BoxRec

Redback Rasta wrote:

ikorolev wrote:

Redback Rasta wrote:
I appreciate your input mate. But when you say 'officially", where?

Who made that particular version of the A to D you posted official, and why is it that even keen boxing fans like those posting in this thread don't know, or perhaps, necessarily agree with the version you have posted?

That was a joke.

I sure rate the alphabet grading system a joke. No two people I've come across are even on the same page with their understanding of it.

I just made it up yesterday. Doesn't that make it official? Perhaps not, but it is not a joke either. I tried to organize it in the way the majority of boxing fans seem to use those terms. It is of course subjective because it is a boxers rating and that is a subjective thing.

A Level- Kovalev, Golovkin, Alvarez, Ward, Rigondeaux
B Level- Bradley, Garcia, Lebedev, Uchiyama, Mcdonnell, Frampton
C Level - Khan, Cleverly, Wilder, Bundrage, Broner,Guerrero

Tarkus wrote:

Redback Rasta wrote:

ikorolev wrote:
That was a joke.

I sure rate the alphabet grading system a joke. No two people I've come across are even on the same page with their understanding of it.

I just made it up yesterday. Doesn't that make it official? Perhaps not, but it is not a joke either. I tried to organize it in the way the majority of boxing fans seem to use those terms. It is of course subjective because it is a boxers rating and that is a subjective thing.

Tarkus, you are getting close to hitting the nail on the head!
Boxing ratings are always going to be some(what) complication. The letter grades was to rate every last boxer in the world. I was rated two years their lowest grade (I was a "half decent" all-in-all//but small time next to any "real achiever")
Rating boxers only is a "fun exercise". One plug I like to pull is to rate 1-2-3 between aa)Ernie Shavers bb) Ken Norton cc) Ron Lyle. Of course this is "cut & dried" with the contention coming between Norton and Shavers only. bb is first here.

Energizer wrote:A Level- Kovalev, Golovkin, Alvarez, Ward, Rigondeaux
B Level- Bradley, Garcia, Lebedev, Uchiyama, Mcdonnell, Frampton
C Level - Khan, Cleverly, Wilder, Bundrage, Broner,Guerrero

I've never myself witness a LB4LB span there.

^ ^ why would someone put Cleverly name next to Wilder. Cleverly has faulted badly at the elite.

^ ^ & talking about Broner: Manny Pac V A.Broner much much greater promo for Boxing than a Pac-Bradley III.

Hopkins - Cleverly probably a "nice fight"!

GodOfBoxing wrote: Tarkus, you are getting close to hitting the nail on the head!
Boxing ratings are always going to be some(what) complication. The letter grades was to rate every last boxer in the world. I was rated two years their lowest grade (I was a "half decent" all-in-all//but small time next to any "real achiever")
Rating boxers only is a "fun exercise". One plug I like to pull is to rate 1-2-3 between aa)Ernie Shavers bb) Ken Norton cc) Ron Lyle. Of course this is "cut & dried" with the contention coming between Norton and Shavers only. bb is first here.

I leave that to history buffs.

Another thing to remember is that like in any gradation there will be lot of boxers on the border between levels and for them opinions will be more split. For example aforementioned Paul Smith. In my estimation he is between B and C. So when he fought Abrahams the first time I would rate him fringe B level. But when he fought Ward he had slipped to C+.

A side and B side comes from old music cassettes/records. Music singles would get released with an "a-side" which would be the popular single that people are buying the record for, while the B side would be an additional not-so-good song that would support it but would not be good enough to stand alone. B sides were usually ok, often good, rarely great.

johnswan1 wrote:A side and B side comes from old music cassettes/records. Music singles would get released with an "a-side" which would be the popular single that people are buying the record for, while the B side would be an additional not-so-good song that would support it but would not be good enough to stand alone. B sides were usually ok, often good, rarely great.

A and B are letters of the Latin alphabet. Oops, my post has as much to do with this thread as the above.

littlepug wrote:Forget all that its just as follows-
Elite
World class
contender
gatekeeper
Domestic
prospect
journeyman

You forgot tomato can and ham'n'egger.

King Carlos wrote:

littlepug wrote:Forget all that its just as follows-
Elite
World class
contender
gatekeeper
Domestic
prospect
journeyman

You forgot tomato can and ham'n'egger.

[quote="Tarkus"]One plug I like to pull is to rate 1-2-3 between aa)Ernie Shavers bb) Ken Norton cc) Ron Lyle.
I leave that to history buffs.

YOU are not a history buff?

Where the Topic is a certain line, is it respectable if we take the one topic and expand/widen the subject/contain it to within the boxer/ boxing frame?

It is clear the biggest issue with the lettered grading system is no two people have the same interpretation of it.

Consequently it is virtually useless as a method of conveying information from one fight fan to another.

GodOfBoxing wrote:^ ^ why would someone put Cleverly name next to Wilder. Cleverly has faulted badly at the elite.

Getting KO'd by Kovalev ( everyone gets KO'd by him) and Having a tough close fight with Fonfara isn't faulting badly with the elite. Cleverly is a solid top 10 light heavyweight.. Good speed, skills, chin, heart, etc.

Whereas Wilder hasn't even faced any top guys yet, if he gets KO'd soon he'd be below Cleverly

Redback Rasta wrote:It is clear the biggest issue with the lettered grading system is no two people have the same interpretation of it.

Consequently it is virtually useless as a method of conveying information from one fight fan to another.

Yet people regularly use gradings and seem to understand each other. I think there is a tacit and approximate understanding between fans about what those levels are. If we were to make a poll about Golovkin and Jacobs I think majority would rate them A and B respectively.

GodOfBoxing wrote:Where the Topic is a certain line, is it respectable if we take the one topic and expand/widen the subject/contain it to within the boxer/ boxing frame?

eeeh?

And no, I am not a history buff. I am mister current affairs.

Redback Rasta wrote:It is clear the biggest issue with the lettered grading system is no two people have the same interpretation of it.

Consequently it is virtually useless as a method of conveying information from one fight fan to another.

Totally disagree. Could the concept be refined? Good question!

Tarkus wrote:

GodOfBoxing wrote:Where the Topic is a certain line, is it respectable if we take the one topic and expand/widen the subject/contain it to within the boxer/ boxing frame?

eeeh?

And no, I am not a history buff. I am mister current affairs.

If one follows current affairs for a length of time..does not the span make one: A HISTORY BUFF? I think so!

My other inquiry is standing but...this thread is NOTHING MORE than the consensus of the limited entries we see here. I am the God Of Boxing.

Energizer wrote:

GodOfBoxing wrote:^ ^ why would someone put Cleverly name next to Wilder. Cleverly has faulted badly at the elite.

Getting KO'd by Kovalev ( everyone gets KO'd by him) and Having a tough close fight with Fonfara isn't faulting badly with the elite. Cleverly is a solid top 10 light heavyweight.. Good speed, skills, chin, heart, etc.

Whereas Wilder hasn't even faced any top guys yet, if he gets KO'd soon he'd be below Cleverly

Yeah that is nonsense!
You could argue for Cleverly. "Sure", he is top 10 lh! As far as what future holds for Wilder, good guess!

^ ^ three losses right now. SURE HE IS A "PROPERTY"/ A ----PRODUCT--- but.....he has to date lost that elite luster. Doubtful he can ever get back on same track ("possible"!)

GodOfBoxing wrote:

Tarkus wrote:

GodOfBoxing wrote:Where the Topic is a certain line, is it respectable if we take the one topic and expand/widen the subject/contain it to within the boxer/ boxing frame?

eeeh?

And no, I am not a history buff. I am mister current affairs.

If one follows current affairs for a length of time..does not the span make one: A HISTORY BUFF? I think so!

My other inquiry is standing but...this thread is NOTHING MORE than the consensus of the limited entries we see here. I am the God Of Boxing.

Witnessing history doesnt make you a history buff. Knowing the past does. One can know the history of the past events by following them when it happened. However, the events spoken in that discussion happened far before my times.

As for the nature of your other inquiry oh Lord, it is a complete mystery to me at this moment in time. Would you please deign to speak down to the level of the mere mortals, in thy mercy.

Ricky_ wrote:The terms "b level" and "c level" only really get used to knock opponents of elite fighters. For example Floyd/Maidana Pac/Rios... Maidana and Rios are a few levels down from Floyd or Pac and hence you end up describing world champion boxers as "c level".

Not the actual..

Tarkus wrote: "Witnessing history doesnt make you a history buff. Knowing the past does. One can know the history of the past events by following them when it happened. However, the events spoken in that discussion happened far before my time".

Ok then....then just lets leave it off that I can't understand you clearly..