BoxRec

ortiz to 5
everyone down a notch
teper out due to drugs ban

Tarkus wrote:

Cap wrote: Because Povetkin has won his last few and Klitschko lost. Povetkin deserves a shot at Fury if he can't land Wilder.

Klitschko won his last few too, against a better opposition that incidentally includes Povetkin. Man was undefeated, unified champion for over 10 years. He lost one fight and he is already third because Povetkin had few good wins against fringe top 15 fighters. Great logic mate.

Klitschko lost his last fight. Why should he be rated higher than Povetkin who won his last 4 in a row all by knockout? Will Klitschko always be rated above him or only until he has his rematch with your man Fury? Povetkin is the number one contender and Klitschko is number 2. What's the big deal?

Cap wrote:

Tarkus wrote:

Cap wrote: Because Povetkin has won his last few and Klitschko lost. Povetkin deserves a shot at Fury if he can't land Wilder.

Klitschko won his last few too, against a better opposition that incidentally includes Povetkin. Man was undefeated, unified champion for over 10 years. He lost one fight and he is already third because Povetkin had few good wins against fringe top 15 fighters. Great logic mate.

Klitschko lost his last fight. Why should he be rated higher than Povetkin who won his last 4 in a row all by knockout? Will Klitschko always be rated above him or only until he has his rematch with your man Fury? Povetkin is the number one contender and Klitschko is number 2. What's the big deal?

-Wlad would've beat all of those people who Povetkin beat.
-Povetkin would've lost to the fighter who beat Wlad.
-Wlad dominated Povetkin heads-up, and it's not like that happened 15 years ago.
-You probably shouldn't be a boxing writer.

Cap wrote:

Tarkus wrote:

Cap wrote: Because Povetkin has won his last few and Klitschko lost. Povetkin deserves a shot at Fury if he can't land Wilder.

Klitschko won his last few too, against a better opposition that incidentally includes Povetkin. Man was undefeated, unified champion for over 10 years. He lost one fight and he is already third because Povetkin had few good wins against fringe top 15 fighters. Great logic mate.

Klitschko lost his last fight. Why should he be rated higher than Povetkin who won his last 4 in a row all by knockout? Will Klitschko always be rated above him or only until he has his rematch with your man Fury? Povetkin is the number one contender and Klitschko is number 2. What's the big deal?

Oh dear. Is that suppose to be the answer to what I wrote. I just said the level of opposition was not high enough and you again repeat same "oh he had 4 KOs". Probably we should also rate Joshua and Parker higher then Klitschko, they both had the last 4 KOs. And a big deal is that pay attention what you are writing, its embarrassing.

Votes have been tallied, Ortiz enters the rankings at #4, Jennings slips to #6=, Teper falls out of the rankings due to his failed drug test.

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

jezzamundo wrote:Jennings slips to #6=

how did you make that determination? He seams to have 6.5 median score.

Also if you want to place Jennings 6 then Takam should slide down to 7. Same way when you put Ortiz 4 Pulev slides down to 5.

Tarkus wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:Jennings slips to #6=

how did you make that determination? He seams to have 6.5 median score.

Also if you want to place Jennings 6 then Takam should slide down to 7. Same way when you put Ortiz 4 Pulev slides down to 5.

You're correct that I use the median to determine these rankings. Ortiz's median vote was 4, so he took the #4 ranking from Pulev. Jennings' median was 6.5, meaning an identical number of people voted him higher and lower than Takam. In this circumstance, I award a joint ranking.

jezzamundo wrote:

Tarkus wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:Jennings slips to #6=

how did you make that determination? He seams to have 6.5 median score.

Also if you want to place Jennings 6 then Takam should slide down to 7. Same way when you put Ortiz 4 Pulev slides down to 5.

You're correct that I use the median to determine these rankings. Ortiz's median vote was 4, so he took the #4 ranking from Pulev. Jennings' median was 6.5, meaning an identical number of people voted him higher and lower than Takam. In this circumstance, I award a joint ranking.

Why not joint ranking with Glazkov at 7?

Tarkus wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:

Tarkus wrote: how did you make that determination? He seams to have 6.5 median score.

Also if you want to place Jennings 6 then Takam should slide down to 7. Same way when you put Ortiz 4 Pulev slides down to 5.

You're correct that I use the median to determine these rankings. Ortiz's median vote was 4, so he took the #4 ranking from Pulev. Jennings' median was 6.5, meaning an identical number of people voted him higher and lower than Takam. In this circumstance, I award a joint ranking.

Why not joint ranking with Glazkov at 7?

The median vote for Jennings would have to have been 7.5 for that to happen. Had his median vote been 7, he would have filled the #7 spot, with Glazkov down to #8.

jezzamundo wrote:

Tarkus wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:

You're correct that I use the median to determine these rankings. Ortiz's median vote was 4, so he took the #4 ranking from Pulev. Jennings' median was 6.5, meaning an identical number of people voted him higher and lower than Takam. In this circumstance, I award a joint ranking.

Why not joint ranking with Glazkov at 7?

The median vote for Jennings would have to have been 7.5 for that to happen. Had his median vote been 7, he would have filled the #7 spot, with Glazkov down to #8.

So you arbitrarily decided to ties it with the higher position. Fair enough, though I'd preferred if you just slotted it between the two without a tie. It would look nicer and also would simplifies the next round of voting.

Tarkus wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:

Tarkus wrote: Why not joint ranking with Glazkov at 7?

The median vote for Jennings would have to have been 7.5 for that to happen. Had his median vote been 7, he would have filled the #7 spot, with Glazkov down to #8.

So you arbitrarily decided to ties it with the higher position. Fair enough, though I'd preferred if you just slotted it between the two without a tie. It would look nicer and also would simplifies the next round of voting.

No, that's not arbitrary, that's the appropriate way to interpret it. If half of voters voted Jennings at #6 above Takam and half of voters voted Jennings at #7 below Takam, then Jennings would have a median value of 6.5, Takam would have a median value of 6.5, and Glazkov would have a median value of 8. So it's pretty straightforward that Jennings should be tied with Takam, not Glazkov.

Lackeos wrote:

Tarkus wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:
The median vote for Jennings would have to have been 7.5 for that to happen. Had his median vote been 7, he would have filled the #7 spot, with Glazkov down to #8.

So you arbitrarily decided to ties it with the higher position. Fair enough, though I'd preferred if you just slotted it between the two without a tie. It would look nicer and also would simplifies the next round of voting.

No, that's not arbitrary, that's the appropriate way to interpret it. If half of voters voted Jennings at #6 above Takam and half of voters voted Jennings at #7 below Takam, then Jennings would have a median value of 6.5, Takam would have a median value of 6.5, and Glazkov would have a median value of 8. So it's pretty straightforward that Jennings should be tied with Takam, not Glazkov.

Thats not what happened. Half voted him below Takam and half above Glazkov, hence 6.5.

For me several prospects should be ranked way higher and Teper should have never been in the top 15, he won very very ugly pointscoring matches with a lot of luck and clinching. Now with his drugsban he shouldn't even been accepted in the sport any more, cheating in such a way is risking death. As wel for himself as for his opponend. Ortiz same story, especially with drugs you can't get in your body by accident.

Tarkus wrote:

Lackeos wrote:

Tarkus wrote: So you arbitrarily decided to ties it with the higher position. Fair enough, though I'd preferred if you just slotted it between the two without a tie. It would look nicer and also would simplifies the next round of voting.

No, that's not arbitrary, that's the appropriate way to interpret it. If half of voters voted Jennings at #6 above Takam and half of voters voted Jennings at #7 below Takam, then Jennings would have a median value of 6.5, Takam would have a median value of 6.5, and Glazkov would have a median value of 8. So it's pretty straightforward that Jennings should be tied with Takam, not Glazkov.

Thats not what happened. Half voted him below Takam and half above Glazkov, hence 6.5.

It is not the case that half of posters voted Jennings above Glazkov. 9 out of 14 people voted Jennings above Glazkov.

Lackeos is 100% correct.

Just to clarify, when you vote someone #6, you are voting that they take the #6 position clearly, relegating the previous #6 to #7 - you are not voting for a tie. If you wanted to vote for a tie, your vote for the fighter would be #6= etc.

The votes for Jennings were:
8, 6, 7, 7, 10, 6, 5, U, 9, 6, 10, 3, 6, 6.

Which makes him a 7-7 tie with Takam
and a 9-5 winner over Glazkov

One more thing - I'm not a fan of people writing 'no change' as a vote - seeing as it has become clear that that's not what some people actually mean. If you say you want Ortiz in at #4 and 'no change' for Jennings, I take that as meaning you want Jennings to keep his #5 ranking, putting him above Pulev. There's no need to say everyone moves down a notch - that's implied by inserting a new boxer in the rankings. Simply write the names of both fighters and the positions you believe they deserve to occupy - any greater detail makes no difference in how the votes are tallied.

Lackeos wrote: It is not the case that half of posters voted Jennings above Glazkov. 9 out of 14 people voted Jennings above Glazkov.

Very true yes, its clear now.

Tarkus wrote:

Lackeos wrote: It is not the case that half of posters voted Jennings above Glazkov. 9 out of 14 people voted Jennings above Glazkov.

Very true yes, its clear now.