and Helenius having the big recent win and Wash the loss.

Some of these arguments, like Len's, make no sense because it is guys who are trying to work backwards and justify a predetermined rating, rather than using their common sense in the situation to get their rating in the first place. Wash coming out a winner from the situation on the back of an uncompetitive KO loss to Martin is just weird.

[margaret thatcher]

Kownacki defeated Washington

Kownacki Washington

Washington defeated Helenius

Kownacki Washington Helenius

Martin defeated Washington (and previously lost to Kownacki)

Kownacki Martin Washington Helenius

Helenius defeated Kownacki

Helenius Kownacki Martin Washington

I agree with this logic, it's what I use generally. It's the "man who beat the man" principle, with most recent results taking precedence.

If Kownacki had been champ after beating Washington and Martin, would people still rank Helenius below those two after he beat Kownacki?

Washington is the only one of the group to have multiple losses to the others, and both were totally uncompetitive KOs, not competitive losses like the others had. His last fight was one of these bad losses. Also, his 1 win was a come from behinder, not a drubbing like Kownacki did to him.

He should quite clearly be last at the moment all things considered. Thankfully PBO is the only set of ratings I've seen that don't have that, at least assuming their updated ratings will match Len's posts. Even BoxRec has Wash last by several spots despite CR's posts in this thread.

[Tony1244]

Judging from what was said about Monzon, and everything else, I don't think Marg is a friend of the American continents. Starting to see a bit of a pattern.

[margaret thatcher]

Lol, I have Chucky Martin #1 of them bruh and have stuck up for that man when others trashed him, btw who the hell even has a thing against the Americas as a whole? It's a totally diverse region with tons of differences, different languages, different focuses on individualsim vs collectivsm, vastly different levels of development, lots of differences in political culture and levels of democracy, etc. I'm not even sure on what common ground I'd hate them. You've learned something from me today my friend, you shouldn't think in such blanket terms

Can't say it ever occured to me that someone could link the belief that Monzon's style was more effective than it was pretty with thinking Gerald Washington should be ranked behind Chuck Martin, Helenius, and Kownacki, but hey, whatever creative thoughts work for you

[oogiebe]

Judging from what was said about Monzon, and everything else, I don't think Marg is a friend of the American continents. Starting to see a bit of a pattern.

Whatever gave you that idea!?

[margaret thatcher]

Aww, such victims, I'm so sorry guys, and to all the poor folks who suffer the brunt of 'american continent hate'

[Tony1244]

It was said in jest and even if it was true, rooting for or against a region makes it fun.

[margaret thatcher]

Lol why would anyone even root against the Americas as a whole though. Like I said the countries in it have so many differences , what would unify someone in hate to them, I mean a lot of them hate each other enough as it is

[oogiebe]

It was said in jest and even if it was true, rooting for or against a region makes it fun.

I think you stung the poor lad. PS: Did you find those bikini pics?