BoxRec

Horse wrote:

lefty wrote:The Takam victory is decent il give you that but who the hell has Charr ever beaten of any significance?

Johnson (yes, he is significant and underrated).

If the Charr win is worthless then so are Pulev's Dimitrenko and Ustinov wins.

Haha cmon you cant use Johnson as an example of a good victory. He has a sparring partner mentality and just goes through the motions. He knocked out Leapei but that's because he's truely dire.

lefty wrote:Haha cmon you cant use Johnson as an example of a good victory. He has a sparring partner mentality and just goes through the motions. He knocked out Leapei but that's because he's truely dire.

It was a significant victory. Johnson is still a top 30 heavyweight.

Horse wrote:

lefty wrote:Haha cmon you cant use Johnson as an example of a good victory. He has a sparring partner mentality and just goes through the motions. He knocked out Leapei but that's because he's truely dire.

It was a significant victory. Johnson is still a top 30 heavyweight.

I think classing it as a significant victory is overplaying it. I'm pretty sure Pulev would beat Johnson just as easily.

lefty wrote:I think classing it as a significant victory is overplaying it. I'm pretty sure Pulev would beat Johnson just as easily.

Pulev beating Johnson by a couple of rounds isn't really going to impress anybody.

Horse wrote:

lefty wrote:I think classing it as a significant victory is overplaying it. I'm pretty sure Pulev would beat Johnson just as easily.

Pulev beating Johnson by a couple of rounds isn't really going to impress anybody.

So would you say Charr's win over Johnson is a more significant victory than Pulev's over Thompson?

lefty wrote:So would you say Charr's win over Johnson is a more significant victory than Pulev's over Thompson?

What?

I don't have the energy for this.

Horse wrote:

lefty wrote:So would you say Charr's win over Johnson is a more significant victory than Pulev's over Thompson?

What?

I don't have the energy for this.

That's a surprise. Normally you can carry it on forever in defending your argument. I'm disappointed.

I stuck my neck out a bit and thought Pulev would be pretty competitive....test an ageing Wlad with his decent size, confidence, technique and speed. Got that one wrong!

The way Wlad took Pulev down was a pretty sharp reminder that he remains very much the man; you just can't afford to take too many of Wlad's jabs and his power shots....even when they are not bang on the button just seem to take a big, strong guy's ability to function away from him.

As much as I like Tyson and think he'd be disciplined on the night, leaving out the machismo/clowning and following a gameplan, I can't see him standing up to those kind of shots.

Bodyshot3 wrote:I stuck my neck out a bit and thought Pulev would be pretty competitive....test an ageing Wlad with his decent size, confidence, technique and speed. Got that one wrong!

The way Wlad took Pulev down was a pretty sharp reminder that he remains very much the man; you just can't afford to take too many of Wlad's jabs and his power shots....even when they are not bang on the button just seem to take a big, strong guy's ability to function away from him.

As much as I like Tyson and think he'd be disciplined on the night, leaving out the machismo/clowning and following a gameplan, I can't see him standing up to those kind of shots.

That's the scary thing, Wlad didn't even land that many clean power shots, but Pulev looked like he'd lost a fight with a brick wall - he looked screwed after that second knockdown, I was surprised he was allowed to continue, his legs looked very unsteady. Pulev is a big powerful man, and Wlad dropped him like he was hitting a light heavyweight.

I know this post will likely get me a telling off but anyone else think Wlad might be on the juice? My reasoning being that he has a PHD in sports science and thus he most be pretty clued up on all that kind of stuff, he wouldnt agree to drug testing prior to the fight with Pulev, would only agree to a test post fight. He's 38 years of age and is completely chiselled. Anyway, not saying he definietly is of course but I am suspicious of him in that regard.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I was surprised he was allowed to continue, his legs looked very unsteady. Pulev is a big powerful man, and Wlad dropped him like he was hitting a light heavyweight.

As far as letting a fight continue goes: Does it really matter that much if a fighter's legs have gone? Isn't the risk of danger to a fighter when their head isn't clear?

Horse wrote:Pulev was not the second best heavyweight. Povetkin had reclaimed the No. 2 spot after beating Takam.

That is not accurate. I'm 100% positive that Pulev was ranked number two on Boxrec at the time of his title shot. Check it on both of their records:

Povektin had a points total of 620 after beating Takam
Pulev had a points total of 765 pre Wlad fight... It then fell down to 539 after he lost... Hence the reason Povetkin is at number two currently.

Crease wrote:That is not accurate. I'm 100% positive that Pulev was ranked number two on Boxrec at the time of his title shot. Check it on both of their records:

Povektin had a points total of 620 after beating Takam
Pulev had a points total of 765 pre Wlad fight... It then fell down to 539 after he lost... Hence the reason Povetkin is at number two currently.

BoxRec's rankings are generally not considered to be the most accurate. The forum rankings had Povetkin above Pulev before the Wlad fight at the weekend.

http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=186721

Horse wrote:

Crease wrote:That is not accurate. I'm 100% positive that Pulev was ranked number two on Boxrec at the time of his title shot. Check it on both of their records:

Povektin had a points total of 620 after beating Takam
Pulev had a points total of 765 pre Wlad fight... It then fell down to 539 after he lost... Hence the reason Povetkin is at number two currently.

BoxRec's rankings are generally not considered to be the most accurate. The forum rankings had Povetkin above Pulev before the Wlad fight at the weekend.

http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=186721

So they're more accurate for what reason?

lefty wrote:So they're more accurate for what reason?

I don't have the energy. Use your head.

Horse wrote:

lefty wrote:So they're more accurate for what reason?

I don't have the energy. Use your head.

You should use yours more often mate. You had to ask me what automatically meant earlier. Either you didnt know what it meant or you were just being a bellend. Also I guess we should all bow down to your amazing monthly rankings

lefty wrote:You should use yours more often mate. You had to ask me what automatically meant earlier. Either you didnt know what it meant or you were just being a bellend. Also I guess we should all bow down to your amazing monthly rankings

Wow.

You are having a mare in this thread. Sort it out, Lefty.

Horse wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I was surprised he was allowed to continue, his legs looked very unsteady. Pulev is a big powerful man, and Wlad dropped him like he was hitting a light heavyweight.

As far as letting a fight continue goes: Does it really matter that much if a fighter's legs have gone? Isn't the risk of danger to a fighter when their head isn't clear?

WTF! Are you being serious? Surely not - I would expect that from many people, but not yourself.

If a fighter's legs are gone, it's a fair bet his head isn't clear - how precisely do you tell if their head is clear? Telepathy - emergency MRI?

If you can't keep your legs under you, you're off balance, and likely to be in a poor position to defend yourself.

Usually if a fighter's legs are gone and they are very unsteady, that's the FIRST reason the fight will be stopped.

BTW, I am not saying Povetkin SHOULD have been stopped - just that I wouldn't have been that surprised if he had been. The ref seemed to be continually pulling his arms to see if there was any resistance in them.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:WTF! Are you being serious? Surely not - I would expect that from many people, but not yourself.

If a fighter's legs are gone, it's a fair bet his head isn't clear - how precisely do you tell if their head is clear? Telepathy - emergency MRI?

By looking into their eyes, judging their responses to simple commands and maybe having a quick talk to them.

It's a judgement call and obviously sometimes they're going to get it wrong.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:If you can't keep your legs under you, you're off balance, and likely to be in a poor position to defend yourself.

Usually if a fighter's legs are gone and they are very unsteady, that's the FIRST reason the fight will be stopped.

BTW, I am not saying Povetkin SHOULD have been stopped - just that I wouldn't have been that surprised if he had been. The ref seemed to be continually pulling his arms to see if there was any resistance in them.

I'm not saying a fighter being on wobbly legs is no big deal as it's clearly a bad sign, but if their head is clear then they will be able to defend themselves far more than a guy whose eyes are rolling into the back of his head.

I think a first round stoppage would have been too early. Pulev looked like he was ready to go, but he didn't seem gone.

Horse wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:WTF! Are you being serious? Surely not - I would expect that from many people, but not yourself.

If a fighter's legs are gone, it's a fair bet his head isn't clear - how precisely do you tell if their head is clear? Telepathy - emergency MRI?

By looking into their eyes, judging their responses to simple commands and maybe having a quick talk to them.

It's a judgement call and obviously sometimes they're going to get it wrong.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:If you can't keep your legs under you, you're off balance, and likely to be in a poor position to defend yourself.

Usually if a fighter's legs are gone and they are very unsteady, that's the FIRST reason the fight will be stopped.

BTW, I am not saying Povetkin SHOULD have been stopped - just that I wouldn't have been that surprised if he had been. The ref seemed to be continually pulling his arms to see if there was any resistance in them.

I'm not saying a fighter being on wobbly legs is no big deal as it's clearly a bad sign, but if their head is clear then they will be able to defend themselves far more than a guy whose eyes are rolling into the back of his head.

I think a first round stoppage would have been too early. Pulev looked like he was ready to go, but he didn't seem gone.

I agree, he was fine to go on, but I've seen fights stopped at that point before.

Horse wrote:BoxRec's rankings are generally not considered to be the most accurate.

Considered by whom? It's fair enough if you don't acknowledge them as being an accurate depiction of the boxing landscape, but please don't present your opinion as the voice of the masses.

For the most part, I would tend to value the Boxrec rankings above other rankings out there. The four boxing sanctioning bodies each tend to over rank fighters when they have fought for one of their International/Intercontinental Titles and thus have been paid sanctioning fees by the fighters. Which in itself, could be described as indirect bribing, but that's a different argument entirely.

I would also say (and have heard it said often by others) that The Ring Magazine's rankings aren't to be trusted either as they also over rank Golden Boy fighters and under rank Top Weight fighters.

So it's really a question of which rankings you would trust more and I would definitely trust Boxrec more than the others. At least Boxrec is neutral and has no ulterior motive.

Horse wrote:The forum rankings had Povetkin above Pulev before the Wlad fight at the weekend.
http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=186721

Forgive my ignorance but where did these rankings come from?

Boxrec rankings are awesome!!!

sanctioning bodies have the likes of Kaufmann, briggs, mark de mori, tarver and lucas browne and cojanu

boxrec top 10 is slightly more accurate on form, frequency of fights.

no actualy ranking system works but boxrec is well respected in my opinion.

cold187 wrote:Boxrec rankings are awesome!!!
sanctioning bodies have the likes of Kaufmann, briggs, mark de mori, tarver and lucas browne and cojanu
boxrec top 10 is slightly more accurate on form, frequency of fights.
no actualy ranking system works but boxrec is well respected in my opinion.

Agreed. I've been in pubs and the Boxrec rankings have been used and talked about in a positive way. Most boxing fans that I know praise the Boxrec rankings.

Crease wrote:Forgive my ignorance but where did these rankings come from?

They've been voted on by this forum's members for over 8.5 years.

Rankings are a load of rubbish, no matter who or what compiled them. This is boxing FFS, not trainspotting.