BoxRec Forum HW Top 15 ranking - Hunter vs Wilson

[margaret thatcher]

i dont see why it should be anything other than:

"where do i think michael hunter should rank among these fighters"

regardless of whether he just beat a can. if someone thinks hunters overall body of recent work is enough to keep him in his spot, move him up, move him down....fair enough. but i dont see why the fact that hunter won his last fight should in itself make him immune to being lowered

[oogiebe]

pretty sure oscar rivas got voted down didnt he

i see absolutely 0 problem with it.,.guys shouldnt get some sort of immunity for beating nobodies

the way the rankings work is that sometimes guys drift too high, and it's tough to change the situation until they actually fight and we can vote on them. he may not fight for another year at his rate, this is the chance people get to place him where they think he should be

moving him down 1 spot is hardly unreasonable

Pretty sure Rivas' last fight wasn't at HW.

[margaret thatcher]

it was, the wbc isnt gawd, he weighed more than hunter did

[oogiebe]

it was, the wbc isnt gawd, he weighed more than hunter did

[margaret thatcher]

221 of dynamite baby!

i just dont see why the vote should be anything other than where you think he should be based on what he's achieved/how good he is relative to the other guys. if someone genuinely thinks joe parker should rate 1 spot above hunter based on those factors, it doesnt make sense to vote to keep hunter ahead merely because hunter just beat a can. if someone think hunter's done more lately/is better ,etc.....then that's when you keep him higher


factoring stuff like what other voters voted for last time, the mere fact that he won his last fight -separated from the quality of that result etc...just unnecessarily complicates the rankings and ends up with rankings that are too frozen imo

i'll cast another hunter to 9

[oogiebe]

221 of dynamite baby!

i just dont see why the vote should be anything other than where you think he should be based on what he's achieved/how good he is relative to the other guys. if someone genuinely thinks joe parker should rate 1 spot above hunter based on those factors, it doesnt make sense to vote to keep hunter ahead merely because hunter just beat a can. if someone think hunter's done more lately/is better ,etc.....then that's when you keep him higher


factoring stuff like what other voters voted for last time, the mere fact that he won his last fight -separated from the quality of that result etc...just unnecessarily complicates the rankings and ends up with rankings that are too frozen imo

i'll cast another hunter to 9

We voted hunter to 8 or whatever.

Parker then fought and we didn't vote him past Hunter.
Hunter wins vs a can, but we'll vote him down to have Parker over him.

Yeah, makes a whole lotta sense! lol

[ironbeard]

Hunter’s activity has been comparable to pretty much everyone else on the list besides Joshua.

Wtf has Fury, Wilder, Whyte, Usyk, Ruiz Jr., etc. done in since November of 2019?

The whole damned lot of them is pathetic. Fury beat Wilder, A YEAR AND A HALF AGO. Wilder lost to Fury, A YEAR AND A HALF AGO. Whyte got KTFO cold by the version of Povetkin Hunter fought to a draw. Don’t even start with that pathetic rematch.

Usyk went life and death with the pass around slut of the HW division and Parker managed to pull an SD out his ass v the same slut a few months later.

AJ deserves to be #1 right the fornicate now, followed by Joyce and Hunter if you want to play that BS.

Fury ain’t done
Wilder has done less
Whyte ain’t
Usyk is going to get flushed like by AJ
Ruiz Jr is full of

Shall I continue?

[margaret thatcher]

221 of dynamite baby!

i just dont see why the vote should be anything other than where you think he should be based on what he's achieved/how good he is relative to the other guys. if someone genuinely thinks joe parker should rate 1 spot above hunter based on those factors, it doesnt make sense to vote to keep hunter ahead merely because hunter just beat a can. if someone think hunter's done more lately/is better ,etc.....then that's when you keep him higher


factoring stuff like what other voters voted for last time, the mere fact that he won his last fight -separated from the quality of that result etc...just unnecessarily complicates the rankings and ends up with rankings that are too frozen imo

i'll cast another hunter to 9

We voted hunter to 8 or whatever.

Parker then fought and we didn't vote him past Hunter.
Hunter wins vs a can, but we'll vote him down to have Parker over him.

Yeah, makes a whole lotta sense! lol

we dont vote as 1 giant we, we vote as individuals. some people have wanted him lower for a while. do they still have an obligation to keep him there because he beat a can? opinions change anyways, just like yours and mine have

it's simple: people should put him where they currently think he ranks in the division, should make sense to anyone. what is so problematic about that?

[margaret thatcher]

so agree or disagree

people should vote on the fighters based on where they currently think that fighter should be rated in the division

[oogiebe]

so agree or disagree

people should vote on the fighters based on where they currently think that fighter should be rated in the division

Of course. We can debate as well, yes?

[margaret thatcher]

of course

so then we can agree that if someone thinks hunter should rate 9th and joe parker 8th, go ahead and vote hunter to 9 even if he just beat a can . if they think hunters got the better resume, is better, etc. keep hi at 8 or even vote him higher, perhaps go top 3 like ironbeard suggests lol

[oogiebe]

of course

so then we can agree that if someone thinks hunter should rate 9th and joe parker 8th, go ahead and vote hunter to 9 even if he just beat a can . if they think hunters got the better resume, is better, etc. keep hi at 8 or even vote him higher, perhaps go top 3 like ironbeard suggests lol

No one says they can't. I'm arguing that decision doesn't make any sense considering the previous votes I cited. This ranking was supposed to be one fight at a time, not going back and re-evaluating someone's resume. We done?

[margaret thatcher]

of course they are free to vote that way my man! we agree

btw who laid out the rule that we couldnt reassess someone's resume, skill, etc with each vote? is that written down somewhere that each vote must only factor in 1 fight of the guy being voted upon, and that we must accept their current ranking as being where they should be? and besides, as i said, the rankings are made up of a bunch of votes, hunter being at 8 for example doesnt mean everyone had him there to start. i know several ppl here have called out his ranking well before this

[margaret thatcher]

it's just like moving povetkin from #5 to #9 after a win (over someone a lot better than white delight wilson), because he looks old and shakey and #5 may not represent where he currently stands in the division

or dropping pulev a spot after stopping dinu

etc

[oogiebe]

of course they are free to vote that way my man! we agree

btw who laid out the rule that we couldnt reassess someone's resume, skill, etc with each vote? is that written down somewhere that each vote must only factor in 1 fight of the guy being voted upon, and that we must accept their current ranking as being where they should be? and besides, as i said, the rankings are made up of a bunch of votes, hunter being at 8 for example doesnt mean everyone had him there to start. i know several ppl here have called out his ranking well before this

Seriously thought that was what dag intended when he started it. One fight at a time after the initial ratings. I'm pretty sure. I'm not high on Hunter, just following tradition of the thread.

[margaret thatcher]

here's one thing we can all agree on........the white delight wilson aint making the ratings any time soon

[funso banjo baby]

First and hopefully last fight at heavyweight

I'd like hunter to rematch bakole

[candyslim]

Keep him where he is.

Still won, shouldn't move down. Can't move him up.

No one below is even making waves..

what a crap division.

if someone thinks he's too high to start, of course they can move him down even if he wins

it seems wrong to demote someone who has just won a fight but I'm (maybe unfairly) disappointed in Hunter. He has the right to reject a fight that he considers doesn't pay enough to justify the risk, but turning down a final-eliminator against Hrgovic and fighting this Wilson (I can't even recall his first name at the minute) instead, has the whiff of the farmyard, I'm sorry.

The drawback of a rule where only the fighters involved can be affected by our vote, and you don't get demoted for winning any fight, is that provided you fight someone, anyone, on a regular basis then your rating is guaranteed never to degrade. That can't be right, can it?

Hunter to 9th and Parker moves up. No disrespect to Ironbeard but can I propose we disregard his protest-vote as this will distort the result. Maybe we should start over every 6 or 12 months and vote on our rankings from scratchlike the first time?

[candyslim]

Duplicate

[margaret thatcher]

someone also voted hunter completely out , so that should balance out with ironbeards vote

as i said, to me it's simple: people should just vote the fighter where they think that fighter currently stands within the division, no matter if the guy just beat a bum, and no matter what other posters previously voted the guy in at.

the thought process of "well, i really think hunter should be lower than parker, but hunter just beat a can so hunter has to stay higher ranked' makes 0 sense to me. im pretty sure that some of the people advocating that approach have dropped winning fighters on multiple occasions btw...

[margaret thatcher]

and most people who voted hunter down only have him moving down 1 position, below parker. hardly some wildly dramatic huge move is it

[candyslim]

That's why I'd be in favour of discounting votes which are extreme one way or the other.

[candyslim]

someone also voted hunter completely out , so that should balance out with ironbeards vote

as i said, to me it's simple: people should just vote the fighter where they think that fighter currently stands within the division, no matter if the guy just beat a bum, and no matter what other posters previously voted the guy in at.

the thought process of "well, i really think hunter should be lower than parker, but hunter just beat a can so hunter has to stay higher ranked' makes 0 sense to me. im pretty sure that some of the people advocating that approach have dropped winning fighters on multiple occasions btw...

I believe the rule was implemented to maintain structure and continuity, so we don't have to keep recycling the same question of whether this fighter deserves ranking above that fighter every time, despite neither having fought for almost a year. It also avoids complicating the task of updating the list after every relevant fight.

There are drawbacks of course, presently under discussion.

[ironbeard]

Keep him where he is.

Still won, shouldn't move down. Can't move him up.

No one below is even making waves..

what a crap division.

if someone thinks he's too high to start, of course they can move him down even if he wins

it seems wrong to demote someone who has just won a fight but I'm (maybe unfairly) disappointed in Hunter. He has the right to reject a fight that he considers doesn't pay enough to justify the risk, but turning down a final-eliminator against Hrgovic and fighting this Wilson (I can't even recall his first name at the minute) instead, has the whiff of the farmyard, I'm sorry.

The drawback of a rule where only the fighters involved can be affected by our vote, and you don't get demoted for winning any fight, is that provided you fight someone, anyone, on a regular basis then your rating is guaranteed never to degrade. That can't be right, can it?

Hunter to 9th and Parker moves up. No disrespect to Ironbeard but can I propose we disregard his protest-vote as this will distort the result. Maybe we should start over every 6 or 12 months and vote on our rankings from scratchlike the first time?

How about you just make your purely political vote based on your perception of the circumstances surrounding a top 15 fighter not fighting someone who is not in the top 15 and leave it at that? Your rationalization for your vote (you are “disappointed in Hunter”), based on your extremely limited knowledge of the circumstances, is no better than my rationalization for voting to move Hunter up to 5.

Meanwhile, you utter not one word about the vote to remove Hunter completely while moving Hrgovic into the top ten based on fighting no one whatsoever.

The time to move Parker up was after he squeaked by Chisora. That did not happen. Backdooring Hunter, who has been more active than the vast majority of fighters on the list over the last couple of years, after a stay busy victory, is BS.

I think all the “drop Hunter to 9” votes should be trashed.

I repeat; Hunter to 5.

[aicheligad]

someone also voted hunter completely out , so that should balance out with ironbeards vote

as i said, to me it's simple: people should just vote the fighter where they think that fighter currently stands within the division, no matter if the guy just beat a bum, and no matter what other posters previously voted the guy in at.

the thought process of "well, i really think hunter should be lower than parker, but hunter just beat a can so hunter has to stay higher ranked' makes 0 sense to me. im pretty sure that some of the people advocating that approach have dropped winning fighters on multiple occasions btw...

I'm not sure if to count this vote as valid because it also wants Hrgovic in to #8, and as we know it's not now our rankings work. Most likely this vote isn't going to change the result of voting anyway, though this one is a close one between no change and down to #9.

Btw the median is what matters - if there are for example 3 votes out, 1 to move him down and 5 for no change, he stays ranked where he is now. So there is no need to balance out/discount the extreme votes.

EDIT: For now, Hunter stays at #8 whether if counting the ''out'' vote or not, but Hunter down to #9 is very close.