Anthony Joshua has a chance to make history this weekend.

[N/A]

Isn't this a paradox of sorts? He would've been better off by winning but now that he lost he can pull off a record. I think you can't take records at face value like this. A guy with most avenged losses can't have a better record than a guy with 0 losses, a guy getting up from most KD's compared to someone who never got KD'd and so on...

Yes, I understand. But other than Rocky Marciano, heavyweight champions lose. Very few have become unified champion and even fewer have become unified champion multiple times. So it's still very significant. Obviously it would have been more impressive if Joshua had retired as the undefeated unified champion.

[N/A]

It may look impressive on paper, but when your title wins consist of Martin, 41 yr old inactive Klitschko, Parker (solid win) and hypothetically Ruiz. I don’t think you can compare that to the legendary fighters you mentioned.

That's fine. Let's ignore the championships completely. Let's focus solely on results. The best way to do that is the Boxrec computerized ratings. Anthony Joshua was #1 and had proven himself as the best.

I put it in the same category as PBC comparing Wilder’s 10 title defences with Ali’s 10 title defences.

That's fine. Let's ignore the championships completely. Let's focus solely on results. The best way to do that is the Boxrec computerized ratings. Deontay Wilder is #1 and has proven himself as the best.

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

That's fine. Let's ignore the championships completely. Let's focus solely on results. The best way to do that is the Boxrec computerized ratings. Anthony Joshua was #1 and had proven himself as the best.

Boxrec has little credibility. That’s the worst way to do that.

It ranks Chris Eubank Jr above Oleksandr Usyk and Artur Beterbiev.😂😂

And if that’s not good enough for you it has Eubank Jr 54 places above Billy Joe Saunders despite Saunders beating him and winning two world titles to Eubanks zero.

GTFOH with Boxrec ratings man. It’s utter trash.

[N/A]

Boxrec has little credibility. That’s the worst way to do that.

It has more credibility in the industry than any other ratings. By far. When any promoter, manager or TV network wants to know how good a fighter actually is, they go by Boxrec. You can get to #1 in the WBA or WBO without ever fighting even one competent fighter. It's impossible to reach #1 in Boxrec without beating several very good fighters.

Trevor Bryan became interim WBA world heavyweight champion beating fighters with the following records in his most recent fights before getting the title: 2-24, 2-20, 44-33-1, 30-9, 16-16, 6-19-3. Think about that for a second.

It ranks Chris Eubank Jr above Oleksandr Usyk and Artur Beterbiev.😂😂

I don't pay attention to mythical P4P nonsense. You'll have to provide divisional examples.

And if that’s not good enough for you it has Eubank Jr 54 places above Billy Joe Saunders despite Saunders beating him and winning two world titles to Eubanks zero.

At super middleweight, Eubank is 1 place above Saunders. Eubank is #2, Saunders is #3.

Eubank has beaten better competition than Saunders has. Yes, Saunders squeaked by Eubank with a razor thin decision, but that was five years ago and Eubank has faced and beaten a lot of tough fighters. Saunders hasn't. The world titles are irrelevant. Plays no role in computerized ratings whatever. Championships don't even exist as far as the computers are concerned.

[Marchegiano]

This thread only focuses on the currently recognized world championships.

This is done for two reasons:

#1 - There was a long stretch where everyone agreed on the champion and technically every single champion from that era was a "unified champion."

#2 - If we recognize those defunct titles for the purposes of this exercise, that means every WBC champion in history is a unified champion since the WBC itself is a unification of the NYSAC, NSC & IBU titles.

I wasn't trying to create a debate bud. You don't have to justify yourself, most people skip the nba/nysac years.

Bit of a stretch to call the WBC title a unified title, but I like it.

How about Police Gazette and Ring titles?

[Marchegiano]

Boxrec has little credibility. That’s the worst way to do that.

It ranks Chris Eubank Jr above Oleksandr Usyk and Artur Beterbiev.😂😂

And if that’s not good enough for you it has Eubank Jr 54 places above Billy Joe Saunders despite Saunders beating him and winning two world titles to Eubanks zero.

GTFOH with Boxrec ratings man. It’s utter trash.

Yeah, I kinda agree.

I'm not quite so harsh, I do like to check what the computer has to say but more often than not computers give you some odd results yoe see and just know better than to believe.

I also get bored sometimes and run TBCB sims. Same thing, quite a bit of it is at least agreeable but some of it is just laughable nonsense.

Just kinda the same stat based **** works out I reckon. Computers my not be unfair, but, they're dumb as ****.

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

It has more credibility in the industry than any other ratings. By far. When any promoter, manager or TV network wants to know how good a fighter actually is, they go by Boxrec. You can get to #1 in the WBA or WBO without ever fighting even one competent fighter. It's impossible to reach #1 in Boxrec without beating several very good fighters.

Trevor Bryan became interim WBA world heavyweight champion beating fighters with the following records in his most recent fights before getting the title: 2-24, 2-20, 44-33-1, 30-9, 16-16, 6-19-3. Think about that for a second.




I don't pay attention to mythical P4P nonsense. You'll have to provide divisional examples.




At super middleweight, Eubank is 1 place above Saunders. Eubank is #2, Saunders is #3.

Eubank has beaten better competition than Saunders has. Yes, Saunders squeaked by Eubank with a razor thin decision, but that was five years ago and Eubank has faced and beaten a lot of tough fighters. Saunders hasn't. The world titles are irrelevant. Plays no role in computerized ratings whatever. Championships don't even exist as far as the computers are concerned.

Who has Eubank beat? BJS has beat Andy Lee, Willie Monroe, David Lemieux, John Ryder etc.

You want divisional examples...

Rocky Fielding over David Benavidez and Caleb Plant.

Dave Allen over Tony Yoka despite Yoka dominating him.

David Price over Kuzmin and Teper despite him being stopped by both.

Samuel Peter over Otto Wallin.

54 year old Oliver McCall over Ivan Dychko.

It’s utter nonsense...

[N/A]

I wasn't trying to create a debate bud. You don't have to justify yourself, most people skip the nba/nysac years.

Bit of a stretch to call the WBC title a unified title, but I like it.

How about Police Gazette and Ring titles?

You're one of the great historians on this site, so I figured you of all people would appreciate my reasoning. I could have covered NBA, NYSAC, NSC, IBU, Police Gazette (which is still recognizing bareknuckle champions in 2019 believe it or not), etc, but the only fair comparison I found was to stick to the currently recognized titles.

Otherwise, the first 70 years of the sport, nearly every guy is technically a "unified champion" even though he didn't unify anything, everyone was simply in agreement. Yes a few guys did unify titles, but for the most part the universally recognized title changed hands from man to man.

And then the WBC, which did merge the IBU/NSC/NYSAC lineage, we would have to recognize every WBC champion as unified. Which is fine. But I was just trying to keep this thread as clean and easy to follow as possible.

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

Yeah, I kinda agree.

I'm not quite so harsh, I do like to check what the computer has to say but more often than not computers give you some odd results yoe see and just know better than to believe.

I also get bored sometimes and run TBCB sims. Same thing, quite a bit of it is at least agreeable but some of it is just laughable nonsense.

Just kinda the same stat based **** works out I reckon. Computers my not be unfair, but, they're dumb as ****.

I know Boxrec is supposedly unbiased but the system is evidently flawed. I mean how an earth can they rate Dave Allen above Tony Yoka when Yoka won every second of that fight.

The TBRB are hold the most credibility IMO.

[Marchegiano]

You're one of the great historians on this site, so I figured you of all people would appreciate my reasoning. I could have covered NBA, NYSAC, NSC, IBU, Police Gazette (which is still recognizing bareknuckle champions in 2019 believe it or not), etc, but the only fair comparison I found was to stick to the currently recognized titles.

Otherwise, the first 70 years of the sport, nearly every guy is technically a "unified champion" even though he didn't unify anything, everyone was simply in agreement. Yes a few guys did unify titles, but for the most part the universally recognized title changed hands from man to man.

And then the WBC, which did merge the IBU/NSC/NYSAC lineage, we would have to recognize every WBC champion as unified. Which is fine. But I was just trying to keep this thread as clean and easy to follow as possible.

Maybe I worded that poorly. I didn't mean for it to seem argumentative, I agree.