thing i do not get about the boxrec rankings

[Tanzio]

Do they realize that titles can be edited?

[man]

No system will be as good as a really good subjective top 10 but this system is better from 11-100, it is virtually impossible for anyone to list a subjective 100 in every division because they can't know that many fighters and the top 10s reasonably align with other subjective lists.

totally agree. i think the ratings here
do not get enough praise but a lot of
heat.

[Ilya Muromets]

I think that the regular BoxRec rankings are excellent but the p4p is a lot of baloney, usually a list of someone's favorite fighters, generally favoring the little guys. The spurious p4p rankings started as space filler in Ring magazine.

[man]

I think that the regular BoxRec rankings are excellent but the p4p is a lot of baloney, usually a list of someone's favorite fighters, generally favoring the little guys. The spurious p4p rankings started as space filler in Ring magazine.

i have the exact opposite feeling. tyson
fury and wlad do not belong in a top5
p4p list. in terms of their boxing abilities,
which is what p4p should reflect, these
two are absolute nobodies to me.

but i sense there is some smart aspect
in this too, because it basically reflects
how dominant wlad was in the weakest
era of the heavies and thus piled up points
like crazy. so it is less about wlad or tyson
being so good but more how bad the division
was over a decade.

what i find funny is the position of roman
gonzalez not even in the top20. this man
must have fought poor opposition for all
his life.

[Ilya Muromets]

"how dominant wlad was in the weakest
era of the heavies ..."


Actually the strongest era of the heavies tho the US media keeps saying the latter for obvious reasons.

[man]

Actually the strongest era of the heavies

ups, think we should skip this comment.

[Cap]

"how dominant wlad was in the weakest
era of the heavies ..."


Actually the strongest era of the heavies tho the US media keeps saying the latter for obvious reasons.