BoxRec

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.

Parker to #8, Takam to #15.

Parker - Up to No. 6
Takam - Down to No. 9


Parker should be above Joshua. Takam is much better than anyone that Joshua has beaten.

Parker 9
Takam 13

- Parker to # 3 and Takam to #9.

Takam is better than the Don King dehydrated Stiverne and the overrated Jennings, both who've done nothing since.

Parker to #8, Takam to #15.

Parker 6
Takam 11

Parker to #7, Takam to #9.

I agree.

Takam remains at #8
Parker up to #9

I had a draw on my scorecard.

Horse wrote:Parker - Up to No. 6
Takam - Down to No. 9


Parker should be above Joshua. Takam is much better than anyone that Joshua has beaten.

+1

Bump, more votes please.

Parker 7
Takam 9

Votes have been tallied, Parker rises to #7, Takam slips to #9.

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

Will we have a vote an this:

""As per the WBA doping rules, the result of Ruslan Chagaev v Lucas Browne shall be changed to a NC (no contest)," Mendoza exclusively told World Boxing News."

http://www.worldboxingnews.net/2016/05/ ... no-contest

Anthony Joshua is far too unproven to be that high.

People get far too excited about power.

Horse wrote:Anthony Joshua is far too unproven to be that high.

People get far too excited about power.

Yes they do. I'm holding off proclaiming he's the next real champ until I see him in with real top 10 oponents

tiny_acres wrote:

Horse wrote:Anthony Joshua is far too unproven to be that high.

People get far too excited about power.

Yes they do. I'm holding off proclaiming he's the next real champ until I see him in with real top 10 oponents

It's easy to overrate young undefeated prospects with power. I certainly have been guilty of that. But I think he deserves a high ranking not only because of power but also because he's much more active than almost every other HW.

Tony1244 wrote:It's easy to overrate young undefeated prospects with power. I certainly have been guilty of that. But I think he deserves a high ranking not only because of power but also because he's much more active than almost every other HW.

Active against chumps.

Not even proven at domestic level yet.

Horse wrote:

Tony1244 wrote:It's easy to overrate young undefeated prospects with power. I certainly have been guilty of that. But I think he deserves a high ranking not only because of power but also because he's much more active than almost every other HW.

Active against chumps.

Not even proven at domestic level yet.

In AJ's defense his last 3 opponents were undefeated albeit not world beaters. Beating Johnson doesn't mean much but KOing him in 2 is impressive IMO. But we won't know how good Joshua he is until he fights the winners of Fury-Wlad 2, Wilder-Povetkin, Haye, Parker or Pulev. Hopefully we'll know in the next year or so.

Tony1244 wrote:In AJ's defense his last 3 opponents were undefeated albeit not world beaters. Beating Johnson doesn't mean much but KOing him in 2 is impressive IMO. But we won't know how good Joshua he is until he fights the winners of Fury-Wlad 2, Wilder-Povetkin, Haye, Parker or Pulev. Hopefully we'll know in the next year or so.

He doesn't even have to fight anyone that good.

Anyone in the top 20 would be great.

Takam's total (rounded) averages to 10.54

9+9+9+9+9+9+8+11+13+15+15 = 116

Takam should be 10 or 11, not 9.

The rankings are based on median (i.e. the middle number when there is an odd number of votes and the average of the two middle numbers when there is an even number of votes).

Since there were 11 votes, the sixth number will be the median, and in this case the sixth number is 9.

Freedom2013 wrote:Takam's total (rounded) averages to 10.54

9+9+9+9+9+9+8+11+13+15+15 = 116

Takam should be 10 or 11, not 9.

What Crusader said. By calculating the rankings by the median vote, the majority always rules with no exceptions. If I used the mean or average vote as you suggested, Takam would be ranked #11, despite the fact that 7 out of the 11 voters want him ranked 9 or higher, which would be very unfair. Using the median is fairer and less subject to manipulation by people making outlandish votes.

Belanio wrote:Will we have a vote an this:

""As per the WBA doping rules, the result of Ruslan Chagaev v Lucas Browne shall be changed to a NC (no contest)," Mendoza exclusively told World Boxing News."

http://www.worldboxingnews.net/2016/05/ ... no-contest

The last time this happened was when Erkan Teper tested positive after his win over David Price. Teper was removed from the rankings, although the result was never overturned. In this case, the result is going to be (or already has been?) overturned, so I think the only fair thing to do is remove Browne from the rankings. My personal belief is that Browne was drugged without his knowing, but I think I need to put that aside and go with the official ruling.

jezzamundo wrote:The last time this happened was when Erkan Teper tested positive after his win over David Price. Teper was removed from the rankings, although the result was never overturned. In this case, the result is going to be (or already has been?) overturned, so I think the only fair thing to do is remove Browne from the rankings. My personal belief is that Browne was drugged without his knowing, but I think I need to put that aside and go with the official ruling.

We should vote on it.