BoxRec

I noticed that. I think Browne, who I believed had been in their top 10 was also dropped.

The Ring rankings and a quarter will get you a nickel.

They're idiots... De La Hoya controls the magazine... Therefore they tend to think Canelo is a better Middleweight than Golovkin and they rank their fighters ahead of other boxers... Povetkin is a better fighter than Jennings and Ruiz... Who have they beaten???

divvyness

Kalan wrote:They're idiots... De La Hoya controls the magazine... Therefore they tend to think Canelo is a better Middleweight than Golovkin and they rank their fighters ahead of other boxers... Povetkin is a better fighter than Jennings and Ruiz... Who have they beaten???

He's The Ring champion, so of course he'll be higher.

And Ortiz still in it?

Ridiculous, sad to see, I think Povetkin deserves even a hell of a lot more as 35m, I think it's closer near 80m actually.

If he's cleared by the WBC he'll be put back in. No big deal.

BTW if it's run by De La Hoya why is Pulev above Ortiz. I'd swap him and Ortiz around.

Killer Blow wrote:If he's cleared by the WBC he'll be put back in. No big deal.

BTW if it's run by De La Hoya why is Pulev above Ortiz. I'd swap him and Ortiz around.

Sometimes you get a boxer under contract so you can put him on the shelf... re: Al Haymon...

But I think De La Hoya is just not interested in Ortiz... He's a great fighter and he should be pushing him like crazy... I sure as Hell would be.

Kalan wrote:

Killer Blow wrote:If he's cleared by the WBC he'll be put back in. No big deal.

BTW if it's run by De La Hoya why is Pulev above Ortiz. I'd swap him and Ortiz around.

Sometimes you get a boxer under contract so you can put him on the shelf... re: Al Haymon...

But I think De La Hoya is just not interested in Ortiz... He's a great fighter and he should be pushing him like crazy... I sure as Hell would be.

Ortiz is a great fighter, but he is as good of a draw as Lara. Good HW draws duck Ortiz, so DLH can't make any money pushing him.

Also, for some reason WBC. IBF and WBO don't have Ortiz in top 15. Absolutely ridiculous!

He's the wba regular/ interim champion. None of the orgs rate belt holders from other divisions.

Killer Blow wrote:If he's cleared by the WBC he'll be put back in. No big deal.

BTW if it's run by De La Hoya why is Pulev above Ortiz. I'd swap him and Ortiz around.

Why do they assume he's guilty in the first place? They should remove Wilder as well, WADA hasn't finished his latest testresults yet either.

asdfjkl wrote:

Killer Blow wrote:If he's cleared by the WBC he'll be put back in. No big deal.

BTW if it's run by De La Hoya why is Pulev above Ortiz. I'd swap him and Ortiz around.

Why do they assume he's guilty in the first place? They should remove Wilder as well, WADA hasn't finished his latest testresults yet either.

Anyone who thinks Povetkin didn't cheat is a fool, no exceptions. Even an untrained dog could work it out.

Killer Blow wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:

Killer Blow wrote:If he's cleared by the WBC he'll be put back in. No big deal.

BTW if it's run by De La Hoya why is Pulev above Ortiz. I'd swap him and Ortiz around.

Why do they assume he's guilty in the first place? They should remove Wilder as well, WADA hasn't finished his latest testresults yet either.

Anyone who thinks Povetkin didn't cheat is a fool, no exceptions. Even an untrained dog could work it out.

Guilty of what though? The stuff he was taking had only been banned for a few months. And only one test in five detected it, in tiny amounts.

Gnome wrote:

Killer Blow wrote:

asdfjkl wrote: Why do they assume he's guilty in the first place? They should remove Wilder as well, WADA hasn't finished his latest testresults yet either.

Anyone who thinks Povetkin didn't cheat is a fool, no exceptions. Even an untrained dog could work it out.

Guilty of what though? The stuff he was taking had only been banned for a few months. And only one test in five detected it, in tiny amounts.

He's innocent, I guess killer blow is just a troll.

Killer Blow wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:

Killer Blow wrote:If he's cleared by the WBC he'll be put back in. No big deal.

BTW if it's run by De La Hoya why is Pulev above Ortiz. I'd swap him and Ortiz around.

Why do they assume he's guilty in the first place? They should remove Wilder as well, WADA hasn't finished his latest testresults yet either.

Anyone who thinks Povetkin didn't cheat is a fool, no exceptions. Even an untrained dog could work it out.

Anyone who thinks that Wilder, Klitchko, Fury, Joshua, etc. don't cheat is a fool.

boxing_rocks wrote:

Killer Blow wrote:

asdfjkl wrote: Why do they assume he's guilty in the first place? They should remove Wilder as well, WADA hasn't finished his latest testresults yet either.

Anyone who thinks Povetkin didn't cheat is a fool, no exceptions. Even an untrained dog could work it out.

Anyone who thinks that Wilder, Klitchko, Fury, Joshua, etc. don't cheat is a fool.

I never said they didn't. But I don't believe that all heavyweights dope. Boxing at least has some half decent testing unlike tennis, previously cycling etc.

Killer Blow wrote:

boxing_rocks wrote:

Killer Blow wrote:
Anyone who thinks Povetkin didn't cheat is a fool, no exceptions. Even an untrained dog could work it out.

Anyone who thinks that Wilder, Klitchko, Fury, Joshua, etc. don't cheat is a fool.

I never said they didn't. But I don't believe that all heavyweights dope. Boxing at least has some half decent testing unlike tennis, previously cycling etc.

What do you mean with previously cycling? As far as I know they still dope like crazy, there are just a few Americans less in the tour compared to the past.

asdfjkl wrote:

Killer Blow wrote:

boxing_rocks wrote:
Anyone who thinks that Wilder, Klitchko, Fury, Joshua, etc. don't cheat is a fool.

I never said they didn't. But I don't believe that all heavyweights dope. Boxing at least has some half decent testing unlike tennis, previously cycling etc.

What do you mean with previously cycling? As far as I know they still dope like crazy, there are just a few Americans less in the tour compared to the past.

A lot less doping in cycling now than compared to the 90s.
The sport invested heavily in testing following all the post Lance negative publicity.

There's a cloud over certain cyclists but it's only because how bad it once was that especially French media think every Tour winner must be on drugs. ( the treatment of Froome last year was absolutely shocking).

PredatorHayds wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:

Killer Blow wrote:
I never said they didn't. But I don't believe that all heavyweights dope. Boxing at least has some half decent testing unlike tennis, previously cycling etc.

What do you mean with previously cycling? As far as I know they still dope like crazy, there are just a few Americans less in the tour compared to the past.

A lot less doping in cycling now than compared to the 90s.
The sport invested heavily in testing following all the post Lance negative publicity.

There's a cloud over certain cyclists but it's only because how bad it once was that especially French media think every Tour winner must be on drugs. ( the treatment of Froome last year was absolutely shocking).

That's what they said in the 90s as well... A friend of mine loves cycling and he says everybody dopes.
That guy actually completed multiple universitary studies and actually looks for the bloodvalues of those cyclists and predicts the cycling results looking at those bloodvalues. Last week a the woman championships of cycling in French was holded, the winner was a 49 year old! woman (called Edwige Pitel if you'd like to google it) And if you think that's odd, in 2011 there was a 52 year old woman who won the French national cycling road race (and she's married with a doctor who bought epo "for personal use")!

Now I don't know much about cycling, but I'm quite confident it's quite full of doping right now as well.


That friend of mine told me about all kind of blood values, I can't remember the name of the substance he was talking about, but he told me that a normal value for it was about 10 till 20 ish for a normal men, 100% healthy men in the top of the strenght in their lifes can have values around 25 ish.
Now higher values of it is possible, however naturally very unlikely. Above 50 is considered as a positive test and he's telling me that several cyclists have a value around 48 for several years in a row now around big matches, exactly just below the positive test value. Which is, according to him, completely impossible in a natural way, however not considered as a positive test at this moment.

He told me that in Spain, a judge decided every evidence around bloodvalues of Spanish athletes and athletes that "work" for Spanish clubs should be destroyed, and so it happened. A Real Madrid player, or a Barcelona player, could have cheated whatever he wanted it's impossible now to prove he did (on the other side, he can't prove himself to be innocent any more either).

Mark Cavendish was the most drug tested athlete in the world consistently and has never failed a drug test.

Chris Froome releases all his data for training sessions and races so you can see there's no serious spikes in his results and times.

I follow cycling there's is no one of that age group competing at the highest level.

PredatorHayds wrote:Mark Cavendish was the most drug tested athlete in the world consistently and has never failed a drug test.

Chris Froome releases all his data for training sessions and races so you can see there's no serious spikes in his results and times.

I follow cycling there's is no one of that age group competing at the highest level.

Well that's the funny thing, that friend of mine says that pretty much every sporter dopes. Even formula 1 drivers and such. Next to that he even states that cycling is much more clean as pretty much any other sport, because they get tested much more and the rewards aren't as high as in some other sports. At the same time he states pretty much everybody uses as much as they can without crossing lines. And TBH, it took ages before Armstrong finally got caught.