yaltamaltadavid

Similarly... peeing on the street is disgusting and barbaric. If you can't wait till you can find a toilet you should have your license as a member of civilised society revoked.

From the handful of Nietes fights I've seen, I really think he's a top 15-ish p4p fighter. Nice little counterpuncher, smart, positions himself well to find the right shot. He is a bit too cerebral and waits too much, so like you said a guy who throws a lot like Rodriguez could outwork him. But Rodriguez is pretty easy to hit, and if Nietes ups his volume just a bit, he should nail Rodriguez with a lot of sharp shots and dominate. Good matchup.

Something else Shane said that's interesting is he doesn't like that there's a 155 rehydration clause for Porter-Broner. And he's exactly right. A fighter can't control how much he rehydrates, and it's not fair to cancel a fight if he does go a lb over a rehydration limit on fight night after making weight the day before. What's fairer is what the WBC does with their month and week before weigh-ins before the fight. If a fighter is disciplined enough to be close to the weight well before the fight, then he simply won't rehydrate as much after weighing in. But like Shane said it's dangerous to prevent a fighter from replenishing fluids into his body after weighing-in. Anyway, we all know it would be moot, because of course PBC fighters don't actually have to make weight.

Stupid goddamn TSN-5. They replaced the Thurman fight (that was supposed to be shown via tape delay at 11pm as I'm in Canada and have Rogers) with ****ing soccer. WTF!!!! Did I miss a good bout. Or a BS match? Yeah I'm pissed too that TSN ruined my plans to watch the fight. They've always shown ESPN boxing, and with 5 channels now I was really hoping they'd be showing the ESPN PBC fights live. There's no more sports on TSN despite 5 channels, just the same crap and repeats on every channel.

Neither of them is on a credible p4p top 10. It's no knock against Klit to not highly rate a heavyweight champ in a weak era who wins mostly with his size. Bradley's limitations are obvious and his results far from dominant. I'd say it's fair enough to have them both around 30. It's the best fighters in May 2015, not a career accomplishments list. Pac and Marquez also shouldn't be top 10 p4p. Thurman and Brook would beat Pac, Marquez, and Bradley so they should be regarded as greater fighters p4p right now. Here's what I have... Mayweather Rigondeaux Gonzalez Ward Lomachenko Crawford Inoue Estrada Golovkin Kovalev

Algieri has got way too many big paydays off his 'huge win' over Emanuel Taylor. The bookers have him an 11/1 underdog, so anything more than 1/11 of Khan's purse is too much...

Cotto ducking ggg doesn't make the lineal mw title meaningless IMO. Contrary to popular belief, fighters ducked other fighters all the time see Jeff Jefferies, jack Johnson, gene Tunney, Etc. it is what it is. revisionist history is a helluva thing. If you accept 'lineal championships' you are condoning mismatches and cherry-picking. And of course weight-jumping and so many catch-weight bouts these days makes divisional supremacy even more impossible. It is what it is, and what boxing is doesn't make for legimitate championships at all.

Yep. It was bad enough that Cotto got a shot at Martinez as a light middleweight over GGG and other proven middleweights. But now Cotto defends against the guy GGG recently iced with ease? It's not just Cotto's fault though. Obviously all top stars avoid risky fights that aren't worth the reward. Really, as long as promoters just 'make' fights rather than fights being dictated by results/rankings, almost every fighter is protected to a degree and there can't be legitmate 'championships' in boxing. Pretending there are with 'fantasy champions' is a way of denying boxing's blatant reality. Anyway, I hope Geale wins to expose the concept of 'lineal championship' as meaningless. With the extent of weight-jumping and catchweight fights the term's less and less respected, now with Cotto-Geale it should be dumped and ignored and seen as ridiculous by every half-aware fan.

Wasn't the question what power vs speed matchups could be made today? I think there's a real lack of pure Tito or Julian Jackson-like punchers and Taylor or Leonard-like speedsters today. But a few that qualify would be Roman Gonzalez-Inoue, Matthysse-Khan, Thurman-Khan, Walters-Lomachenko. Any others come to mind? I can't think of any speedsters that would be the foil of Kovalev or Golovkin. Most of the good 'boxers' that could test either are slicksters more than speedsters, like Ward. Maybe Golovkin-Andre Dirrell (or Degale).

Floyd and Manny are probably two of the fastest guys still today and those dudes are past it. That kind of says something about today's era. And that Khan's the next fastest fighter today. If Bradley can be considered fast I'll throw in Matthysse-Bradley. If Bradley spent most of the Provo fight drunk he'll be iced by Lucas.

1. Matthysse. The purest puncher in boxing today. Perfect, effortless mechanics, sets it up boxing from range, and so many of his knockouts and knockdowns were one-punch detonations from nowhere. Maidana is more of a thudding puncher and doesn't compare to Lucas. 2. Kovalev 3. Golovkin 4. Inoue 5. Mikey Garcia

You should still keeps most of your points if your moving up weight, just a small penalty, if your world class your world class. Reduce their non-divisional points by 5% per weight class. Absolutely not. 5% is miniscule and inconsequential. The main reason I started this is because boxrec only adjusts points by about that much when fighters move up. That lets Chavez at 168 and Donaire at 126 have a high boxrec ranking. Examples in which a bigger fighter beat a fighter close in ability are legion. If you're good enough that you can beat bigger fighters... you have to show it! As I mentioned, each division is also a different competitive field. Flyweight is the best division in boxing while light flyweight is nowhere near as deep, so a top light flyweight, say Nietes, shouldn't get a handicap if he moves up to flyweight.

The problem with your rankings is you need a solution to moving around weight class, throwing out all points in another weight class is causing people to be ranked where they shouldn't be. Once you get a solution to that looks like your rankings would fall into place. :soapbox: I'm not going to repeat why it's a problem to pretend weight divisions don't matter. Most people critcise other rankings when fighters unproven at the division are ranked highly. There's a slight exception for bouts in which both fighters are over the weight by not more than 1 lb, but otherwise these rankings are a solution to the problem that other rankings aren't truly divisional rankings.

Though Brook doesn't have a top 10 win, he's more established in the division than most others and is the only ranked fighter with three wins against ranked welterweights. Mayweather, Bradley, and Thurman have two each. Brook beat: Lovemore Ndou, who was number 18 at the time from his win over Bongani Mwelase; Rafal Jackiewicz, who was number 11 at the time from his win over Delvin Rodriguez and loss to Jan Zaveck; and Carson Jones, who was number 16 at the time from his win over Said Ouali. With this system the fights that earned a ranking can be clearly pointed to. With opinion-poll rankings positions are no better proven than 'because we think so', and with boxrec dozens of nonsensical variables get in the way of transparency.

Well some rankings can work, or as I like to call them, "common sense" ranking. Everyone in their right minds knows Wlad is number one at heavyweight, Pulev may be second then possibly Stiverne cos of his title win and possibly Fury. Then you have the rest of Wilder/Jennings/Chisora and co. At welter we all know the top 3 are Floyd/Pac/Bradley. Beyond that i t's even footing between guys like Thurman, Porter, Alexander, Khan, and posisbly Marquez. Your own 'common sense' that Fury's as high as fourth and Khan above Marquez won't find agreement amongst most people, which pretty much shows how that model's inherently flawed, similar to the Ring, the TBRB, etc. It's not clear what it's based on, it can't be verified, it becomes wildly subjective, and even open to influence and corruption. Rankings shouldn't be up for debate.

By the way, with this system Mayweather WAS above Pac from when Pac lost till when Pac beat Bradley, and even now with Pac considered lineal champion Mayweather has more points.

If Danny Garcia moved up to walter right now, why should Kell Brock be ranked higher then him? All his world class wins mean nothing? How bout his win over Khan, since it was at 140 he gets no credit for it? What happens to the first fighter Garcia fights when he does come up? The guy he fighting would be fighting a unranked fighter in your rankings, how that affect his ranking to fight a unranked figher. Lets say he beats Garcia so he gets no points in your system? Indeed, world class wins at light welterweight aren't world class wins at welterweight. If Garcia beats a ranked welter when he moves up, he should only then crack the welterweight rankings. In this system, if a ranked welterweight beats a ranked light welterwight at welterweight he would get zero points, and at risk of being bumped down the rankings as fighters close to him beat proven welterweights. Porter shouldn't be credited for beating Malignaggi, who never beat a ranked welterweight. When a top division 2 football team is promoted they don't become the top division 1 team!

Just look at where some of the names are,,, how the hell is pac the champ, brook so high, porter so low... Just odd placement of fighters which doesn't accurately judge the current reality of the welter division... Some spots are legit, but too many random ones that don't make any sense.. You made no attempt to explain according to what the rankings might not be legit. I don't care if you don't 'like' them. Rankings or standings should reflect accomplishments at the division within a set period. What a fighter did at lower divisions, how he did predominantly in his most recent fight, or how 'impressive' a fighter's wins are don't get 'special credit' in rankings. See my previous explication of how Brook earned his points. Brook beat the 18th, 11th, and 16th ranked fighters, and most of the newer entrants to the division haven't put together more than a win each. Brook, incidentally, may have reached his high point: he'll lose points beginning in July, and slide down the rankings if he doesn't beat a ranked fighter. But if he beats Porter he'll have solidified and proven his number 3 position. This system puts Porter's win over Malignaggi into perspective: Paulie never beat a welterweight who himself beat a ranked welterweight. Paulie, and therefore Broner, should never have been ranked at welterweight.

You know, I like the system in theory, it provides us with an objective ranking of fighters. Without the points based system, how many people would have Pacquiao as champion? But when you look at it objectively, over the last 3 years, he has beaten the likes of Bradley (2x honestly), Mosley and Marquez. It's fair to say Mosley was shot but if you look at it objectively, I seem to remember he was still top 10 ranked, Bradley has been in the top 3 or 4 for a while now and Marquez might make a top 10 at 147 too. Compare this to Mayweather's run in the same time period, with Maidana, Ortiz and Guerrero, I don't think any of these guys compare to Bradley. But Mayweather deserved the top spot because he has never lost at the weight and jumped above Pac (just barely) when Pac got KOd by an old fighter. Having said that, the system has it's fault where a guy like Berto is still ranked so high and Brook is 3rd, over two guys, Alexander/Porter, one a former titlist, the other the current IBF titlist. You see, boxing can't completely be objective, it's not like football or cricket or most team sports. We have to take into account individual skill levels, power and ring intelligence. We have to see what the guy is doing in the ring, someone like Thurman has great potential and being objective doesn't cut it cos his opponents haven't been good enough. What we see in Thurman is someone with terrific power and good boxing ability, the know how of moving in and out of range, of working behind a jab and knowing when to finish off an opponent. None of this is apparent in points, it's something we can only judge by actually watching the guy fight and it's why he would be ranked over Berto and a few others in a top 10 ranking. I've pretty much said all I can re Brook and Berto: Brook's more than likely sliding down and Berto out soon, but at the moment they deserve their spots. The only reason numeric rankings can't work is the same reason no rankings can 'work' in current pro boxing: boxing is run by competing promotional interests and basically based on mismatches, rather than on fair competition. You'd be saying it doesn't work that a football team earns 3 points for a win and 1 point for a tie if football teams picked their opposition game by game! I completely support AIBA's aspirations to govern pro boxing in its entirety, with a fair matchmaking structure based on accomplishments. Given that in current pro boxing the best don't have to fight the best most others agree with you and assume that we should reward potential in rankings. But as long as ability or potential is allowed to contribute to rankings there can never be close to consensus rankings! So I think it's important to offer a guide to purely the most accomplished fighters in a division, even if skewd matchmaking means one or two fighters aren't as high as their ability suggests they should be.

I know you kids just want the results, so here's how the ww rankings read after last weekend's fights. Now go ahead and tell me the whole thing's **** because Porter's below Alexander... Champion: Manny Pacquiao: 117 1. Floyd Mayweather: 207 2. Timothy Bradley: 199 3. Kell Brook: 144 5. Juan Manuel Marquez: 123 5. Keith Thurman: 123 6. Robert Guerrero: 115 7. Marcos Maidana: 98 8. Jesus Soto Karass: 90 9. Andre Berto: 84 10. Josesito Lopez: 75 11. Luis Collazo: 72 12. Devon Alexander: 66 13. Amir Khan: 63 14. Shawn Porter: 60 15. Carson Jones: 59 16. Jessie Vargas: 48 17. Bethuel Ushona: 45 18. Leonard Bundu: 42 19. Jan Zaveck: 26 20. Victor Ortiz: 24 21. Rick Godding: 21 22. Rafal Jackiewicz: 17

Do these rankings affect how the fight ends or robberies? For example, I have Ruslan Prov above Bradley on my 147 rankings because I thought he won the fight. If you had a choice of being Bradley or Prov at the end of that fight, 99% of people would say Prov. And I agree with Pacquiao being #1 because hes the only guy whos fighting top P4P competition. No, the rankings don't ignore results for bad decisions. It's a horrible slippery slope for rankings to decide some decisions shouldn't count, especially if you want to produce consensus rankings. Pacquiao-Bradley was an obvious robbery, but I think Marquez was robbed worse in the third fight, while I really don't agree with you that Bradley-Provo fight was worse than just debatable. It's also not the business of rankings to try to police the sport by ignoring decisions. Better judging needs to be addressed through better governance and regulation, not through unofficial rankings. I actually think it's counterproductive for unofficial rankings to disregard official decisions: it suggests that rankings 'fixing' bad decisions is good enough, and judges can get away with it. There were several decisions I didn't agree with at ww since 1997 that had to stand in these rankings: De La Hoya-Quartey, Trinidad-De La Hoya, Piccirillo-Spinks, Bradley-Pac, Marquez-Pac..

I never ranked Khan above Marquez, I was just listing names, my own welterweight rankings have Marquez higher. But do you agree May/Pac/Bradley are the best? And that Berto is no longer relevant, having lost to Ortiz and Guerrero who are fringe top 15 guys at best. Sorry to insist on semantics, but rankings aren't a list of the 'best', but the most accomplished (I personally think Bradley's not that skilled, and has only had the success he has from speed and athleticism and, but that sort of evaluation of ability shouldn't be relevant). But as far as recent accomplishments: Pac's significantly dipped since 2011, losing to Bradley and Marquez, and taking on Rios in a tuneup, which him losing points from the Mosley fight in the rankings indicates; Bradley lost; and Mayweather's fought a bit lower opposition than them, and ventured to 154 twice the last two years. Meaning their holds as top three aren't as strong as they could be, which should allow the next most accomplished of the other welterweights a chance to sneak close. Because most of the rest have just one win over a ranked welterweight, Kell Brook's pretty much the next most accomplished. When the division becomes more wide open 'common sense' can't discriminate the differences too well, and it's much more helpful to quantify level of wins. The system has Berto 9th, really mid-level amongst guys with solid points. And his hold on that is thin as he'll fall out if he doesn't fight a ranked fighter by September. But he's there because more established fighters should be favoured, till guys like Porter and Khan prove they belong at the top. The period should be the same for all fighters, rather than deciding case by case by the whims of 'common sense' when a fighter's no longer relevant.

How does Thurman have as many points as Marquez & more than Pacquaio? How is Berto so high up? I don't get it based on the scoring criteria you claimed. Thurman got in the rankings with 57 points when he beat Zaveck, who was number 12 at the time. He then got another 66 for beating Soto Karass, who was number 9 at the time. Incidentally, for those decrying the fact that a fighter doesn't necessarily move ahead of a ranked opponent when he beats him, Thurman moved ahead of both guys when he beat them. Marquez got 90 points when he knocked out Pacquiao. I love Marquez, but that was his first win at welterweight, so shouldn't be enough to deny Pac's massive accomplishments in 2010 and 2011 at 147. With the three-year cycle, Marquez didn't move above Pac till November 2013, when Marquez got 33 points for losing to Bradley, considered champion at the time, and Pac lost his points from three years previous but only fought the unranked Rios so didn't gain any back. Berto has 84 points from his win over Zaveck, who was number 3 in 2011, when the division wasn't as deep as it became shortly after. Berto's an example of how the system favours established fighters over less proven guys. But he'll lose his points and drop from the rankings if he doesn't fight a ranked welterweight by September.

This ranking is horrible... No offense Do you want to support your assertion with an analysis of what the purpose of rankings are, and what they should reflect, as I've done? Or are they 'horrible' just because they don't result in a list of what you assume are the 'best' fighters?

No, there's never been a 'cruiserweight' division in amateur boxing. There's a super heavyweight division, and a heavyweight division. The heavyweight division may be close to the weight of the pro cruiserweight division, but it's not referred to as cruiserweight. And unlike the pros, all national amateur associations operate within a single umbrealla, the AIBA, so if any did refer to the heavyweight division as the 'cruiserweight' division they would indeed be plain wrong, as is this other poster.

I haven't made a pound for pound list for years, but I had a go and here's what I came up with. 1. Floyd Mayweather 2. Andre Ward 3. Guillermo Rigondeaux 4. Roman Gonzalez 5. Gennady Golovkin 6. Erislandy Lara 7. Terence Crawford 8. Mikey Garcia 9. Juan Manuel Marquez: Marquez showed he's not the fighter he used to be vs Bradley, but he schooled Pac in the third fight, iced him in the fourth fight, and I think would beat him in a pointless fifth fight so has to be above him 10. Manny Pacquiao 11. Saul Alvarez 12. Juan Francisco Estrada 13. Sergey Kovalev 14. Bernard Hopkins 15. Kazuto Ioka 16. Sergio Martinez 17. Vasyl Lomachenko: If not for poor pacing, would've beaten a much bigger, dirty Salido, and beats Gonzalez, Mares, Donaire 18. Miguel Vazquez 19. Yuriorkis Gamboa 20. Shinsuke Yamanaka 21. Carlos Molina 22. Naoya Inoue 23. Carl Frampton 24. Adonis Stevenson 25. George Groves 26. Thabiso Mchunu 27. Robert Guerrero 28. Ray Beltran 29. Leo Santa Cruz 30. Miguel Cotto Missed the cut: Keith Thurman: He's beaten pretty good brawlers, but needs to beat a decent boxer before I'm sold on him, I'd love to him against Guerrero The Charlos: One of them boxed masterfully vs Rosado, but I can't tell them apart so won't put either of them in. Wladimir Klitschko: Being an established, even great heavyweight champion doesn't earn a free pass on pound for pound lists. Shrink him down to the size of the above and Klitschko loses. Has no inside game, and his knockout losses can't be ignored. Takashi Uchiyama: From I've seen he isn't quite as good as his countrymen Ioka, Yamanaka, or Inoue. Timothy Bradley: He's an overacheiver who's only had the success he has from athleticism and toughness. He's sloppy, has below average defence, and is mentally inconsistent. Nonito Donaire: Has devolved into a one dimensional slugger, was losing and looked like garbage against Darchinyan till he knocked him out, has always benefited from size advantages Danny Garcia: Solid fighter, shown he can counter a puncher and outpunch decent boxers, but in his inability to handle the savvy movement and jab of Herrera showed he isn't elite. Lucas Matthysse: Maybe the hardest puncher in boxing, sets his power up with precise technique, but has shown he doesn't have an answer for fighters with both movement and a solid chin. Carl Froch: I don't deny his resume, but he's always been limited, has slow feet, and won't beat Groves in the rematch. Marcos Maidana: Loved the Broner fight, he's added a few wrinkles to his skill lately, but still just isn't elite and will be shutout vs Mayweather

No one in the last 40 years. Because boxers fight less, the depth of talent isn't what it used to be, and it's too easy for boxers to avoid the top challenges. I'm a great admirer of Mayweather and think he's definitely the best since Duran and Leonard, but he doesn't deserve a whisper of a mention when it come to GOAT consideration.

Guys... if you can see that the Ring rankings are crap, don't assume the TBRB's or any other rankings only based on the opinions of a bunch of writers pulling names out of their ass can be better. We need objective rankings in boxing! Check out my thread. If you don't need an introduction skip the first three paragraphs... http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=608117

Ok then let's take Rios vs Abril. Rios didn't win more than a round or two, one of the worst decisions I've ever seen. I understand why official boxing organizations have to respect the judges scoring but experts, journalists and fans should expose the robbery and not take the official result into account. The goal of unofficial rankings is to show who the real champions are, ignoring robberies should be a part of it. If offical results of fights are ignored, there is simply no possibility of an objective ranking system. You might as well make your own rankings. The concept of champion would lose all meaning if everyone made their own rankings though.

Can't get myself to read a thread with that many exclamation points in the title. Sorry!!!!!!!!!! You're annoyed by exclamation points on a site that has such enormous, distracting avatars and signatures that you can barely find the posts?