BoxRec

jezzamundo wrote:BWH Rankings as of 21 May 2016:

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

Topic A - How are the rankings affected by Joseph Parker's UD12 win over Carlos Takam?

My vote: Parker to #7, Takam to #9.


Note: This topic is for voting on the rankings of Parker and Takam. Posting your own top 15 will not count as a vote. Please cast your vote in the manner that I have done above.

JoeCorrao wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:BWH Rankings as of 21 May 2016:

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

Topic A - How are the rankings affected by Joseph Parker's UD12 win over Carlos Takam?

My vote: Parker to #7, Takam to #9.


Note: This topic is for voting on the rankings of Parker and Takam. Posting your own top 15 will not count as a vote. Please cast your vote in the manner that I have done above.

Can we fix the Lb for Lb and Middles?

jezzamundo wrote:You know this is nothing to do with the official BoxRec rankings, right? They are calculated by a mathematical formula. I started running the forum heavyweight rankings back in 2007, since then a few people have done forum rankings for other weight divisions, but they've all since fallen by the wayside. Anyone is welcome to start them back up, but I won't be doing it myself.

Horse wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:You know this is nothing to do with the official BoxRec rankings, right? They are calculated by a mathematical formula. I started running the forum heavyweight rankings back in 2007, since then a few people have done forum rankings for other weight divisions, but they've all since fallen by the wayside. Anyone is welcome to start them back up, but I won't be doing it myself.

You actually started doing it in May 2006.

jezzamundo wrote:Wow, I guess I misremembered!

Horse wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:Wow, I guess I misremembered!

Congratulations on running these rankings for over a decade.

asdfjkl wrote:That explains why guys like Malik Scott, who only fought two elderly in the past two years after his dive against Wilder at the time, is still in this list.

jezzamundo wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:That explains why guys like Malik Scott, who only fought two elderly in the past two years after his dive against Wilder at the time, is still in this list.

Nope, Scott entered the rankings for the first time seven months ago when he beat Tony Thompson - he's not 'still' in the list, he's a relatively recent entry.

asdfjkl wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:That explains why guys like Malik Scott, who only fought two elderly in the past two years after his dive against Wilder at the time, is still in this list.

Nope, Scott entered the rankings for the first time seven months ago when he beat Tony Thompson - he's not 'still' in the list, he's a relatively recent entry.

Wow and that while he actually met the ground himself in that match. Against a guy he couldn't get down but met the ground every two rounds his match after?! I think Scott isn't even top 3 of the US

jezzamundo wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:
Nope, Scott entered the rankings for the first time seven months ago when he beat Tony Thompson - he's not 'still' in the list, he's a relatively recent entry.

Wow and that while he actually met the ground himself in that match. Against a guy he couldn't get down but met the ground every two rounds his match after?! I think Scott isn't even top 3 of the US

Yep, although I'd probably have Scott as the third best American heavyweight after Wilder and Jennings. The thread where he is voted in is here:

http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f ... n#p4275165

Scott went down, but he won clearly on the scorecards over Thompson (who was ranked #9 at the time and coming off a stoppage win over Solis and a competitive loss to Pulev), which the majority (myself included) saw as being deserving of a rank. Scott needs to fight again soon, though, or he will see himself being pushed out of the rankings through inactivity.

asdfjkl wrote:Ah, now I see, most people never wanted him in the list I see, but you got odd methods of calculating I understood.
Let's check the votes:
7 9 9 11 12 13 13 100 100 100 100 100

100 is not in top 15.
That makes 13 in the middle right? Somehow you make a 12 of it for something I don't understand but ok.

asdfjkl wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:

asdfjkl wrote: Wow and that while he actually met the ground himself in that match. Against a guy he couldn't get down but met the ground every two rounds his match after?! I think Scott isn't even top 3 of the US

Yep, although I'd probably have Scott as the third best American heavyweight after Wilder and Jennings. The thread where he is voted in is here:

http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f ... n#p4275165

Scott went down, but he won clearly on the scorecards over Thompson (who was ranked #9 at the time and coming off a stoppage win over Solis and a competitive loss to Pulev), which the majority (myself included) saw as being deserving of a rank. Scott needs to fight again soon, though, or he will see himself being pushed out of the rankings through inactivity.

Ah, now I see, most people never wanted him in the list I see, but you got odd methods of calculating I understood.
Let's check the votes:
7 9 9 11 12 13 13 100 100 100 100 100

100 is not in top 15.
That makes 13 in the middle right? Somehow you make a 12 of it for something I don't understand but ok.

Horse wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:Ah, now I see, most people never wanted him in the list I see, but you got odd methods of calculating I understood.
Let's check the votes:
7 9 9 11 12 13 13 100 100 100 100 100

100 is not in top 15.
That makes 13 in the middle right? Somehow you make a 12 of it for something I don't understand but ok.

I only counted three votes for out.

Who voted out?

jezzamundo wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:
Yep, although I'd probably have Scott as the third best American heavyweight after Wilder and Jennings. The thread where he is voted in is here:

http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f ... n#p4275165

Scott went down, but he won clearly on the scorecards over Thompson (who was ranked #9 at the time and coming off a stoppage win over Solis and a competitive loss to Pulev), which the majority (myself included) saw as being deserving of a rank. Scott needs to fight again soon, though, or he will see himself being pushed out of the rankings through inactivity.

Ah, now I see, most people never wanted him in the list I see, but you got odd methods of calculating I understood.
Let's check the votes:
7 9 9 11 12 13 13 100 100 100 100 100

100 is not in top 15.
That makes 13 in the middle right? Somehow you make a 12 of it for something I don't understand but ok.

Based on the numbers you've posted, most people who voted did want him ranked, by a vote of 7 to 5. I'm not sure where you got the other two 'unraked' votes from as there are only three - so actually the majority wanted Scott ranked by a vote of 7 to 3. The median is 12.5, hence the =12 rank. Based on the new rules, the existing fighter is placed higher, so Scott would go to #13 in this case.

7, 9, 9, 11, 12, 13, 13, U, U, U.

asdfjkl wrote:Freedom2013 Coachmanager dagilechia heretic.

Oh oops, I appearantly counted my own vote, but I didn't actually vote at the time.

Horse wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:Freedom2013 Coachmanager dagilechia heretic.

Oh oops, I appearantly counted my own vote, but I didn't actually vote at the time.

Freedom2013 didn't mention Scott.

asdfjkl wrote:No, so scott stays out?

Horse wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:No, so scott stays out?

No, if he doesn't mention Scott then he hasn't voted one way or the other.

asdfjkl wrote:Which makes Scott out?

Horse wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:Which makes Scott out?

No.

asdfjkl wrote:Oké, then what do you think he had in mind as a top 15?

Horse wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:Oké, then what do you think he had in mind as a top 15?

I don't care.

He didn't vote on Scott's position.

asdfjkl wrote:If he says he wants AJ and Parker in, the Scott automatically falls out. Ofcourse he's not going to say what's already obvious :S, he didn't say anything about Gary Cornish either, since it's obvious that he's out as well.

Horse wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:If he says he wants AJ and Parker in, the Scott automatically falls out. Ofcourse he's not going to say what's already obvious :S, he didn't say anything about Gary Cornish either, since it's obvious that he's out as well.

He should have said it. It's not obvious what he meant if he didn't say it.

If he can't be bothered to mention Scott, then he doesn't get to vote on the matter, simple as that.

It's not jezzamundo's job to guess what other people want. They either say it or they don't.