BoxRec

Your doing a great job Daggie
I had to think about this for a while, here is my list.

1. Joshua
2. Fury
3. Wilder
4. Whyte
5. Povetkin
6. Ortiz
7. Pulev
8. Parker
9. Miller
10. Kownacki
11. Breazeale
12. Jennings
13. Kabayel
14. Hunter
15. Chisora

Appreciate the effort

oogiebe wrote: ↑13 Jan 2019, 10:38

candyslim wrote: ↑13 Jan 2019, 05:40 Greg Corbin, Oogie? That's way out of left-field. Might as well say Michael Polite-Coffee. At least he hasn't been around long enough to have achieved 'singularly unimpressive' status

It was a joke, as rumor is that he's fighting Miller next week.

Oh right. Actually given that we're expecting the absolute dregs I wouldn't be too unhappy if it were Corbin at this stage. I had him as a prospect to watch a while back so I'd rather he fight a former prospect than a no-two-ways-about-it travelling loser.

There again Bogdan Dinu was on that same watch-list, enough said .

Thanks Kiwi, i was waiting for your vote

so after 18 votes the list looks like this:

1. Anthony Joshua - 720 points (1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1) -
2. Tyson Fury - 621 points (2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2) -
3. Deontay Wilder - 565 points (4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 5, 3, 3, 2, 6, 3, 2, 3, 3, 3) -
4. Dillian Whyte - 495 points (8, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 7, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 6, 4) -
5. Alexander Povetkin - 482 points (3, 6, 7, 5, 5, 6, 5, 4, 3, 4, 5, 6, 2, 8, 5, 5, 4, 5) -
6. Luis Ortiz - 439 points (5, 5, 4, 6, 6, 5, 6, 5, 7, 6, 6, 5, 8, 7, 6, 7, 5, 6) -
7. Kubrat Pulev - 386 points (6, 9, 9, 7, 7, 8, 8, 6, 10, 7, 7, 8, 5, 6, 8, 6, 7, 7) -
8. Jarrell Miller - 374 points (7, 7, 6, 8, 8, 7, 7, 8, 8, 8, 9, 10, 7, 5, 7, 8, 8, 9) -
9. Joseph Parker - 340 points (9, 8, 8, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 6, 9, 8, 7, 9, 10, 9, 9, 9, 8) -
10. Dominic Breazeale - 256 points (11, 12, 10, 10, 11, 10, 10, -, 9, 10, 10, 13, 10, 9, 11, 11, 12, 11) -
11. Bryant Jennings - 202 points (13, 15, 12, 13, 14, 12, 13, 10, 15, 13, 11, 12, 12, 13, -, 10, -, 12) -
12. Adam Kownacki - 196 points (10, 10, -, 11, 12, 11, 11, -, 13, 11, 12, -, -, 11, 12, 12, 11, 10) -
13. Dereck Chisora - 178 points (14, 11, 14, 14, -, 15, 14, 12, 11, 15, 13, -, 11, 15, -, 14, 10, 15) -
14. Agit Kabayel - 139 points (-, -, 13, 12, -, 13, 12, 13, -, 14, 15, 15, -, 14, -, 13, 14, 13) +1
15. Filip Hrgović - 136 points (12, 14, 11, 15, -, -, 15, 14, 12, -, -, 9, -, 12, 14, -, 13, -) -1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Michael Hunter - 93 points (15, -, -, -, 10, -, -, -, -, -, -, 11, 15, -, 13, 15, 15, 14) -
17. Christian Hammer - 63 points (-, -, -, -, -, 14, -, -, -, 12, 14, -, 13, -, 10, -, -, -) -
18. Joe Joyce - 34 points (-, -, -, -, 13, -, -, -, 14, -, -, 14, -, -, -, -, -, -) -
19. Hughie Fury - 30 points (-, -, 15, -, 15, -, -, 15, -, -, -, -, -, -, -, -, -, -) -
20. Marco Huck - 26 points (-, 13, -, -, -, -, -, 11, -, -, -, -, -, -, -, -, -, -) -
21. Carlos Takam - 11 points (-, -, -, -, -, -, -, -, -, -, -, -, 14, -, -, -, -, -) -
22. Sergey Kuzmin - 10 points (-, -, -, -, -, -, -, -, -, -, -, -, -, -, 15, -, -, -) -

Looking very respectable I must say

candyslim wrote: ↑13 Jan 2019, 16:14 Looking very respectable I must say

Sure is
I had a struggle with Miller. In the end I dropped him one place because I think opponents like Dinu and whoever gets a phone call this week lower his level, not raise it.

Yeah I still believe in Miller but I'm very disappointed in him lately. The thing I dislike about Wilder is the disconnect between his words and his actions. Neither would give a sh1t what I think and rightly so, but I don't want my faith in Miller to be tarnished in the same way.

What's up w/ the "points"? Is this more than a simple ranking (average, median, etc)?

JCS wrote: ↑13 Jan 2019, 18:04 What's up w/ the "points"? Is this more than a simple ranking (average, median, etc)?

For each ranking:
1. 40 points
2. 35 points
3. 32 points
4 29 points
5. 26. points
6. 24 points
7. 22 points
8. 20 points
9. 18 points
10. 16 points
11. 14 points
12. 13 points
13. 12 points
14. 11 points
15. 10 points

oogiebe wrote: ↑13 Jan 2019, 18:15

JCS wrote: ↑13 Jan 2019, 18:04 What's up w/ the "points"? Is this more than a simple ranking (average, median, etc)?

For each ranking:
1. 40 points
2. 35 points
3. 32 points
4 29 points
5. 26. points
6. 24 points
7. 22 points
8. 20 points
9. 18 points
10. 16 points
11. 14 points
12. 13 points
13. 12 points
14. 11 points
15. 10 points

Four votes for #15 is worth as much as one vote for #1? Interesting.

JCS wrote: ↑13 Jan 2019, 18:17

oogiebe wrote: ↑13 Jan 2019, 18:15

JCS wrote: ↑13 Jan 2019, 18:04 What's up w/ the "points"? Is this more than a simple ranking (average, median, etc)?

For each ranking:
1. 40 points
2. 35 points
3. 32 points
4 29 points
5. 26. points
6. 24 points
7. 22 points
8. 20 points
9. 18 points
10. 16 points
11. 14 points
12. 13 points
13. 12 points
14. 11 points
15. 10 points

Four votes for #15 is worth as much as one vote for #1? Interesting.

That's what was recommended by Dagilicha(sp?) and accepted by the participants. I think it was similar or the same to the last time the forum did this.

JCS wrote: ↑13 Jan 2019, 18:17

oogiebe wrote: ↑13 Jan 2019, 18:15

JCS wrote: ↑13 Jan 2019, 18:04 What's up w/ the "points"? Is this more than a simple ranking (average, median, etc)?

For each ranking:
1. 40 points
2. 35 points
3. 32 points
4 29 points
5. 26. points
6. 24 points
7. 22 points
8. 20 points
9. 18 points
10. 16 points
11. 14 points
12. 13 points
13. 12 points
14. 11 points
15. 10 points

Four votes for #15 is worth as much as one vote for #1? Interesting.

in theory - yes, in practice - it will not happen. for example, if there are 4 votes, what are the chances that fighter A would get voted 1st by one poster and unranked by 3 remaining posters? and as you see, the list looks quite okay

JCS wrote: ↑13 Jan 2019, 18:04 What's up w/ the "points"? Is this more than a simple ranking (average, median, etc)?

average and median would not work because some fighters get 18 out of 18 votes, others get 14 out of 18, others get 7 out of 18 etc

this voting is just to determine the top 15. later the voting will take place after every meaningful fight, in different formula (same or very similar to the one known from jezzamundo's rankings)

JCS wrote: ↑13 Jan 2019, 18:17

oogiebe wrote: ↑13 Jan 2019, 18:15

JCS wrote: ↑13 Jan 2019, 18:04 What's up w/ the "points"? Is this more than a simple ranking (average, median, etc)?

For each ranking:
1. 40 points
2. 35 points
3. 32 points
4 29 points
5. 26. points
6. 24 points
7. 22 points
8. 20 points
9. 18 points
10. 16 points
11. 14 points
12. 13 points
13. 12 points
14. 11 points
15. 10 points

Four votes for #15 is worth as much as one vote for #1? Interesting.

it is much better than for example 15-1 points system because for example fighter voted by 6 out of 6 posters at #15 would get the same amount of points as fighter voted #10 by 1 out of 6 posters and unranked by 5 out of 6 posters. i believe that the first fighter clearly deserves to be ranked higher than the second one. also, it is much more possible than #1 by 1/4 unranked by 3/4 and #15 by 4/4 problem. in this problem i think it's actually arguable who deserves to be ranked higher. fighter ranked #15 by 16 out of 16 or fighter ranked #1 by 4 out of 16 but unranked by the rest?

I like the points system. Easy solution to the problem of people voting different fighters on the list.

I also like how the list looks currently.

Ortiz is bit high on the list. It's been long time since he last looked good. Not many great wins either.

Other one that sticks out for me is Kownacki. When you end up in hospital after fighting with Kiladze some kind of alarm bell should ring. when he goes against someone who can bang he will just loose. I am not sure he could win against skilled boxer either. Put him in the ring against shades of Ali or Pulev and I am pretty sure he gets dominated. He doesn't really have any relevant wins either.

Heretic wrote: ↑14 Jan 2019, 04:34 Other one that sticks out for me is Kownacki. When you end up in hospital after fighting with Kiladze some kind of alarm bell should ring. when he goes against someone who can bang he will just loose. I am not sure he could win against skilled boxer either. Put him in the ring against shades of Ali or Pulev and I am pretty sure he gets dominated. He doesn't really have any relevant wins either.

For me, once you get outside the top 8/9 you have to start splitting hairs to separate them.

Kownacki's level of opposition is roughly the same as Breazeale's, and a bit better than Kabayel, Hunter and Hrgovic (so far).

The problem is, although Kownacki doesn't have a standout win yet, neither do any of the fighters below him. Take Hughie, for example. I'd pick him to beat Kownacki too, but I don't care how much he stunk the joint out to make the Parker fight close - there's no way I'm giving a ranking to a fighter whose best win is still Andriy Rudenko almost 4 years ago.

Ortiz is a similar situation. He is where he is, until someone does any better. Two life and death scraps with old Chisora isn't enough to push Whyte ahead. In fact, on the evidence of those two fights, and Ortiz' gutsy effort against Wilder, I think the Cuban schools Whyte if they meet in the first half of this year.

The one that's too high for me, is Bryant Jennings. Too little quality. I don't think he's a bad boxer, he just hasn't done anything since beating Mike Perez in 2014.

There is no perfect way to evaluate fighters, but I think dagilechia's way is almost optimal. So, let us continue with our lists !

ValMar wrote: ↑14 Jan 2019, 13:47 There is no perfect way to evaluate fighters, but I think dagilechia's way is almost optimal. So, let us continue with our lists !

dagilechia wrote: ↑14 Jan 2019, 01:42

JCS wrote: ↑13 Jan 2019, 18:17

oogiebe wrote: ↑13 Jan 2019, 18:15
For each ranking:
1. 40 points
2. 35 points
3. 32 points
4 29 points
5. 26. points
6. 24 points
7. 22 points
8. 20 points
9. 18 points
10. 16 points
11. 14 points
12. 13 points
13. 12 points
14. 11 points
15. 10 points

Four votes for #15 is worth as much as one vote for #1? Interesting.

it is much better than for example 15-1 points system because for example fighter voted by 6 out of 6 posters at #15 would get the same amount of points as fighter voted #10 by 1 out of 6 posters and unranked by 5 out of 6 posters. i believe that the first fighter clearly deserves to be ranked higher than the second one. also, it is much more possible than #1 by 1/4 unranked by 3/4 and #15 by 4/4 problem. in this problem i think it's actually arguable who deserves to be ranked higher. fighter ranked #15 by 16 out of 16 or fighter ranked #1 by 4 out of 16 but unranked by the rest?

The argument against is that #15 is worth 10, while #16 is worth 0.. while 10 points separates #8 and #15..

We're not trying to send a rocket to the Moon.. so hey, whatever you want.

JCS wrote: ↑14 Jan 2019, 14:19

dagilechia wrote: ↑14 Jan 2019, 01:42

JCS wrote: ↑13 Jan 2019, 18:17

Four votes for #15 is worth as much as one vote for #1? Interesting.

it is much better than for example 15-1 points system because for example fighter voted by 6 out of 6 posters at #15 would get the same amount of points as fighter voted #10 by 1 out of 6 posters and unranked by 5 out of 6 posters. i believe that the first fighter clearly deserves to be ranked higher than the second one. also, it is much more possible than #1 by 1/4 unranked by 3/4 and #15 by 4/4 problem. in this problem i think it's actually arguable who deserves to be ranked higher. fighter ranked #15 by 16 out of 16 or fighter ranked #1 by 4 out of 16 but unranked by the rest?

The argument against is that #15 is worth 10, while #16 is worth 0.. while 10 points separates #8 and #15..

We're not trying to send a rocket to the Moon.. so hey, whatever you want.

i get your point, at first i wanted people to post their top 20 but i realised that less people would vote as it's harder to make top 20 list, but still i wanted to change the rules and add ''#16 - 5p, 17# - 4p... 20# - 1p'' but then i realised that the list would still most likely look the same so it makes no sense to change rules when a lot of people already made their votes. we can also treat the fact that #15 - 10p and #16 - 0p just like it's extra points for being ranked in top 15.

ValMar wrote: ↑14 Jan 2019, 13:47 There is no perfect way to evaluate fighters, but I think dagilechia's way is almost optimal. So, let us continue with our lists !

Agreed. If an anomaly comes up later on, we can address it. I like what we're doing.

I like the system too. The proof is in the pudding so they say, and so far the pudding is looking pretty good I'd say. Now if we could call mandatories and implement sanctions, boxing would look a lot healthier and even show signs of developing integrity

candyslim wrote: ↑14 Jan 2019, 14:53 I like the system too. The proof is in the pudding so they say, and so far the pudding is looking pretty good I'd say. Now if we could call mandatories and implement sanctions, boxing would look a lot healthier and even show signs of developing integrity

dreams, sweet dreams...

Yeah, no charge for dreaming.

Probably because the idea hasn't occurred to the government ... yet

candyslim wrote: ↑14 Jan 2019, 15:14 Yeah, no charge for dreaming.

Probably because the idea hasn't occurred to the government ... yet

better delete this post, don't give them ideas

dagilechia wrote: ↑14 Jan 2019, 15:19

candyslim wrote: ↑14 Jan 2019, 15:14 Yeah, no charge for dreaming.

Probably because the idea hasn't occurred to the government ... yet

better delete this post, don't give them ideas