Boxrec's Top 20 Heavyweights

boxrec is an incomplete system, period. Some of the rankings are idiotic and have been proven to be idiotic. Each boxer goes through a similar process, you identify that process' key points and come up with patterns that have occurred within the past 100 years or so in boxing's history. You can also do this with stylistic match ups, we know 1 style beats another due to patterns, you can also find patterns exclusive to certain divisions such as the user Kev years ago finding that 160lbs was one of the safest divisions to fight in due to the KO ratios. Boxrec does not do that at all. The NBA and NFL does this with it's advanced stats and it's FAR more accurate than any of the old statistics which was incredibly basic. Boxrec is an outdated system as are most sports statistics, there are new advanced statistics which take a completely different look at the way sports look and are coming out with far greater results. Pedvetkin tested positive for Meldonium/Ostarine. His pattern of dominant knock out has been broken and reverted to where it was before PED's, and his own trainer has acknowledged he has declined since that PED suspension. There isn't a system out there that is 100% complete or isn't 'incomplete' in some way or another. However, Boxrec at least uses consistent rules and standard, which is more objective and better than rankings that aren't based on any consistent rules / standards. In regards to those other 'statistics' you're referring to. They are subjected to subjective interpretations. In your following example: You claim that Povetkin's patterns of 'dominant' knockouts reverted to how it was before PED's. However, there are a few problems with this. Firstly, before Povetkin's supposed 'drug test failures', he also had knockout streaks spanning similar number of bouts. Secondly, Povetkin didn't actually KO every opponent in his supposed 'drug test failure' period. I challenge you to go back and watch the Mariusz Wach fight. Thirdly, I can subjectively claim that the reason for Povetkin's 0 knockouts in his last 2 bouts is because his last 2 opponents came to survive, unlike before. Which is a more reasonable explanation since Povetkin didn't really fail any drug test to begin with. So yes, there exists a 'pattern' as you claimed, in the sense that Povetkin managed to KO his opponents that came to fight and the opponents that didn't come to win and came to survive (his last 2 opponents in Christian Hammer and Andriy Rudenko), he couldn't KO them. It's really as simple as that! It's nothing more complicated than that! Ultimately, if a boxer steps into the ring, then from the perspective of OFFICIALLY ranking boxers, we have to assume that the boxer is prepared and ready by default. Otherwise, we have to assume that if the boxer really wasn't ready and prepared, he wouldn't have stepped into the ring in the first place for the bout. So all these excuses about 'drinking problems' and 'no training camp' is irrelevant because the boxer himself decided to step into the ring for the bout, even if those excuses are true. So if he does lose, then it's his fault and no credit should be taken away from the victor. Any criticism over a victory should have no relevance in a ranking system. Since any victory can be criticized SUBJECTIVELY if one tries hard enough. For example, when Lennox Lewis KO'ed Hasim Rahman in the rematch, Rahman was fasting the day before and wasn't in peak physical condition. So should we therefore take credit away from Lewis's victory? Or when Deontay Wilder beat Luis Ortiz, he was old. had high blood pressure and probably wasn't allowed to take his blood pressure medication. So should we take credit away from Wilder's victory? Or when Andre Ward beat Sergey Kovalev. Kovalev supposedly had drinking problems. So should we take credit away from Ward's victory? These things happen! Even Alexander Povetkin himself didn't have much of a training camp and was physically ill the nights he faced Marco Huck and Eddie Chambers. But he still managed to win!

Boxrec uses an artificial intelligence system that uses a consistent and an objective algorithm to rank boxers. That to me is > human ranking based on lack of objectivity and consistency. Those 'anomalies' and 'patterns' are entirely subjective. Thus, they matter very little when OBJECTIVELY ranking boxers. A win is a win. A loss is a loss. And a draw is a draw. Simple as that! If the result is OFFICIALLY accepted and confirmed, then the value of the result remains the same, irrespective of all those other irrelevant factors such as 'patterns' and 'anomalies'. Since any win can be critiqued and belittled if tried hard enough. In a ranking system that is based on numeracy and objectivity, all that matters are results. If a boxer steps into the ring, then it must be assumed that they are prepared and the results based on the outcome of the bout that is pre-determined will count. If you want to SUBJECTIVELY critique a win based on certain factors that requires criticism, you can, but they have no relevance in an objective and a numerical ranking system. And proof / evidence must be provided for the criticism in order for the criticism to be credible. Duhaupas accepted the fight and he lost. Ergo, Povetkin would be credited the same number of points as he was PRE-DETERMINED to gain if he won. Mike Perez accepted the fight and likewise lost. Thus, those two wins (along with his other wins) gave Povetkin the necessary points to be ranked in the top 5. Manuel Charr WAS in the top 10 when Povetkin beat him. So that's all that matters. The same applies to Carlos Takam. Thus, Povetkin did beat boxers in the top 10. Contrary to your claim. And you haven't actually provided solid proof / evidence that Mike Perez was drunk when he fought Povetkin. Therefore, that claim can be dismissed. And what Mike Perez says, is not evidence. Since that could POSSIBLY be a lie or an excuse. I'm referring to irrefutable evidence that he was drunk. As for meldonium. No evidence has still been provided which suggests Povetkin took any meldonium after it was banned. He was cleared and he passed the tests! And there's also no evidence that meldonium enhances an athlete, anymore than legal drugs like caffeine do. boxrec is an incomplete system, period. Some of the rankings are idiotic and have been proven to be idiotic. Each boxer goes through a similar process, you identify that process' key points and come up with patterns that have occurred within the past 100 years or so in boxing's history. You can also do this with stylistic match ups, we know 1 style beats another due to patterns, you can also find patterns exclusive to certain divisions such as the user Kev years ago finding that 160lbs was one of the safest divisions to fight in due to the KO ratios. Boxrec does not do that at all. The NBA and NFL does this with it's advanced stats and it's FAR more accurate than any of the old statistics which was incredibly basic. Boxrec is an outdated system as are most sports statistics, there are new advanced statistics which take a completely different look at the way sports look and are coming out with far greater results. Pedvetkin tested positive for Meldonium/Ostarine. His pattern of dominant knock out has been broken and reverted to where it was before PED's, and his own trainer has acknowledged he has declined since that PED suspension.

Boxrec's Top 20 Heavyweights https://pp.userapi.com/c841025/v841025435/7a37e/4S7RMu649A0.jpg the dragon king is creeping up behind them! ALL HAIL THE DRAGON KING!

Going purely off boxrec's incomplete system can't determine who's top dog in the division. There are patterns and anomalies that occur in boxing ranging from training camp quality/length, weight gain/loss, stylistic match ups, recent KO llosses, 1st round KO's, switching trainers, etc. all these things and many more generate a certain % which can add or subtract from their overall odds of winning. -Duhapas took the fight on 48 hours notice, if you measure all the times a fighter that has taken a fight on a week's notice and have won you will come out with a number. That number is incredibly low, I don't have an exact #, but I'm guessing 10% of the time, possibly less. Think about it, how many times can you recall a fighter doing so? -Likewise a fighter not taking his training camp seriously or having a limited training camp such as champions like Tyson, Lewis, and Foreman (rumble in the jungle, barely trained) is a pattern that has been repeated. Even HOF champions are susceptible for KO's when they don't have a serious and or limited training camp. This subtracts from the odds of winning, it is considered a negative. -1st round KO's in championship boxing are anomalies, how many have you ever seen? In Perez's case he was an alcoholic and showed up to Robert Garcia's gym with 3 weeks to go. Limited training camp, alcoholism, trainer switch, all these are negatives which subtract from his odds of winning in the end generating a certain number. -Charr lost to a guy not in the top 10, Duhapas. -Takam was MAYBE near the top 10, but lost that ranking quickly. That was years ago when we know for a fact Pedvetkin was on Meldonium. Pedvetkin doesn't have a single win as good as Parker's Ruiz, AJ//Fury's Klitschko's, Ortiz's Jennings, or Wilder's Ortiz. It was a close fight with Takam after that you have to go back to 2011 vs Chagaev. Boxrec uses an artificial intelligence system that uses a consistent and an objective algorithm to rank boxers. That to me is > human ranking based on lack of objectivity and consistency. Those 'anomalies' and 'patterns' are entirely subjective. Thus, they matter very little when OBJECTIVELY ranking boxers. A win is a win. A loss is a loss. And a draw is a draw. Simple as that! If the result is OFFICIALLY accepted and confirmed, then the value of the result remains the same, irrespective of all those other irrelevant factors such as 'patterns' and 'anomalies'. Since any win can be critiqued and belittled if tried hard enough. In a ranking system that is based on numeracy and objectivity, all that matters are results. If a boxer steps into the ring, then it must be assumed that they are prepared and the results based on the outcome of the bout that is pre-determined will count. If you want to SUBJECTIVELY critique a win based on certain factors that requires criticism, you can, but they have no relevance in an objective and a numerical ranking system. And proof / evidence must be provided for the criticism in order for the criticism to be credible. Duhaupas accepted the fight and he lost. Ergo, Povetkin would be credited the same number of points as he was PRE-DETERMINED to gain if he won. Mike Perez accepted the fight and likewise lost. Thus, those two wins (along with his other wins) gave Povetkin the necessary points to be ranked in the top 5. Manuel Charr WAS in the top 10 when Povetkin beat him. So that's all that matters. The same applies to Carlos Takam. Thus, Povetkin did beat boxers in the top 10. Contrary to your claim. And you haven't actually provided solid proof / evidence that Mike Perez was drunk when he fought Povetkin. Therefore, that claim can be dismissed. And what Mike Perez says, is not evidence. Since that could POSSIBLY be a lie or an excuse. I'm referring to irrefutable evidence that he was drunk. As for meldonium. No evidence has still been provided which suggests Povetkin took any meldonium after it was banned. He was cleared and he passed the tests! And there's also no evidence that meldonium enhances an athlete, anymore than legal drugs like caffeine do.

No, I am not lost. I am going by the system used by Boxrec to rank boxers. Which is based on an algorithm of point scoring that only bases the points on results / outcomes of bouts and not context / excuses. Also, context / excuses can be spun in potentially infinite number of ways that they become totally irrelevant. Unless proof is provided! So if you have problem with Boxrec's method of ranking boxers, then take it out on boxrec and not me. The fact that Povetkin stopped Takam in the same round as Joshua means Povetkin gained necessary points to be ranked in the top 5. Likewise, Povetkin KO'ed Duhaupas quicker than Wilder. Thus, he again received the necessary points to be ranked in the top 5. I could ask you to provide evidence / proof that Duhaupas wasn't in training camp but that again is totally irrelevant. What Mike Perez or his team say to justify his loss is totally irrelevant. They could just be excuses for all I care. I care for PROOF and not baseless statements when forming conclusions. Mike Perez didn't look anymore drunk against Povetkin than Kovalev did against Andre Ward in both fights or Luis Ortiz and Artur Szpila looked against Deontay Wilder. The only time Mike Perez looked drunk to me was when he got stunned by a Povetkin right hand and when he was on shaky legs after that point. Provide proof / evidence that Mike Perez was drunk or that claim is going to be dismissed! Alexander Povetkin beat Carlos Takam and Manuel Charr who were both in the top 10 when he beat them. If you don't think he should be ranked in the top 5, then go ahead and name me some of the boxers who you'd rank ahead of him. I challenge you. Outside of the following boxers: - Anthony Joshua - Deontay Wilder - Joseph Parker - Luis Ortiz And explain why you'd rank those boxers ahead of Povetkin. Going purely off boxrec's incomplete system can't determine who's top dog in the division. There are patterns and anomalies that occur in boxing ranging from training camp quality/length, weight gain/loss, stylistic match ups, recent KO llosses, 1st round KO's, switching trainers, etc. all these things and many more generate a certain % which can add or subtract from their overall odds of winning. -Duhapas took the fight on 48 hours notice, if you measure all the times a fighter that has taken a fight on a week's notice and have won you will come out with a number. That number is incredibly low, I don't have an exact #, but I'm guessing 10% of the time, possibly less. Think about it, how many times can you recall a fighter doing so? -Likewise a fighter not taking his training camp seriously or having a limited training camp such as champions like Tyson, Lewis, and Foreman (rumble in the jungle, barely trained) is a pattern that has been repeated. Even HOF champions are susceptible for KO's when they don't have a serious and or limited training camp. This subtracts from the odds of winning, it is considered a negative. -1st round KO's in championship boxing are anomalies, how many have you ever seen? In Perez's case he was an alcoholic and showed up to Robert Garcia's gym with 3 weeks to go. Limited training camp, alcoholism, trainer switch, all these are negatives which subtract from his odds of winning in the end generating a certain number. -Charr lost to a guy not in the top 10, Duhapas. -Takam was MAYBE near the top 10, but lost that ranking quickly. That was years ago when we know for a fact Pedvetkin was on Meldonium. Pedvetkin doesn't have a single win as good as Parker's Ruiz, AJ//Fury's Klitschko's, Ortiz's Jennings, or Wilder's Ortiz. It was a close fight with Takam after that you have to go back to 2011 vs Chagaev.

Top 10 heavweight rankings are always depressing but if you think boxrec's are wacky then compare them to the sanctioning bodies.

"context doesn't matter" no wonder you're so lost. I base most of my opinions off statistics and without context, statistics are just numbers. Takam was in a toe to toe brawl with Pedvetkin, that increases his odds of getting KO'd. Takam was in survival mode vs AJ, that leads to lesser odds of him getting KO'd. Duhapaus took the fight on 48 hours notice, the % of fighters in boxing's history that take a fight on short notice and win are slim to none. Even champions that don't take their camps seriously, Tyson, Lewis, significantly increase their odds of getting KO'd. Perez admitted he literally fought Pedvetkin drunk, there is nothing we can take away from that fight. Pedvetkin had just 1 other 1st round stoppage in his entire career back in 2005 in his 3rd fight while Perez had never even been down. This is called an anomaly, and it was due to Perez being an alcoholic. Even team Garcia didn't want to team up after he fired Sanchez because they saw the state he was in. You can't be ranked in the top 5 unless you've beaten a quality opponent. Pedvetkin last beat a top 10 HW in 2011 in a close competitive fight, in a completely different division. No, I am not lost. I am going by the system used by Boxrec to rank boxers. Which is based on an algorithm of point scoring that only bases the points on results / outcomes of bouts and not context / excuses. Also, context / excuses can be spun in potentially infinite number of ways that they become totally irrelevant. Unless proof is provided! So if you have problem with Boxrec's method of ranking boxers, then take it out on boxrec and not me. The fact that Povetkin stopped Takam in the same round as Joshua means Povetkin gained necessary points to be ranked in the top 5. Likewise, Povetkin KO'ed Duhaupas quicker than Wilder. Thus, he again received the necessary points to be ranked in the top 5. I could ask you to provide evidence / proof that Duhaupas wasn't in training camp but that again is totally irrelevant. What Mike Perez or his team say to justify his loss is totally irrelevant. They could just be excuses for all I care. I care for PROOF and not baseless statements when forming conclusions. Mike Perez didn't look anymore drunk against Povetkin than Kovalev did against Andre Ward in both fights or Luis Ortiz and Artur Szpila looked against Deontay Wilder. The only time Mike Perez looked drunk to me was when he got stunned by a Povetkin right hand and when he was on shaky legs after that point. Provide proof / evidence that Mike Perez was drunk or that claim is going to be dismissed! Alexander Povetkin beat Carlos Takam and Manuel Charr who were both in the top 10 when he beat them. If you don't think he should be ranked in the top 5, then go ahead and name me some of the boxers who you'd rank ahead of him. I challenge you. Outside of the following boxers: - Anthony Joshua - Deontay Wilder - Joseph Parker - Luis Ortiz And explain why you'd rank those boxers ahead of Povetkin.

Strongest HW division of all time

Parker should be top 3 given fact he is the other heavyweight champ of the world. WBO has always been the weakest belt of the four. Boxrec gives zero consideration to belts. As far as boxrec rankings are concerned, the belts don't exist. The boxrec computer has no idea who the champion is. Parker's ranking fairly reflects his level of opposition.

Excuses and context don't matter when ranking fighters. Only results and outcomes matter. I could ask you to provide proof for those claims but they are all irrelevant. Fact is, Povetkin knocked out a PRIME, previously UN-KO'ed and a younger Carlos Takam unconscious who happened to be the same size relatively speaking. Meanwhile, Anthony Joshua faced an older, a more faded Carlos Takam who was previously brutally KO'ed but Joshua still couldn't cleanly KO Takam. Anthony Joshua also massively out-sized Carlos Takam which Povetkin didn't. Fact is, Alexander Povetkin sent Johan Duhapas into a state of unconsciousness in only 6 rounds. Meanwhile, Deontay Wilder couldn't even drop Duhapas in 11 rounds and needed a standing stoppage. Fact is, Bryant Jennings got a split decision win against Mike Perez and arguably lost. Meanwhile, Povetkin knocked that same Mike Perez out in just 1 round. I never claimed Wilder or Joshua don't deserve to be ranked higher. They are much younger. Thus, it stands to reason that they should and would be ranked higher. However, my point was that Povetkin deserves to be ranked in the top 5 at the very least, if not in the top 3. If not, please provide the names of some boxers who deserve a higher ranking barring Anthony Joshua or Deontay Wilder. "context doesn't matter" no wonder you're so lost. I base most of my opinions off statistics and without context, statistics are just numbers. Takam was in a toe to toe brawl with Pedvetkin, that increases his odds of getting KO'd. Takam was in survival mode vs AJ, that leads to lesser odds of him getting KO'd. Duhapaus took the fight on 48 hours notice, the % of fighters in boxing's history that take a fight on short notice and win are slim to none. Even champions that don't take their camps seriously, Tyson, Lewis, significantly increase their odds of getting KO'd. Perez admitted he literally fought Pedvetkin drunk, there is nothing we can take away from that fight. Pedvetkin had just 1 other 1st round stoppage in his entire career back in 2005 in his 3rd fight while Perez had never even been down. This is called an anomaly, and it was due to Perez being an alcoholic. Even team Garcia didn't want to team up after he fired Sanchez because they saw the state he was in. You can't be ranked in the top 5 unless you've beaten a quality opponent. Pedvetkin last beat a top 10 HW in 2011 in a close competitive fight, in a completely different division.

Charles Martin still in top 20. what a joke. who was his most important win?

Adamek is 3-3 in his last 6 and is top 20?? wow

boxrec rankings are purely fictional. All boxing rankings are purely fictional.

-Pedvetkin got blown out by Wlad, AJ KO'd Wlad. Even Jennings was better vs Wlad. -Pedvetkin's last win over a top 10 HW was a close fight with Chagaev back in 2011. Wilder has top 5 wins over Ortiz/Stiverne. -Pedvetkin-Takam was a highly competitive fight, AJ-Takam was a blow out, Takam admitting his plan was to survive. -Duahpas took the fight on 48 hours notice, Pedvetkin tested positive for Ostarine and a had a full training camp. Excuses and context don't matter when ranking fighters. Only results and outcomes matter. I could ask you to provide proof for those claims but they are all irrelevant. Fact is, Povetkin knocked out a PRIME, previously UN-KO'ed and a younger Carlos Takam unconscious who happened to be the same size relatively speaking. Meanwhile, Anthony Joshua faced an older, a more faded Carlos Takam who was previously brutally KO'ed but Joshua still couldn't cleanly KO Takam. Anthony Joshua also massively out-sized Carlos Takam which Povetkin didn't. Fact is, Alexander Povetkin sent Johan Duhapas into a state of unconsciousness in only 6 rounds. Meanwhile, Deontay Wilder couldn't even drop Duhapas in 11 rounds and needed a standing stoppage. Fact is, Bryant Jennings got a split decision win against Mike Perez and arguably lost. Meanwhile, Povetkin knocked that same Mike Perez out in just 1 round. I never claimed Wilder or Joshua don't deserve to be ranked higher. They are much younger. Thus, it stands to reason that they should and would be ranked higher. However, my point was that Povetkin deserves to be ranked in the top 5 at the very least, if not in the top 3. If not, please provide the names of some boxers who deserve a higher ranking barring Anthony Joshua or Deontay Wilder.

Yet, he beat the same guys that Deontay Wilder and Anthony Joshua beat more convincingly and brutally by being able to KO them cleanly and unconsciously. Something that Wilder failed to do to Duhapas, who he couldn't even drop and Joshua couldn't cleanly KO Takam. That's the 'strength' of the heavyweight division. -Pedvetkin got blown out by Wlad, AJ KO'd Wlad. Even Jennings was better vs Wlad. -Pedvetkin's last win over a top 10 HW was a close fight with Chagaev back in 2011. Wilder has top 5 wins over Ortiz/Stiverne. -Pedvetkin-Takam was a highly competitive fight, AJ-Takam was a blow out, Takam admitting his plan was to survive. -Duahpas took the fight on 48 hours notice, Pedvetkin tested positive for Ostarine and a had a full training camp.

Pedvetkin #3 even though he hasn't beaten a single top 10 HW since like 2011 lmao. Yet, he beat the same guys that Deontay Wilder and Anthony Joshua beat more convincingly and brutally by being able to KO them cleanly and unconsciously. Something that Wilder failed to do to Duhapas, who he couldn't even drop and Joshua couldn't cleanly KO Takam. That's the 'strength' of the heavyweight division.

Pedvetkin #3 even though he hasn't beaten a single top 10 HW since like 2011 lmao.

People will complain about the odd person in here but top ten is about right most will agree on that. It kind of shows you the level of opponent gap that Joshua and wilder have faced given the points difference despite having half the fights. Likewise it rings true that Joshua has fought more of he top20 to date. The biggest shock to me in this is 1) Martin being so high 2) Parker being as low as sixth And Hammer.

Boxrec's Top 20 Heavyweights https://pp.userapi.com/c841025/v841025435/7a37e/4S7RMu649A0.jpg All you need to see is hammer at 11 to know computer ratings are sh ite.Also having Horn over Spence at 47 and Canelo PFP #1.

I would rank both Parker and Miller higher. It's a fairly decent list overall in my opinion.