BoxRec

BWH Rankings as of 12 March 2017

Champion: VACANT
1. Wladimir Klitschko
2. Alexander Povetkin
3. Anthony Joshua
4. Deontay Wilder
5. Luis Ortiz
6. Kubrat Pulev
7. Joseph Parker
8. Carlos Takam
9. Andy Ruiz
10. Dillian Whyte
11. Dereck Chisora
12. Bermane Stiverne
13. Christian Hammer
14. VACANT
15. VACANT

Topic A - Who should fill the vacant #14 and #15 spots? You must nominate two fighters who had their last contests at heavyweight in the past 12 months. Indicate the order of your preferences with a 1. and 2.

My vote:

1. Mariusz Wach
2. Dominic Breazeale

Note: Please cast your vote in the manner that I have done above. To fill a vacant position, a fighter must be nominated in over 50% of the votes. Posting your own top 15 will not count as a vote.

1. Mariusz Wach
2. Hughie Fury

1. Dominic Breazeale
2. Hughie Fury

Looking through the rankings, I have to lol at suggestions that the quality of the division has significantly improved. Bellew doesn't get ranked for me, as I believe that he beat Haye only because the latter was effectively one-legged and in a position where many fighters in the division would beat him. Bellew has no HW fights apart from that.

Breazeale goes in based on his stoppage Of Ugonoh, as well as his come from behind win over Mansour and gritty showing vs AJ. I rank Hughie because he dominated Kassi when the latter was coming off what I think arguably should've been wins over Arreola (a robbery) and Breazeale (a very close fight). Hughie also outclassed fringe contender Rudenko, who had a very competitive fight with Lucas Browne shortly before.

crusader wrote:Looking through the rankings, I have to lol at suggestions that the quality of the division has significantly improved.

The division is weak as a cream fed kitten right now.

1.Duhaupas
2.Breazeale

14. Tony Bellew
15. Hughes Fury

1. Dominic Breazeale - Credit for the last win
2. Hughie Fury - Credit for the upcoming fight

1. Charles Martin
2. Malik Scott

Belanio wrote:1. Charles Martin
2. Malik Scott

LOL!

Rob3_142 wrote:

Belanio wrote:1. Charles Martin
2. Malik Scott

LOL!

Only one yank in the top 15? Only mediocre candidates für #14 and #15? --> So, I try to spread the fun to the USA, they don't have anything else to laugh.

It's a really difficult one, there is some very questionable people in the top 30. I will opt for;

14. Breazeale
15. Bellew

They're the only guys who have decent wins in the last few months, who could realistically be included in the top 15. I know there will be those who say Haye was injured, but aside from the injury, I thought Bellew was acquitting himself well, and surprising a lot of us, especially prior to the achilles injury.

Belanio wrote:

Rob3_142 wrote:

Belanio wrote:1. Charles Martin
2. Malik Scott

LOL!

Only one yank in the top 15? Only mediocre candidates für #14 and #15? --> So, I try to spread the fun to the USA, they don't have anything else to laugh.

Why, how many should there be in the top 15? There's as many as there is good candidates, and that is not many.

First order of business:

1. Bellew
2. Breazeale

Now, as to your justications for the limitations of your choice of stats, ie your following claims:

jezzamundo wrote: Using median is a fairer and more representative method of tallying votes as it ensures that the majority rules and all votes are worth the same. Using the mean of a points based system is more open to manipulation, as outlying votes have a greater impact than others. As we've discussed this before, I know you understand all of the above, but for the benefit of anyone who does understand how it works, here is an example below:

Fighter A receives votes of: 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 10, 11, 11, 11, 12 and 13.
Using the existing method of taking the median (the middle number), Fighter A will be ranked #10.
Using the mean, Fighter A will be ranked #9.

Looking at these results, we can see than 7 out of 11 voters believed that Fighter A should be ranked below the fighter in the #9 position. Using the median means that the majority always rules, with no exceptions. Using the mean, 4 voters overrule the other 7, in part due to the person who wanted Fighter A ranked #1. It's quite possible that this person actually thought Fighter A should really be ranked #9, but voted him to a higher position because he knew it would influence the final result in his favour. The same could happen in reverse, with people voting fighters 'out' just to lower their mean rank in the direction they want. Using median eliminates this problem.

As for tied votes - this has happened a fair bit in recent times and I clearly needed a solution, so I decided to implement the rule that in the case of a tie, the fighter ranked higher before the topics retains his place, while the other slots in one position below.

- You seem to have a problem with outlier votes and your example is conveniently arranged to prove your your system chosen. OK, but the real stats genii that count for anything are in science or big business and they use a full complement of tools to analyze various questions or data comparisons. The biggest stat business is US presidential election polls, at least a billion buck$ spread every 4 years by dozens, perhaps a hundred or more competing polls purporting to show the projected results.

They failed massively in 2016 and also in 2000, and most ignominiously in the 1948 election:



Your logic reminds of the black bean/white bean choice most famous in my parts when Mexicans forced a pack of subdued Texas Adventurers to reach into a jar while blindfolded filled with 3/5ths black bean and 2/5ths white beans equal to their numbers to see who of the 3/5ths would be executed and who of the 2/5ths would be imprisoned in the misery of a Mexican jail before getting kicked out old and sick in rags to roam the streets with the dogs. The median would be in the black beans and the majority would be black beans. The ranking is death or misery and neither influence the other. However, using an average color of the beans would yield a shade of gray representing the full range of spectrum, throwing the Mexican authorities in a quandary because that's not the result they were looking for, so they keep their limited system. You keep yours and further subjectivize it to your purpose by use of your self selected tie breaker vote when I pointed out averaging the ranking as already ordered and dividing by the number of votes gives you more than just a single whole number your system uses, but additional mathematically sound fractional numbers that would almost always break those ties objectively.

Now, since your ranking system does not require any statistical calculations but rather ordering our ranking numbers and picking the middle, at least you should provide every new ordered set of rankings with your median highlighted with any explanation such as your example provided as why 9 was selected when it does not appear in your example. I can project your logic, but I'd like you to state it for clarification.

At the end of the day, it's your poll and you can do with it as you will, but I see it closer to the black bean/white bean choice the Mexicans use than an objective ranking system. David Bellew beat the #10 boxrec ranked heavy who was also ranked #7 by Ring, challenged the highly ranked WBC heavy champ as well, yet was not submitted to us in your previous update, a major oversight in my view, and now you've guided him into the 14/15 supplementary choices? As I mentioned, by accumulated boxrec points he's over Joshua and was mentioned as perhaps briefly losing some of those points when upgraded to the boxrec heavy rankings where he was reported as 2nd ranked before being demoted back to cruiser where presumably he'd still like to fight WBC guy.

Somewhere in the chaos of ranking top 10 fighters is the truth, but after so many thousands of years of mathematics developments and 45 US presidential elections, we are still in the dark ages regarding both disciplines with no ending point in sight.

Over and out

14- Erkham Teper
15- Johan Duhaupas

Bellew beat a man with one leg try and factor that. These are subjective rankings. Also he is a cruiserweight. The fight with Haye was a novelty pay day.

14. Dominic Breazeale
15. Mariusz Wach

Breazeale is awful surviving with a prospect long enough to expose his serious short comings isn't very impressive.

As for my vote (oh dear what a wasteland)
14 Hughie Fury
15 Stays Vacant

BitPlayer wrote:Breazeale is awful surviving with a prospect long enough to expose his serious short comings isn't very impressive.

As for my vote (oh dear what a wasteland)
14 Hughie Fury
15 Stays Vacant

15 Stays vacant

It may well be awful the means of Breazeale's victory, but he still has a much more impressive strong of performances than Hughie.

Rob3_142 wrote:

BitPlayer wrote:Breazeale is awful surviving with a prospect long enough to expose his serious short comings isn't very impressive.

As for my vote (oh dear what a wasteland)
14 Hughie Fury
15 Stays Vacant

15 Stays vacant

It may well be awful the means of Breazeale's victory, but he still has a much more impressive strong of performances than Hughie.

Atleast Hughie beat Kassi, but in truth he doesn't deserve it anyway, but he's getting a shot against Parker soon or he's going to be inactive so atleast he will be easy to get rid of.

Hughie Fury has never beaten anyone in the top 70 and yet some of you think he should be in the top 15.

I think Kassi deserved a win over Arreola and very arguably a win over Breazeale right before Hughie beat him; to me he was clearly top 70 going into the Fury fight, although poor judging means that he would've probably been underranked by a computerized system. I also believe that Rudenko is a top 40 fighter, and Hughie outclassed him without breaking a sweat.

Going through the BoxRec rankings prior to voting, it struck me how little quality there is to fill the vacant spots. Hughie isn't exactly the most proven and there are several unrated fighters with good arguments for being ranked higher, but I don't feel like it's an injustice to vote him ahead of people like Duhaupas, Charles Martin, Bellew, and Granat.

Where would Hughie be if Kassi got decisions over Arreola and/or Breazeale? What is the basis for having someone like Zimnoch several spots ahead of Hughie? Within the last year he was KO'd in one by a fighter Rudenko handily beat, and after that he only managed a SD over Marcin Rekowski, who has lost four of his last five and seems to be heading toward punching bag territory.

14 Hughie Fury
15 Stays Vacant

Is this a valid vote? Is this counted?

Lennox wrote:Hughie Fury has never beaten anyone in the top 70 and yet some of you think he should be in the top 15.

Teper never beat anyone without PEDs and was beaten by Hammer. Fury is at least promising.

sorry i know this is not the right voting way, but chisora still there but no duhapuas is shocking
chisora is a glorified gatekeeper like malignaggi and rosado