BoxRec

How do you rank them right now? Division is looking interesting.

Fury, Wlad, Wilder, Povetkin, Ortiz, Joshua, Martin, Parker. A lot of interesting fights to be made here. Hopefully Parker is stepped up soon.

It's funny how one result can open up a division & make it interesting again.

Right now, Fury is the best as far as I'm concerned.

Things could change in the rematch with Wladimir of course, but I can't see it..

Fury is supremely confident in his own ability & appears totally unfazed & fearless.

He's also got a good team that did not allow Wladimir & his mob to dictate & bully them.

With regards to the others, there's many variables, but Ortiz & Povetkin are probably the next best.

I'm not sure about Wilder, although it wouldn't surprise me if he ended up as top dog, but I just don't know right now.

It matters in what way you're thinking, in the historybook till this point I'd say:
Wladimir
Povetkin
Fury
Joshua
Ortiz
Martin
Parker

The ranking I expect to get when they had a tournament right now:
Joshua
Fury
Ortiz
Parker
Klitschko
Wilder
Povetkin
Martin


As an all time highest peak moment if you look back in about 30 years I expect something like:
Klitschko
Joshua
Povetkin
Fury
Parker
Wilder
Ortiz
Martin


It really matters in what way you're looking at the rankings.

Combining talent, achievement, and predicted success, I'd go something like this:

1. Fury
2. Wlad
3. Povetkin
4. Wilder
5. Ortiz
6. Martin
7. Joshua
8. Parker

7&8 have a huge UP Arrow.

asdfjkl wrote:It matters in what way you're thinking, in the historybook till this point I'd say:
Wladimir
Povetkin
Fury
Joshua
Ortiz
Martin
Parker

The ranking I expect to get when they had a tournament right now:
Joshua
Fury
Ortiz
Parker
Klitschko
Wilder
Povetkin
Martin


As an all time highest peak moment if you look back in about 30 years I expect something like:
Klitschko
Joshua
Povetkin
Fury
Parker
Wilder
Ortiz
Martin


It really matters in what way you're looking at the rankings.

Good point, there are many ways to look at this.

My crystal ball in 2019 would go something like this:

1. Joshua
2. Tyson Fury
3. Parker
4. Wilder
5. Hughie Fury

Martin, Povetkin, Ortiz, and Browne will provide us with some outgoing entertainment before then.

Tony1244 wrote:Combining talent, achievement, and predicted success, I'd go something like this:

1. Fury
2. Wlad
3. Povetkin
4. Wilder
5. Ortiz
6. Martin
7. Joshua
8. Parker

7&8 have a huge UP Arrow.

Martin is #8 in any list, no matter how you make it.
He must have the biggest target on his forehead.
Ask any of the other 7 if they'll fight him for his IBF belt and they'll say "HELL YEAH!!!"

lowlefthand wrote:

Tony1244 wrote:Combining talent, achievement, and predicted success, I'd go something like this:

1. Fury
2. Wlad
3. Povetkin
4. Wilder
5. Ortiz
6. Martin
7. Joshua
8. Parker

7&8 have a huge UP Arrow.

Martin is #8 in any list, no matter how you make it.
He must have the biggest target on his forehead.
Ask any of the other 7 if they'll fight him for his IBF belt and they'll say "HELL YEAH!!!"

That's why I hope Martin will chose Anthony Joshua as his next fight, then Wilder can't avoid Anthony Joshua for example any more.

lowlefthand wrote:

Tony1244 wrote:Combining talent, achievement, and predicted success, I'd go something like this:

1. Fury
2. Wlad
3. Povetkin
4. Wilder
5. Ortiz
6. Martin
7. Joshua
8. Parker

7&8 have a huge UP Arrow.

Martin is #8 in any list, no matter how you make it.
He must have the biggest target on his forehead.
Ask any of the other 7 if they'll fight him for his IBF belt and they'll say "HELL YEAH!!!"

Not The IBFs list. Sure, I would also pick everyone on the list to beat Martin, particularly Joshua. But that particular list is a combination of factors and Joshua has ye to beat a Glaskov even though I believe he easily would.

Come on, Charles Martin was ranked something like 38th by Boxrec yesterday and he won against a feather fisted guy who was ranked somewhere near the 10 mark by KTFO (knee totally fell off) and now he's ranked top 5 because he has an strap round his waist.

The guy isn't top 10. He's not even as good a champion as Stiverne was

davie wrote:Come on, Charles Martin was ranked something like 38th by Boxrec yesterday and he won against a feather fisted guy who was ranked somewhere near the 10 mark by KTFO (knee totally fell off) and now he's ranked top 5 because he has an strap round his waist.

The guy isn't top 10. He's not even as good a champion as Stiverne was

Wilder isn't top 4 either, Teper isn't that good either, Stiverne same story. But it's computer based, it's based on numbers. Glazkov had several very lucky wins, so the computer ranked him high and martin koed him in three rounds, so it makes sense that the computer ranks him this high. The computer can't see the difference between a lucky win, or a dominating win.

asdfjkl wrote:

davie wrote:Come on, Charles Martin was ranked something like 38th by Boxrec yesterday and he won against a feather fisted guy who was ranked somewhere near the 10 mark by KTFO (knee totally fell off) and now he's ranked top 5 because he has an strap round his waist.

The guy isn't top 10. He's not even as good a champion as Stiverne was

Wilder isn't top 4 either, Teper isn't that good either, Stiverne same story. But it's computer based, it's based on numbers. Glazkov had several very lucky wins, so the computer ranked him high and martin koed him in three rounds, so it makes sense that the computer ranks him this high. The computer can't see the difference between a lucky win, or a dominating win.

I wasn't critisising the computer based ranking, I'm fully aware of their short comings.

I'm criticising the inane chat in here by supposed boxing fans who should know better. In the this case the computer based rankings are whupping their asses because anyone who ranks Joshua, Martin or Parker ahead of say Pulev is jumping the gun
Too much hype surrounding some prosepcts who are as yet unproven and too much weight given to belt holders I'm not sure some of these guys should be ranked ahead of the likes of Takam, Stiverne, Jennings or Chagaev and I wouldn't say one or 2 of them are even neccesarily ready to fight a fighter of that calibre at fringe level, let alone beat them

Heck, there's a thread asking who is the top heavyweight right now (started by boxrecs no1 boxing expert) that lists these relative novice pro's and doesn't even have Povetkin as an option, despite the fact he'd wipe the fornicating floor with half of them

davie wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:

davie wrote:Come on, Charles Martin was ranked something like 38th by Boxrec yesterday and he won against a feather fisted guy who was ranked somewhere near the 10 mark by KTFO (knee totally fell off) and now he's ranked top 5 because he has an strap round his waist.

The guy isn't top 10. He's not even as good a champion as Stiverne was

Wilder isn't top 4 either, Teper isn't that good either, Stiverne same story. But it's computer based, it's based on numbers. Glazkov had several very lucky wins, so the computer ranked him high and martin koed him in three rounds, so it makes sense that the computer ranks him this high. The computer can't see the difference between a lucky win, or a dominating win.

I wasn't critisising the computer based ranking, I'm fully aware of their short comings.

I'm criticising the inane chat in here by supposed boxing fans who should know better. In the this case the computer based rankings are whupping their asses because anyone who ranks Joshua, Martin or Parker ahead of say Pulev is jumping the gun
Too much hype surrounding some prosepcts who are as yet unproven and too much weight given to belt holders I'm not sure some of these guys should be ranked ahead of the likes of Takam, Stiverne, Jennings or Chagaev and I wouldn't say one or 2 of them are even neccesarily ready to fight a fighter of that calibre at fringe level, let alone beat them

Heck, there's a thread asking who is the top heavyweight right now (started by boxrecs no1 boxing expert) that lists these relative novice pro's and doesn't even have Povetkin as an option, despite the fact he'd wipe the effing floor with half of them

That's correct, I wouldn't even be that surprised if Povetkin beats Fury. Klitschko just wanted to beat Fury from a distance, but that's impossible against a guy with a longer reach. Wlad just didn't fight smart.

1. Wilder

Purely on ability

1. Ortiz
2. Fury
3. Wlad
4. Haye
5. Pov
6. Joshua

asdfjkl wrote:

davie wrote:

asdfjkl wrote: Wilder isn't top 4 either, Teper isn't that good either, Stiverne same story. But it's computer based, it's based on numbers. Glazkov had several very lucky wins, so the computer ranked him high and martin koed him in three rounds, so it makes sense that the computer ranks him this high. The computer can't see the difference between a lucky win, or a dominating win.

I wasn't critisising the computer based ranking, I'm fully aware of their short comings.

I'm criticising the inane chat in here by supposed boxing fans who should know better. In the this case the computer based rankings are whupping their asses because anyone who ranks Joshua, Martin or Parker ahead of say Pulev is jumping the gun
Too much hype surrounding some prosepcts who are as yet unproven and too much weight given to belt holders I'm not sure some of these guys should be ranked ahead of the likes of Takam, Stiverne, Jennings or Chagaev and I wouldn't say one or 2 of them are even neccesarily ready to fight a fighter of that calibre at fringe level, let alone beat them

Heck, there's a thread asking who is the top heavyweight right now (started by boxrecs no1 boxing expert) that lists these relative novice pro's and doesn't even have Povetkin as an option, despite the fact he'd wipe the effing floor with half of them

That's correct, I wouldn't even be that surprised if Povetkin beats Fury. Klitschko just wanted to beat Fury from a distance, but that's impossible against a guy with a longer reach. Wlad just didn't fight smart.

You're overstating the importance of reach - Wach also had a longer reach than Wlad. David Haye beat Valuev from a distance. I agree Wlad fought a stupid fight against Fury though, he will need to be far more aggressive in the rematch.

As far as the most talented fighters at this point in time, my top 10 would be:
1: Fury
2: Klitschko
3: Povetkin
4: Ortiz
5: Wilder
6: Joshua
7: Pulev
8: Parker
9: Chagaev
10: Jennings

jezzamundo wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:

davie wrote:
I wasn't critisising the computer based ranking, I'm fully aware of their short comings.

I'm criticising the inane chat in here by supposed boxing fans who should know better. In the this case the computer based rankings are whupping their asses because anyone who ranks Joshua, Martin or Parker ahead of say Pulev is jumping the gun
Too much hype surrounding some prosepcts who are as yet unproven and too much weight given to belt holders I'm not sure some of these guys should be ranked ahead of the likes of Takam, Stiverne, Jennings or Chagaev and I wouldn't say one or 2 of them are even neccesarily ready to fight a fighter of that calibre at fringe level, let alone beat them

Heck, there's a thread asking who is the top heavyweight right now (started by boxrecs no1 boxing expert) that lists these relative novice pro's and doesn't even have Povetkin as an option, despite the fact he'd wipe the effing floor with half of them

That's correct, I wouldn't even be that surprised if Povetkin beats Fury. Klitschko just wanted to beat Fury from a distance, but that's impossible against a guy with a longer reach. Wlad just didn't fight smart.

You're overstating the importance of reach - Wach also had a longer reach than Wlad. David Haye beat Valuev from a distance. I agree Wlad fought a stupid fight against Fury though, he will need to be far more aggressive in the rematch.

Yea, but Wach is quite slow and Valuev had pain in every bone in his body and according to many people he still was better as David Haye, but appearantly the referees thought differend.

Here's my list, of course subjective.

1. Fury (how long, we will see)
2. Klitschko
3. Povetkin
4. Wilder
5. Ortiz
6. Pulev
7. Haye
8. Martin
9. Chagaev
10. Joshua
11. Jennings
12. Stiverne
13. Parker
14. Browne
15. Ustinov

asdfjkl wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:

asdfjkl wrote: That's correct, I wouldn't even be that surprised if Povetkin beats Fury. Klitschko just wanted to beat Fury from a distance, but that's impossible against a guy with a longer reach. Wlad just didn't fight smart.

You're overstating the importance of reach - Wach also had a longer reach than Wlad. David Haye beat Valuev from a distance. I agree Wlad fought a stupid fight against Fury though, he will need to be far more aggressive in the rematch.

Yea, but Wach is quite slow and Valuev had pain in every bone in his body and according to many people he still was better as David Haye, but appearantly the referees thought differend.

I don't disagree with anything you've said - just took objection to your saying it's impossible to win from a distance against someone with longer reach. I think a more accurate statement would be that it is difficult to win from a distance against someone with a longer reach, decent handspeed and good use of spacing. Wlad has never learnt to punch to the body or fight inside and at 40 it's a bit late to be learning these things. What he can do differently is be more aggressive and be willing to take Fury's jabs to land his own power punches. Neither guy has the strongest chin but Wlad has far greater power, so it's to his advantage if they start trading shots. Wlad certainly has a bit puncher's chance, but considering his age, I'm taking Fury.

jezzamundo wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:
You're overstating the importance of reach - Wach also had a longer reach than Wlad. David Haye beat Valuev from a distance. I agree Wlad fought a stupid fight against Fury though, he will need to be far more aggressive in the rematch.

Yea, but Wach is quite slow and Valuev had pain in every bone in his body and according to many people he still was better as David Haye, but appearantly the referees thought differend.

I don't disagree with anything you've said - just took objection to your saying it's impossible to win from a distance against someone with longer reach. I think a more accurate statement would be that it is difficult to win from a distance against someone with a longer reach, decent handspeed and good use of spacing. Wlad has never learnt to punch to the body or fight inside and at 40 it's a bit late to be learning these things. What he can do differently is be more aggressive and be willing to take Fury's jabs to land his own power punches. Neither guy has the strongest chin but Wlad has far greater power, so it's to his advantage if they start trading shots. Wlad certainly has a bit puncher's chance, but considering his age, I'm taking Fury.

Oke, but you sure need a hell of a lot more skills, Szpilka and Povetkin got a very short reach for top boxers, even Cunningham for example got a 7 inch reach advantage, that's a lot! I think that disadvantage is significant, you really need to be a lot better as your opponend to beat his reach advantage.

Who did Cunningham have a 7 inch reach advantage over? Unfortunately for him, Cunningham was never a good fit for heavyweight because of his average power and chin and then the fact that he thrived on being the longer, rangier guy.

If you know how to use it, a lack of height and short reach can be as much of an advantage as a disadvantage. See Tyson, Frazier, Marciano, Qawi, Toney etc.

jezzamundo wrote:Who did Cunningham have a 7 inch reach advantage over? Unfortunately for him, Cunningham was never a good fit for heavyweight because of his average power and chin and then the fact that he thrived on being the longer, rangier guy.

If you know how to use it, a lack of height and short reach can be as much of an advantage as a disadvantage. See Tyson, Frazier, Marciano, Qawi, Toney etc.

Why wasn't he a good fiy yes he was a blown up cruser but he has only lost one clear time and that's against the heavyweight champ of the world and Steve had him down he's a clear overachiever.

I agree he's an overachiever - he arguably deserved decisions over Adamek, Glazkov and Tarver. That doesn't change my opinion that he is the type of fighter who is least suited to going up in weight because he loses his physical advantages.

asdfjkl wrote:Valuev had pain in every bone in his body

You must say this once a month. I know he has acromegaly and will have complications from that. How severe they are or were I don't know, but I don't remember reading he had pain in every bone or that he was in constant pain.