BoxRec

BWH Rankings as of 28 May 2016:

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

Topic A - How are the rankings affected by Lucas Browne being stripped of his WBA regular belt after testing positive for a banned substance?

My vote: abstain (while I think Browne is innocent, it's possible I am wrong, so I'd rather not make a vote)

Topic B - How are the rankings affected by Anthony Joshua's TKO7 win over Dominic Breazeale?

My vote: Joshua to #5

Topic C - How are the rankings affected by Joseph Parker's TKO4 win over Solomon Haumono?

My vote: Parker to #6

Topic D - How are the rankings affected by Deontay Wilder's RTD8 win over Chris Arreola?

My vote: Wilder remains at #3


Note: This topic is for voting on the rankings of Browne, Joshua, Breazeale, Parker, Haumono, Wilder and Arreola. Posting your own top 15 will not count as a vote. Please cast your vote in the manner that I have done above.

Browne abstain (not sure if he's guilty or not, I have a reasonable doubt)

Joshua to #3

Parker to #6

Wilder drops to #4 for weak opposition


Wilder fought a shot fighter with recent stoppage losses who hasn't had a decent win in many years and has been struggling against clubfighters. Joshua has been knocking out young, previously undefeated opponents (Whyte, Martin, Braezaele, etc). Joshua should be ahead of Wilder.

Joshua stay 6 (he beat nobody)

My votes for all are stay the same. None of the wins are very impressive, and I have my doubts about Browne.

Browne - Abstain
Joshua - Down to No. 7
Parker - Up to No. 6
Wilder - Stays at No. 3
The rest - No change


Too many Joshua jock sniffers on here.

Wilder....No Change
Browne....No Change
Joshua.....Down to #7
Parker......Up To #6

hampion: Tyson Fury
1. Wladimir Klitschko
2. Anthony Joshua
3. Alexander Povetkin
4. Luis Ortiz
5. Joseph Parker
6. Deontay Wilder
7. Kubrat Pulev
8. Carlos Takam
9. Jun Long Zhang
10. David Haye
11. Jarrell Miller
12. Artur Szpilka
13. Andy Ruiz jr.
15. Shannon Briggs

I know you like to protect barely active cherrypickers that don't deserve a spot in this list, but I think this is what the current top 15 ish is or should be.

asdfjkl wrote:hampion: Tyson Fury
1. Wladimir Klitschko
2. Anthony Joshua
3. Alexander Povetkin
4. Luis Ortiz
5. Joseph Parker
6. Deontay Wilder
7. Kubrat Pulev
8. Carlos Takam
9. Jun Long Zhang
10. David Haye
11. Jarrell Miller
12. Artur Szpilka
13. Andy Ruiz jr.
15. Shannon Briggs

I know you like to protect barely active cherrypickers that don't deserve a spot in this list, but I think this is what the current top 15 ish is or should be.

You have no 14. Also I think number 15 is a typo.
In fact maybe we should just stick to the OP list.

Note: This topic is for voting on the rankings of Browne, Joshua, Breazeale, Parker, Haumono, Wilder and Arreola. Posting your own top 15 will not count as a vote. Please cast your vote in the manner that I have done above.

asdfjkl wrote:hampion: Tyson Fury
1. Wladimir Klitschko
2. Anthony Joshua
3. Alexander Povetkin
4. Luis Ortiz
5. Joseph Parker
6. Deontay Wilder
7. Kubrat Pulev
8. Carlos Takam
9. Jun Long Zhang
10. David Haye
11. Jarrell Miller
12. Artur Szpilka
13. Andy Ruiz jr.
15. Shannon Briggs

I know you like to protect barely active cherrypickers that don't deserve a spot in this list, but I think this is what the current top 15 ish is or should be.

I don't 'like to' do anything in these topics - I simply tally the votes. If a fighter is inactive for a year and does not have a scheduled fight or injury, they are dropped from the rankings. I don't protect anyone, everyone in the current top 15 has been active, and had their rating voted on, in the last year. Majority rules, no exceptions. The best thing you can do, is vote properly, and take part in discussion to justify your votes and try to convince others to see things your way.

No changes on any of the fighters mentioned

No changes

Browne - out
The rest: no changes

jezzamundo wrote: I don't 'like to' do anything in these topics - I simply tally the votes. Majority rules, no exceptions. The best thing you can do, is vote properly, and take part in discussion to justify your votes and try to convince others to see things your way.

- OK then, here goes:

A: Vote the underrated Browne up to 9 to displace Glazkov downwards and hopefully outwards. I could care less about these specious drug testing results of traces of common over the counter products. Browne may be slow, but he's shown durability, endurance, and good technique and balance for a guy relatively new in boxing.

B: I vote Josh to 3, he's proving himself to be that good with even a bit of awe. No change for Breazeale.

C: I vote Parker into a tie with Josh at 3. These guys are part and parcel of a new world order in the division and will be fighting for their primacy next year. No change for Haumano.

D: I vote Wilder to 9 to tie with Takam. If a shot Arreola's ugly mug can knock out Wilder's arm for 6 months, love to see how he responds to a team who won't conveniently pull Takam out while Takam is wearing down Wilder. No change for Arreola.

Now, as to your above comments, you do more than simply tally the votes, you also chose the methodology used to record the results. And NO, this is not majority rules, because the majority of the more than 100 boxrec regular type posters eligible to vote have cast an nonparticipatory out vote for the entire lot of your poll and the fighters.

I only became interested in the poll when various questions were asked like why there were so many ties, and how come so and so is still in the poll when he's been inactive, ect. While you answered some well, others you did not. This is a tiny sample of votes where using the median to chose a single number limited to 15 places ignores the question of what you are asking, "How these fighters should be ranked."

The proper way would be like golf where the numbers are totaled and lowest score wins, 2nd lowest total gets #2, and so on and so forth. You'd eliminate most all ties and routine complaints as to why 3 or 4 superior fighters are ranked below their obvious inferiors.

If only 3 vote on a fighter, and vote 1,2, and 15, you pick the median 2 which is hardly representative of what 33% of the voters think. Conversely, if they vote 1, out, and out, your median would produce an out result which ignores 33% of your voters again. Majority rules in political democracies are highly limited in wielding power. They can't just pulp the minority into fertilizer, otherwise we'd have nothing but constant power grabs and civil war as in the middle east.

This is a poll that should be for ranking fighters, not ascribing your limited notions of majority rules and a statistical tool of median that was never meant to be used in such a fashion. Not trying to be harsh or personal, but just point out what other members have previously pointed out. Even an average would be better than a median but you get decimal points that madden the populace that seeks whole numbers to understand a simple ranking concept.

I voted as proper as I could, discussed, and made my case. In the end, no big deal, it's just a silly poll that changes every few fights, but Methodology Matters.

I agree with the top 7 but the rest is questionable. Glazkov definitely shouldn't be that high.

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:

jezzamundo wrote: I don't 'like to' do anything in these topics - I simply tally the votes. Majority rules, no exceptions. The best thing you can do, is vote properly, and take part in discussion to justify your votes and try to convince others to see things your way.

- OK then, here goes:

A: Vote the underrated Browne up to 9 to displace Glazkov downwards and hopefully outwards. I could care less about these specious drug testing results of traces of common over the counter products. Browne may be slow, but he's shown durability, endurance, and good technique and balance for a guy relatively new in boxing.

B: I vote Josh to 3, he's proving himself to be that good with even a bit of awe. No change for Breazeale.

C: I vote Parker into a tie with Josh at 3. These guys are part and parcel of a new world order in the division and will be fighting for their primacy next year. No change for Haumano.

D: I vote Wilder to 9 to tie with Takam. If a shot Arreola's ugly mug can knock out Wilder's arm for 6 months, love to see how he responds to a team who won't conveniently pull Takam out while Takam is wearing down Wilder. No change for Arreola.

Now, as to your above comments, you do more than simply tally the votes, you also chose the methodology used to record the results. And NO, this is not majority rules, because the majority of the more than 100 boxrec regular type posters eligible to vote have cast an nonparticipatory out vote for the entire lot of your poll and the fighters.

I only became interested in the poll when various questions were asked like why there were so many ties, and how come so and so is still in the poll when he's been inactive, ect. While you answered some well, others you did not. This is a tiny sample of votes where using the median to chose a single number limited to 15 places ignores the question of what you are asking, "How these fighters should be ranked."

The proper way would be like golf where the numbers are totaled and lowest score wins, 2nd lowest total gets #2, and so on and so forth. You'd eliminate most all ties and routine complaints as to why 3 or 4 superior fighters are ranked below their obvious inferiors.

If only 3 vote on a fighter, and vote 1,2, and 15, you pick the median 2 which is hardly representative of what 33% of the voters think. Conversely, if they vote 1, out, and out, your median would produce an out result which ignores 33% of your voters again. Majority rules in political democracies are highly limited in wielding power. They can't just pulp the minority into fertilizer, otherwise we'd have nothing but constant power grabs and civil war as in the middle east.

This is a poll that should be for ranking fighters, not ascribing your limited notions of majority rules and a statistical tool of median that was never meant to be used in such a fashion. Not trying to be harsh or personal, but just point out what other members have previously pointed out. Even an average would be better than a median but you get decimal points that madden the populace that seeks whole numbers to understand a simple ranking concept.

I voted as proper as I could, discussed, and made my case. In the end, no big deal, it's just a silly poll that changes every few fights, but Methodology Matters.

Thank you for voting properly.

We've been over this. I understand your point of view, but I disagree with it. Using average would be a less fair way to tally votes and give more power to minority and outlandish opinions, while also making the poll more subject to manipulation. The current system works very well. When I say majority rules, obviously I mean the majority of people who make a proper vote, not the whole forum. What I agree with heartily is that methodology matters - even with a relatively small sample size (I generally get 10-15 votes per topic) - median is the fairest way to tally these votes. Please understand that I completely understand what you've posted, but I believe I am in the right and you are misguided. Again, thank you for voting.

Killer Blow wrote:I agree with the top 7 but the rest is questionable. Glazkov definitely shouldn't be that high.

That's the anoying thing, they received that rank based on their qualities of years ago and new talents don't, or barely, receive any chance to get in. It took ages before AJ finally got in for example and people still rank him below Wilder?! How can that be possible? I think even 50 year olds like Billy Wright can beat multiple opponends in this list. Jun Long Zhang would also win against all the lower ranked guys.

asdfjkl wrote:

Killer Blow wrote:I agree with the top 7 but the rest is questionable. Glazkov definitely shouldn't be that high.

That's the anoying thing, they received that rank based on their qualities of years ago and new talents don't, or barely, receive any chance to get in. It took ages before AJ finally got in for example and people still rank him below Wilder?! How can that be possible? I think even 50 year olds like Billy Wright can beat multiple opponends in this list. Jun Long Zhang would also win against all the lower ranked guys.

If an unranked fighter you think is deserving of a top 15 spot has recently had a fight, mention it in a post. someone seconds your opinion, I will create a new topic for itfor it. I did this for a recent Haye fight and the majority voted to keep him out.

jezzamundo wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:

Killer Blow wrote:I agree with the top 7 but the rest is questionable. Glazkov definitely shouldn't be that high.

That's the anoying thing, they received that rank based on their qualities of years ago and new talents don't, or barely, receive any chance to get in. It took ages before AJ finally got in for example and people still rank him below Wilder?! How can that be possible? I think even 50 year olds like Billy Wright can beat multiple opponends in this list. Jun Long Zhang would also win against all the lower ranked guys.

If an unranked fighter you think is deserving of a top 15 spot has recently had a fight, mention it in a post. someone seconds your opinion, I will create a new topic for itfor it. I did this for a recent Haye fight and the majority voted to keep him out.

Jun Long Zhang will fight soon, in case you're interested.

asdfjkl wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:

asdfjkl wrote: That's the anoying thing, they received that rank based on their qualities of years ago and new talents don't, or barely, receive any chance to get in. It took ages before AJ finally got in for example and people still rank him below Wilder?! How can that be possible? I think even 50 year olds like Billy Wright can beat multiple opponends in this list. Jun Long Zhang would also win against all the lower ranked guys.

If an unranked fighter you think is deserving of a top 15 spot has recently had a fight, mention it in a post. someone seconds your opinion, I will create a new topic for itfor it. I did this for a recent Haye fight and the majority voted to keep him out.

Jun Long Zhang will fight soon, in case you're interested.

Jun Long Zhang hasn't fought anyone half decent yet though.

asdfjkl wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:

asdfjkl wrote: That's the anoying thing, they received that rank based on their qualities of years ago and new talents don't, or barely, receive any chance to get in. It took ages before AJ finally got in for example and people still rank him below Wilder?! How can that be possible? I think even 50 year olds like Billy Wright can beat multiple opponends in this list. Jun Long Zhang would also win against all the lower ranked guys.

If an unranked fighter you think is deserving of a top 15 spot has recently had a fight, mention it in a post. someone seconds your opinion, I will create a new topic for itfor it. I did this for a recent Haye fight and the majority voted to keep him out.

Jun Long Zhang will fight soon, in case you're interested.

I disagree that he deserves a rank, so unless he beats someone of note, I wouldn't make a topic for him, but if a second person asks for a topic I will do it.

Killer Blow wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:
If an unranked fighter you think is deserving of a top 15 spot has recently had a fight, mention it in a post. someone seconds your opinion, I will create a new topic for itfor it. I did this for a recent Haye fight and the majority voted to keep him out.

Jun Long Zhang will fight soon, in case you're interested.

Jun Long Zhang hasn't fought anyone half decent yet though.

True, but all guys he has fought have been KOed in (far) less time as when they fought Deontay Wilder for example, or equal to AJ, next to that, most of the bottom of this list have only lost against good competition.

Tyrone Spong will also fight on 6 august I heard. I don't know who his next opponend will become, but I expect a KO in the first round.

asdfjkl wrote:

Killer Blow wrote:

asdfjkl wrote: Jun Long Zhang will fight soon, in case you're interested.

Jun Long Zhang hasn't fought anyone half decent yet though.

True, but all guys he has fought have been KOed in (far) less time as when they fought Deontay Wilder for example, or equal to AJ, next to that, most of the bottom of this list have only lost against good competition.

Tyrone Spong will also fight on 6 august I heard. I don't know who his next opponend will become, but I expect a KO in the first round.

I watched a bit of him before, not very impressive, and a very thin record. I doubt he'll do anything at the top level.

asdfjkl wrote:

Killer Blow wrote:

asdfjkl wrote: Jun Long Zhang will fight soon, in case you're interested.

Jun Long Zhang hasn't fought anyone half decent yet though.

True, but all guys he has fought have been KOed in (far) less time as when they fought Deontay Wilder for example, or equal to AJ, next to that, most of the bottom of this list have only lost against good competition.

Tyrone Spong will also fight on 6 august I heard. I don't know who his next opponend will become, but I expect a KO in the first round.

How quickly a boxer stops their opponents is a very poor measure of their quality/ability. You'd expect Earnie Shavers to stop most of Larry Holmes's opponents in less rounds, but he was far inferior overall.

www.premierboxingorganisation.com/heavyweight-200

For the benifit of asdfgh this tells you who has beaten who the numbers denote the pre fight ranking of the opponent.

You will see the top 15 have fought better opponents than 16-30, you will see fighters past their best with a few losses in the last few.

Your man has fought one top 100 opponent, he was ranked 35 at cruiserweight at the time, so probably not even the best on his record.

I don't think the forum rankings are too bad but if you are going to go on form there is not too much wrong. Fighters like Joshua and probably David Haye are better, subjectively you can move them up objectively I am not sure you can make a case. Haye in particular went a long time without a decent win no-one objectively has him in the top 15.

My vote on all topics. No change.

I think that Browne got cheated out of "belt".

The wins that Parker Joshua and Wilder got tell nothing about how they should be ranked at the top.

Arreola is way over the hill.

Haumono and Breazeale are not the caliber of fighter that any top 10 boxer should be fighting.