BoxRec

Topic A - Chisora unchanged, Lobjanidze and Nascimento remain unranked.
Topic B - Szpilka to #9, Consugera remains unranked.
Topic C - Cunningham out, Tarver remains unranked.
Topic D - Glazkov to #2, Manswell remains unranked.
Topic E - Pulev to #5, Arias remains unranked.
Topic F - Wilder to #4, Duhaupas remains unranked.
Topic G - Joshua unchanged, Cornish remains unranked.
Topic H - Scott to #9, Thompson out.

Votes have been tallied. Chisora rises to #11, Szpilka rises to #10, Cunningham slips to #14, Glazkov remains at #7, Pulev slips to #5, Wilder slips to #4, Joshua remains at #15, Scott enters at equal #12, Thompson falls out of the rankings.

Champion: Wladimir Klitschko
1. Alexander Povetkin
2. Tyson Fury
3. Bryant Jennings
4. Deontay Wilder
5. Kubrat Pulev
6. Carlos Takam
7. Vyacheslav Glazkov
8. Bermane Stiverne
9. Ruslan Chagaev
10. Artur Szpilka
11. Dereck Chisora
12= Malik Scott
12= Erkan Teper
14. Steve Cunningham
15. Anthony Joshua

Jennings up to No. 3 seems like a weird move.

Is that really what people wanted?

Horse wrote:Jennings up to No. 3 seems like a weird move.

Is that really what people wanted?

I do not see how that even worked.
If the voting was split on Wilder and Pulev wouldn't Wilder of moved to 4 and Pulev to 3.
With Jennings who has not fought remaining in the #5 position?

Also something that is really cracking me up.
People who have knocked both Wilders and Fury's resumes but vote to raise the guys
that they both beat.
Looking at this.The best resume is obviously Kitschko followed by Wilder and then Fury's.
The rest only have 1 win over the current top 15 if even the 1 win.Some have not even
sniffed the depths of these ratings yet are held in higher esteem

Also something that is really cracking me up.

People who have knocked both Wilders and Fury's resumes but vote to raise the guys
that they both beat.

Looking at this.The best resume is obviously Kitschko followed by Wilder and then Fury's.The rest only have 1 win over the current top 15 if even the 1 win.Some have not even

You think that Wilder and Fury obviously have better resumes than Povetkin? In terms of wins over top 15 opponents, AP has wins over #6 and #9, while Perez was top #15 when Povetkin iced him in 1. He also has a deeper group of fringe-contender types like Wach, Charr, and Boswell on his resume.

crusader wrote:

Also something that is really cracking me up.

People who have knocked both Wilders and Fury's resumes but vote to raise the guys
that they both beat.

Looking at this.The best resume is obviously Kitschko followed by Wilder and then Fury's.

It cracks me up that you think Wilder and Fury obviously have better resumes than Povetkin.

If we are basing their resumes off of these ratings then yes they do have a better resume.
Both Fury and Wilder have wins over 2 of the fighters rated here in the last 2 years.
Povetkins only win over a rated fighter according to these ratings in the last 2 years is Takam.

I do not think that either have a better resume than Povetkin.What I am saying is the way people are voting on these.By rating people that both Fury and Wilder destroyed.And keep moving them up
yet bash Wilder or Fury is hilarious.
It is a double standard.Scott sucks when Wilder faced him but lets move him into the top 10.
None of the voting goes along with what the people are saying.

Povetkin has wins over #6 and #9, while Perez was top 15 when AP flattened him just a few months ago. If you draw an arbitray line to exclude his wins over Perez and Chagaev, as well as the greater depth of fringe-contenders outside the top 15 on his record (it's not just wins over top 15 fighters that are considered in the rankings), then perhaps Fury and Wilder have better resumes, but in my opinion you're distorting things and offering an inaccurate picture when you do that; to me it's clear that only Wlad should be ranked above Povetkin.

As for your other points, it's no surprise that someone is moved up the rankings when they score a good win. Perhaps people thought Scott sucked but his recent win over Thompson convinced them that they were incorrect. Perhaps it's also the case that the people who bashed Scott aren't the ones responsible for moving him up the rankings now.

I would have Wilder above Jennings and Pulev, but I don't understand the complaints about Fury, as he's generally seen as one of the top few fighters in the division and is all the way up at #2......do you think he should be higher?

I've actually never had to deal with this situation before in running these rankings, so I've had a rethink and decided to calculate it as if it were two separate votes - which is what it would have been had I stayed on top of things. Wilder's fight came first and he was voted to be #4, which elevates Pulev to #3 clear. After his fight, Pulev was then voted to #4, which switches them around. Jennings stays put at #5.

Champion: Wladimir Klitschko
1. Alexander Povetkin
2. Tyson Fury
3. Deontay Wilder
4. Kubrat Pulev
5. Bryant Jennings
6. Carlos Takam
7. Vyacheslav Glazkov
8. Bermane Stiverne
9. Ruslan Chagaev
10. Artur Szpilka
11. Dereck Chisora
12= Malik Scott
12= Erkan Teper
14. Steve Cunningham
15. Anthony Joshua

jezzamundo wrote:I've actually never had to deal with this situation before in running these rankings, so I've had a rethink and decided to calculate it as if it were two separate votes - which is what it would have been had I stayed on top of things. Wilder's fight came first and he was voted to be #4, which elevates Pulev to #3 clear. After his fight, Pulev was then voted to #4, which switches them around. Jennings stays put at #5.

Champion: Wladimir Klitschko
1. Alexander Povetkin
2. Tyson Fury
3. Deontay Wilder
4. Kubrat Pulev
5. Bryant Jennings
6. Carlos Takam
7. Vyacheslav Glazkov
8. Bermane Stiverne
9. Ruslan Chagaev
10. Artur Szpilka
11. Dereck Chisora
12= Malik Scott
12= Erkan Teper
14. Steve Cunningham
15. Anthony Joshua

That at least makes more sense.

The second list makes more sense. I don't think that anyone meant Wilder and Pulev to move below Jennings.

I think that the main problem in doing rankings like this is the lack of meaningful fights. It is impossible to rank the top ten if they only fight against guys like Arias and Duhaupas. Beating those means shit in this context :geek2:

jezzamundo wrote:I've actually never had to deal with this situation before in running these rankings, so I've had a rethink and decided to calculate it as if it were two separate votes - which is what it would have been had I stayed on top of things. Wilder's fight came first and he was voted to be #4, which elevates Pulev to #3 clear. After his fight, Pulev was then voted to #4, which switches them around. Jennings stays put at #5.

Champion: Wladimir Klitschko
1. Alexander Povetkin
2. Tyson Fury
3. Deontay Wilder
4. Kubrat Pulev
5. Bryant Jennings
6. Carlos Takam
7. Vyacheslav Glazkov
8. Bermane Stiverne
9. Ruslan Chagaev
10. Artur Szpilka
11. Dereck Chisora
12= Malik Scott
12= Erkan Teper
14. Steve Cunningham
15. Anthony Joshua

You cant do that. It was not two separate votes but one. You dont know what would happen in other situation. People voted Wider 4th and Pulev 5th, which makes Jennings 3rd. You can overturn it because it doesn't fit someones idea of rankings. Stick to the rules please, there is no point of us voting if you change it arbitrarily.

Based on median votes (which is what these rankings have always been calculated on), Wilder and Pulev were both voted as #4. Both were preferred over Jennings based on the votes. Head-to-head, Wilder was preferred over Pulev.

jezzamundo wrote:Based on median votes (which is what these rankings have always been calculated on), Wilder and Pulev were both voted as #4. Both were preferred over Jennings based on the votes. Head-to-head, Wilder was preferred over Pulev.

Voting does not specifically address for Jennings position. In the case you describe you should have placed Winder and Pulev on a shared 4th and moved Jennings up to 3rd.

You mention sticking to the rules, but this is a new situation I haven't encountered in the running of these rankings and I never made a rule to deal with it. I'm not changing the rules, just changing the decision I originally made so that it better reflects the votes made. I agree that dealing with it as two separate topics isn't ideal, but it's most consistent with how the rankings have been run in the past.

You're right, this topic didn't directly ask people to decide upon the ranking of Jennings, but it did indirectly, based on how they voted for Wilder and Pulev and in the case of one vote, Glazkov. Of the ten votes made:
- Wilder was voted above Pulev by 6 votes to 3, with one person having them equal
- Wilder was voted above Jennings by 6 votes to 4
- Pulev was voted above Jennings by 7 votes to 3

The median vote for Wilder is #4
The median vote for Pulev is #4
The median vote for Jennings is #5

The mean vote for Wilder is 3.9
The mean vote for Pulev is 4.0
The mean vote for Jennings is 4.4

I never use the mean to calculate these rankings, but thought I'd throw them in for fun. The median vote is the important one, and in topics with more than one fighter, the head-to-head vote determines ties.

It's pretty clear based on these numbers, that Wilder #3, Pulev #4 and Jennings #5 is the most accurate way to rank the fighters based on the votes made.