Because they are subjective. Different organizations have different ratings. More importantly they are often not a good gauge of how good a...
Itauma hasn't beaten anyone good but I would favor him over many people with better wins. Hence ratings are subjective
Whyte is ahead of Ortiz though in terms of career wins. He beat Parker, Rivas and Chisora while Ortiz only beat Jennings Zhang was in his 40s...
Nothing to stop his opponents from doing the same? Seems like a crybaby excuse It's the job of referees to put a stop to it
I've never made the case that ratings are infallible though. Which makes them highly suspect in terms of saying how valuable a win is. Generally...
If we are discussing the merits of Wilders win over Ortiz than I don't think ratings help us much given they are based largely on guesswork and...
Presumably we can rate on results and consistently Ortiz to me proved he was better than Charles Martin Gerald Washington and Arreola level...
Ortiz doesn't have results to separate himself from guys like Whyre and Parker regardless of where exactly you choose to rate him. If the top...
How many guys ranked below him in the top 10 did Ortiz beat? Because that would really help give substance to your argument
What are relevant are results and Ortiz didn't achieve much. Why would you cite subjective ratings as evidence of anything without reaults to...
Actually I didn't. What wins would put him so high
In that case maybe everyone was wrong No evidence for Stiverne or Ortiz being top 5
Virtually everyone had him beating Helenius though. Credit for Wilder for winning more decisively but Chisora should have won the decision
The majority has Chisora beating Helenius and Parker in fight one however
Speculation is meaningless we can't simply say Wilder kayoes people he didn't fight as if it's a fact One should be able to make a case based on...
