BoxRec

cause most "must" fights do not get made because of politics?

I was going through boxrec rankings and i wanted to determine the #1 in every division, like i often do, than i noticed that in 70 % of all the 16 division in boxing, we sure aint know the very bes, because all the fights do not get made, i hate it. take a look.

hw - no klitschko vs wilder and what is the body builder jushua taking so long!!
cw - best example, such a strong division, but huck, hernandez, dorticos, kudryashov, usyk, all dont fight each other..
lh - no kovalev vs adonis, where is berbetiev?
sm - rare division where there is a clear #1, sadly he does not box
m - also rare division where there is a clear #1
sw - okay, canelo vs lara got made, for me the 2 best
ww - wait for the winner of the big one
sl - no obvious #1, even no obvious #2, why, dulorme and rances are the 2 best in the division for me, why dont they get a chance against danny, matthysse or provod, broner?
l - no crawford vs mickey
sf - no uchiyama vs estrella
f - no walthers vs lomachenko
sb - even so there is a clear #1 in that division in rigo, but still, why no mix of fights between cruz, rigo and frampton?
b -no yamanaka vs komeda
sf - no inaue vs matsumoto
f - okay, gonzales is clear #1, but what are they waiting for, why cant he box high quality in segura, viloria!?


i didnt judge the last 2 division because i know not much about the top boxer of minimumweight etc..

but from 14 division, we only know from 5 division who the best is, wtf is this?

exactly this is wrong with boxing. can you imagine the san antonio spurs not facing the golden state warriors or real madrid not facing barcelona. wtf. we need the best fights available, ALWAYS!!! and not bullcrap like lomachenko boxing a nobody like gamalier rodriquez, when there are opponents like walthers or mares around town. or adonis boxing a super middleweight in bika, when there are guys like kova, berbetiev around. i hate boxing.

Are you seriously comparing Wilder to Klitchko ?

ikorolev wrote:Are you seriously comparing Wilder to Klitchko ?

leave me the fu.... alone, you with your patriotic addictiont to eastern european or kazak boxers. foff

Chepppaaa wrote:

ikorolev wrote:Are you seriously comparing Wilder to Klitchko ?

leave me the fu.... alone, you with your patriotic addictiont to eastern european or kazak boxers. foff

I don't like Klitchko, but Wilder is still a joke compared to him at this point.

ikorolev wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:

ikorolev wrote:Are you seriously comparing Wilder to Klitchko ?

leave me the fu.... alone, you with your patriotic addictiont to eastern european or kazak boxers. foff

I don't like Klitchko, but Wilder is still a joke compared to him at this point.

won 33 (KO 32) + lost 0 - world rated 4

if this is a joke to you, than everything is a joke to you in boxng. i am not saying wilder easily beats wlad and sure can wlad beat wilder. but either it oculd be a dq win for wilder, because in my oppinion most wlad fights are dq wins for the opponent, because it is boxing, not wrestling and when you wrestle to much, you should get dq, but luckily for klitschkos they are buying the refs and dont even get point deductions. money works.

down the line the thing is this. he is athletic, he got a solid jab and he punches super hard and can box good quality, like he showed against stiverne and rarely lose a round. wilder is impressiv and until wlad and wilder dont meet, we sure aint know 100 % who the #1 is.

Ali Raymi has a similar record.

ikorolev wrote:Ali Raymi has a similar record.

okay..and now what?

Chepppaaa wrote:


won 33 (KO 32) + lost 0 - world rated 4

if this is a joke to you, than everything is a joke to you in boxng. i am not saying wilder easily beats wlad and sure can wlad beat wilder. but either it oculd be a dq win for wilder, because in my oppinion most wlad fights are dq wins for the opponent, because it is boxing, not wrestling and when you wrestle to much, you should get dq, but luckily for klitschkos they are buying the refs and dont even get point deductions. money works.

down the line the thing is this. he is athletic, he got a solid jab and he punches super hard and can box good quality, like he showed against stiverne and rarely lose a round. wilder is impressiv and until wlad and wilder dont meet, we sure aint know 100 % who the #1 is.

I do. Klitschko KO's wilder. If you want to bet come on Betfair my friend I'll take you up on this one all day long. Different leagues.

Ian1973 wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:


won 33 (KO 32) + lost 0 - world rated 4

if this is a joke to you, than everything is a joke to you in boxng. i am not saying wilder easily beats wlad and sure can wlad beat wilder. but either it oculd be a dq win for wilder, because in my oppinion most wlad fights are dq wins for the opponent, because it is boxing, not wrestling and when you wrestle to much, you should get dq, but luckily for klitschkos they are buying the refs and dont even get point deductions. money works.

down the line the thing is this. he is athletic, he got a solid jab and he punches super hard and can box good quality, like he showed against stiverne and rarely lose a round. wilder is impressiv and until wlad and wilder dont meet, we sure aint know 100 % who the #1 is.

I do. Klitschko KO's wilder. If you want to bet come on Betfair my friend I'll take you up on this one all day long. Different leagues.

i dont bet for money. and i am not saying that either klitschko or wilder are the #1, i am just saying, that unless they dont fight each other, we do not know for sure, cause both could win each other, cause both are high up there.

Chepppaaa wrote:

ikorolev wrote:Ali Raymi has a similar record.

okay..and now what?

Now your "won 33 (KO 32) + lost 0 - world rated 4" is worth nothing because his record is all fluff except Stiverne.

ikorolev wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:

ikorolev wrote:Ali Raymi has a similar record.

okay..and now what?

Now your "won 33 (KO 32) + lost 0 - world rated 4" is worth nothing because his record is all fluff except Stiverne.

that shows how retarded you are

you are not seriously comparing a dude that fought shit his whole career, with debut records and shit, who has shit skills and never fought a name opponent, with somebody who rescently became wbc champion and on top of being extremly powerful has all around good skills?

Wilder is awkward. His power is the only outstanding asset he has and it is no better than Wlad's power. In all other aspects he is way behind and of course his record excluding one fight is laughable.

Stiverne ain't much good. Who is the best opponent on his record Arreola?

ikorolev wrote:Wilder is awkward. His power is the only outstanding asset he has and it is no better than Wlad's power. In all other aspects he is way behind and of course his record excluding one fight is laughable.

i see it differently

Chepppaaa wrote:

ikorolev wrote:Wilder is awkward. His power is the only outstanding asset he has and it is no better than Wlad's power. In all other aspects he is way behind and of course his record excluding one fight is laughable.

i see it differently

That is a valid argument. We will have to disagree until Wilder proves what he is worth.

ikorolev wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:

ikorolev wrote:Wilder is awkward. His power is the only outstanding asset he has and it is no better than Wlad's power. In all other aspects he is way behind and of course his record excluding one fight is laughable.

i see it differently

That is a valid argument. We will have to disagree until Wilder proves what he is worth.

no both have to prove, not only wlad or wilder. both.

and now leave me the eff alone, i know what game you sorry ass is playing, the game is called "i will always repeat your shit and who has the last repeat is the winner"....child game hahaha....now, repeat on that and you won hahaha.....cause i dont play this, i dont care.

Wlad has NOTHING to prove. If Wilder wants to be crowned best heavyweight on the planet HE has that to prove by going and ripping that title from Wladimir.

Good luck to him with that one.

Chepppaaa wrote: no both have to prove, not only wlad or wilder. both.

Right, and Mayweather has to prove that he is better than Sadam Ali

A record means nothing if you've faced no one. I'm 0-0. With the a right fights I could be 50-0.

Chepppaaa wrote: sf - no inaue vs matsumoto

Strange you mention that one as Matsumoto has all but stated he will not be fighting at 115lbs again, and he can't, due to the licensing rules in Japan, fight Inoue as they are both from the same Gym (Ohashi). A more interesting match up there would be Cuadras Vs Inoue or Tete Vs Inoue.

SNG wrote:A record means nothing if you've faced no one.

So true, and unfortunately, so common.

HW - Klitschko
CW - Huck
LHW - Kovalev
SMW - Ward
MW - Golovkin
JM - Floyd
WW - Pac
JW - Garcia
LW - Crawford
JL - Uchiyama
FW - Walters
JF - Rigo
BW - Yamanaka
SFW - Cuadras
FW - Gonzalez
JF - Nietes
MW - Menayothin



Thank me later!

Everyone will have a slighty different #1 in each division, but it is hard to make a case against; Wladimir, Stevenson, Ward, Alvarez (unless you consider FM as 154), Mayweather, Rigondeaux...pretty much everything else is up for debate.

Like so many of your threads, you fall flat on your face at the very first hurdle.

We know the no1 heavyweight
He has been the no1 for many years,
He fought the no2 in the division when he compehensively beat Haye
He fought the no2 in the division when he comfortably beat Povetkin
And he beat the no2 in the division when he KO'd Pulev.

Wilder has literally only just arrived at world level and isn't the second best heavy right now.

Wlad is the undisputed no 1, he has already beaten the current no 2 & 3 IMO and will beat Fury and Wilder to again prove the doubters wrong.
But people will keep coming back with the latest name that Wlad hasn't fought yet....

Lennox wrote:Everyone will have a slighty different #1 in each division, but it is hard to make a case against; Wladimir, Stevenson, Ward, Alvarez (unless you consider FM as 154), Mayweather, Rigondeaux...pretty much everything else is up for debate.

Seriously ??? You can't make a case against Stevenson ??? What about Kovalev ?

You can't make a case against Alvarez who could easilly have an "L" against Trout and Lara ?