BoxRec

Boxerbeetle wrote:Rankings are a load of rubbish, no matter who or what compiled them. This is boxing FFS, not trainspotting.

Wrong.

Horse wrote:

Boxerbeetle wrote:Rankings are a load of rubbish, no matter who or what compiled them. This is boxing FFS, not trainspotting.

Wrong.

Obviously I'd expect you to disagree.

For me it is a heart v head arguMent. My heart as an Englishman thinks Tyson Fury beats Wladimir Klitschko with his youth, size, quick hands and heart. Head as a knowledgable fight fan says Klitschko, with his power, boxing IQ and ability as a finisher.

If Wladimir drops Fury and Fury beats the count and is judged to be in a reasonable state to continue the referee who it maybe. I don't think Wladimir will let him off the hook once he has got Fury in trouble.

Boxerbeetle wrote:Rankings are a load of rubbish, no matter who or what compiled them. This is boxing FFS, not trainspotting.

But boxing has always had World rankings... How would you determine the genuine title contenders from the fringe guys without them?
You might not like them, but they provide a structure for the sport and they're a bit of a requirement these days...

Crease wrote:

Boxerbeetle wrote:Rankings are a load of rubbish, no matter who or what compiled them. This is boxing FFS, not trainspotting.

But boxing has always had World rankings... How would you determine the genuine title contenders from the fringe guys without them?
You might not like them, but they provide a structure for the sport and they're a bit of a requirement these days...

I know they're needed, just annoys me when people argue about the supposed merits of different rankings when they're all as flawed & subjective as each other. Some 'fans' seem to only view things in black & white and end up attaching more value to rankings than to the actual sport itself.

Boxerbeetle wrote:I know they're needed, just annoys me when people argue about the supposed merits of different rankings when they're all as flawed & subjective as each other. Some 'fans' seem to only view things in black & white and end up attaching more value to rankings than to the actual sport itself.

Some 'fans'? So they're not really fans because they care about rankings?

Horse wrote:

Boxerbeetle wrote:I know they're needed, just annoys me when people argue about the supposed merits of different rankings when they're all as flawed & subjective as each other. Some 'fans' seem to only view things in black & white and end up attaching more value to rankings than to the actual sport itself.

Some 'fans'? So they're not really fans because they care about rankings?

I just think it's odd that some people think rankings are so important. There's no such thing as a 'correct' rankings system, it's all far too subjective (and political, in the case of the alphabet organisations).

Getting back to the heavyweight division - Wladimir Klitschko is clearly No. 1; the rest of the 'Top 10' ( ) - whether that be Pulev, Povetkin or Fury - are hardly worth arguing about.