Comments Thread For: BoxingScene.com's Championship Stats and Records

[crold1]

can someone please clarify.... what does " sub " mean ?

The WBA often has more than one champ with their super being the lead if they have one. When Sturm, and briefly Geale, were super champ, GGG was the sub-champ. Some call it regular. Trying to distinguish all the interim etc. for all the belts

[crold1]

Cliff, why is Pacquiao's three month retirement recognized while Tyson Fury's multiple social media retirements and subsequent 2.5 year layoff not recognized?

While I applaud you for ignoring most of the RING's nonsense, it does appear that you recognized Yamanaka-Moreno as the start of a lineage. How was Moreno the #2 bantamweight in the world when he was 1-2 in his last 3 fights going into the Yamanaka rematch? I don't believe this was anywhere near a unanimous stance with boxing's various rankings outlets.

For me, I wrestled with how to note Pac. Fury was easier; he beat the 100% consensus guy. It’s a historical marker and he’s active. Pac beat Bradley who had a case for #2 (I had it that way then) along with a few others and I don’t think there has really been a clear consensus since his loss to Mayweather. I note TBRB and Ring and while a member (and believer in the process) of the former I am trying to apply a hard lens; don’t list garcia as lineal at 40 now because even as a TBRB 1-2 I don’t know that enough was done there by either yet. This is fluid and I’m open to solid cases for and against and reader suggestions.

As noted, I want to make a tool fans can look at and use to inform. Where to see a new line started is a pain short of an Usyk-Gassiev showdown where two guys have clearly cleaned out towards each other.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

Damn, what a mess.

Boxing needs to be cleaned up big time.

[123tommy]

no Canelo at 160??

[drablj]

crold1

Jr. Flyweight (106-108 lbs.)

it should be

WBO: Angel Acosta (18-1, 18 KO, 1 Defenses); won 12/02/2017, KO10 Juan Alejo
( http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/634552 )

Strawweight (105 lbs.)

it should be

WBA: Knockout CP Freshmart (17-0, 7 KO, 4 Defenses – full; 8 Defenses – full & interim); won interim 10/01/2014, UD12 C. Buitrago; won full 06/29/2016, UD12 B. Rojas

after winning sub-title, he has 8 wins with title on the line. it should be 8 or i am missing something.
( http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/617144 )

keep up the good work.
cheers

[crold1]

crold1

Jr. Flyweight (106-108 lbs.)

it should be

WBO: Angel Acosta (18-1, 18 KO, 1 Defenses); won 12/02/2017, KO10 Juan Alejo
( http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/634552 )

Strawweight (105 lbs.)

it should be

WBA: Knockout CP Freshmart (17-0, 7 KO, 4 Defenses – full; 8 Defenses – full & interim); won interim 10/01/2014, UD12 C. Buitrago; won full 06/29/2016, UD12 B. Rojas

after winning sub-title, he has 8 wins with title on the line. it should be 8 or i am missing something.
( http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/617144 )

keep up the good work.
cheers

Good catch on Acosta. On CP, I didn't count Rojas as a defense because he was fighting for the full title at that point. Nice catch on the typo. Submitted changes

[aboutfkntime]

Gennady Golovkin (38-0-1, 34 KO)

14 Defenses – full..... 19 Defenses – sub-title

can someone please clarify.... what does " sub " mean ?

I'd like to know too.....

sub-
Word Origin
a prefix occurring originally in loanwords from Latin (subject; subtract; subvert; subsidy); on this model, freely attached to elements of any origin and used with the meaning “under,” “below,” “beneath” (subalpine; substratum), “slightly,” “imperfectly,” “nearly” (subcolumnar; subtropical), “secondary,” “subordinate” (subcommittee; subplot).

[aboutfkntime]

Perhaps you can clarify something for me.....

[ ] under
[ ] below
[ ] beneath
[ ] slightly
[ ] imperfectly
[ ] nearly
[ ] secondary
[ ] subordinate


pick whatever one you want, muppet

[aboutfkntime]

For me, I wrestled with how to note Pac. Fury was easier; he beat the 100% consensus guy. It’s a historical marker and he’s active. Pac beat Bradley who had a case for #2 (I had it that way then) along with a few others and I don’t think there has really been a clear consensus since his loss to Mayweather. I note TBRB and Ring and while a member (and believer in the process) of the former I am trying to apply a hard lens; don’t list garcia as lineal at 40 now because even as a TBRB 1-2 I don’t know that enough was done there by either yet. This is fluid and I’m open to solid cases for and against and reader suggestions.

As noted, I want to make a tool fans can look at and use to inform. Where to see a new line started is a pain short of an Usyk-Gassiev showdown where two guys have clearly cleaned out towards each other.

great idea !

I wrote this comment a few days back.....

but, I have never whined about Golovkin not moving up

I have no problem with him remaining at middleweight

like I always said, nothing else matters except..... WHO did you beat, with consideration given to when/how..... ..... especially in this day and age

the titles that Fitzsimmons won spanned REAL divisions

using that methodology is the ONLY way to cross-compare era's..... and that methodology becomes more important/relevant as the standards continue to change/evolve..... (drop, if you are honest about it..... what with 17 divisions today and about 80 titles available)

" WHO did he beat, with consideration given to when/how ? "

works in EVERY era, with EVERY fighter..... EVERY single time

only one problem..... you MUST know your ****, and you MUST have done your homework.....

because, that system relies upon you knowing the boxing landscape at that point in time..... the key is knowing/understanding the opponents just as well as the fighter you are evaluating..... so accurate/relevant thoughts on that matter mostly come from hardcore professionals who dedicate a LOT of time to research

not for the average fan, and DEFINITELY not for the casuals

folks often refer to the " boxing god's ".....

I understand why..... despite the fact that it is highly amusing to think that an almighty being would concern himself with earthly pugilism.....

boxing is likely the only war where history is NOT written by the victor

the " boxing god's " are the historians/experts who dedicate themselves to keeping score, and to recording the facts

thanks (once again) for your service, Cliff

[gamesworn]

For me, I wrestled with how to note Pac. Fury was easier; he beat the 100% consensus guy. It’s a historical marker and he’s active. Pac beat Bradley who had a case for #2 (I had it that way then) along with a few others and I don’t think there has really been a clear consensus since his loss to Mayweather. I note TBRB and Ring and while a member (and believer in the process) of the former I am trying to apply a hard lens; don’t list garcia as lineal at 40 now because even as a TBRB 1-2 I don’t know that enough was done there by either yet. This is fluid and I’m open to solid cases for and against and reader suggestions.

As noted, I want to make a tool fans can look at and use to inform. Where to see a new line started is a pain short of an Usyk-Gassiev showdown where two guys have clearly cleaned out towards each other.

I really don't understand why Pacquiao was not considered as the previous lineal in WW when he defeated the number 2 on his division back then. Pacquiao achieved it in traditional way and he deserves it by defeating all of the top welter during his time except Floyd

It's hard to take Ring Rankings seriously after GBP bought it. Extremely bias to GBP fighters and giving higher ranking to their fighter's competition.