He didn't hold any title. But of course, he was probably made, so highly ranked because of Klitschko. Wlad isn't so good, Pulev wasn't so good. It was a disgrace from Boxrec to rank him like this! Another fraud if Golovkin. Biggest fraud ever! Bute defended his belt 10 times against good challengers not like Golovkin. Golovkin doesn't even have the Super 6 running. Btw, Kovalev is 10th now, he's much better than Golovkin though not deserving the top 10.
It doesn't matter, he didn't beat anybody and was ranked top 15 p4p. ****ing joke. :rofl I don't even watch the German scene so much but I know the boxers. How can Boxrec do this? This boxer wasn't even for top 20. And when a real champion is losing badly for the first time, he's thrown like he was a fraud.
He stopped Ustinov and beat Thompson comfortably, he is certainly no pushover. P4P top 15 is too high though.
I won't rehash what's been said about Boxrec ranking and points system already - amusing to see someone accuse them of bias though. Worth remembering that P4P is in effect a meaningless and entirely subjective concept anyway so getting upset whether either a computer or a human has a ranking you don't agree with probably means you're taking it too seriously. Simple fact is that Pulev was the best HW contender available under most Ranking schemes. Simple fact is he had beaten some decent guys and had earned the title shot and #1 contender status. Problem is Wlad is that far ahead of the current competition he makes all of them look mediocre and Pulev in particular as his jab, jab right tactics (which had been effective against others) left him a sitting duck in front of Wlad.
It's not done on opinion, their list is strictly formula based on rounds won, opposition record, rank etc.. He had two very big ko stoppages against ducked fighters, and a wide UD on Thompson whose own ranking was high after two big wins on an unbeaten and highly ranked contender.
What are you wittering about? It seems that you're bothered by how the Boxrec computers have ranked a fighter you like? Honestly - you're taking this s#it waaay too seriously. As has been pointed out it's an entirely mathematically based points system - they even give all the details of exactly how it's worked out. http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/BoxRec_Ratings_Description If you don't like it, simply don't use it - it doesn't actually mean anything in the real world anyway - any more than any of the other entirely subjective 'normal' human based P4P lists do. No-one gets a shiny belt or anything.
Their rankings are done by a computer based on a points/activity system, it's not done by a human looking at resume and actual ability, how many times do people need this explaining to them :-(
Its good to have boxrec around. It allows you to look at objective facts. Of course it doesn't know if a boxer was struggling with or dominating an opponent. It counts a win as a win and a loss as a loss.
Ring always ranks whoever is fighting Mayweather way too high in the standings as well. Apparently fans aren't the only ones who get swept up in promotion hype. Critics do also.
Actually - not quite - the points allocation includes a formula to determine how definitive the win was (ie whether it was KO, or the level of agreement between the judges scores partly determines how many pts a fighter recieves) - it's actually quite a sophisticated system. Still doesn't make it a good ranking system, however, but IMO none of the others are either, so it's kinda moot. Boxrec's great for checking historical data and facts - specially about fighters you might not be so familiar with, and the points system is kinda useful as a very loose guide to what kinda level a fighters' at, but should in no way be thought of as some kinda definitive ranking either within a division or between divisions.
