Heavyweight Wx10 Universal Ranking System

Thanks for including me in this post! And thanks for figuring out a great way to determine who should start off ranked! We should continually post updates to this. @sasto I think this legitimately might be the best way to rank fighters.

 

So AJ has the chance to reach the prestigious 5x5 level today (at least according to ESB popular rankings)?

The stakes are high now!

This may be the only worthwhile thing I've done this year!

I'm going to try to collect some distinctions for notable historical fighters and see how it plays out.

 

This rankings system lacks predictive power. Some things it doesn't take into consideration:

1. Losses, to who and how severe they are
2. How dominant wins are
3. Controversial or gift decisions/stoppages
4. Home/A-side advantages vs road warrior
5. Age/wear and tear
6. Activity/inactivity
7. Preparation time/training
8. Amateur/semi pro pedigree
9. The quality and threat of the "top 10" fighter beaten
10. Distinction between a win over "11-20" and "500"
11. The imperiality or accuracy of existing ranking bodies

If these factors are considered the rankings will change dramatically.

 

It's not about prediction, it's about recognition. It's an alternative to belts that is supposed to de-emphasize exactly what you listed (especially losses).

Currently, a lot of evaluation today is a beauty contest, how good did you look beating up on B sides?

This is about recognizing those who consistently fought good opposition and had success, the people who made competitive, high level fights.

Edit: not to say the other things aren't important, my goal was trying to come up with a system that rewards fighters for consistently taking risks.

Edit2: Those who went for the best opponents available would be more accurate.

 

Then Derek Chisora should be the No.1 ranked HW. If rankings are about figuring out who the actual best fighters are, this system is terrible and it's been confirmed again tonight.

 

He has no top wins, it's not that complicated!

 

Legit losses demonstrate weaknesses as much as wins demonstrate strength, if not more. AJ's best non-Usyk opponents (Wlad, Povetkin, Pulev) were all at home and all were 39-41, Wlad and Pulev were both inactive for more than a year. Whyte, Parker, Ruiz are no better than a prime Chisora as we've seen, Ruiz isn't better than a prime Arreola. It was all a mirage, a façade created by Matchroom hype and BS rankings that emphasise "names" above context.

Pulev being so high in the rankings (to take one example) is silly because he's all but retired at 40+ and isn't the same fighter he was in his prime when 38.5 year old Wlad destroyed him.

 

I don't think it reflects who has taken on the best fighters and won (as contextless as that is). At least some of the factors I mentioned need to be integrated. For example, if a fighter's winning close fights or highly controversial decisions against "9th" or "10th" opponents that doesn't come close to destroying a "top 3" guy.

Chisora was written off because he has 11 losses but he could easily have 4 top 10 wins and "only" 7 defeats against generally very good men (including Fury x2) and thus be...above Fury?

 

In my mind I had been calling it "X by Champ" but I like your Wx10 name better.

Where are you even compiling these rankings from? I only know about finding the TBRB rankings but tbh I find them a little eccentric.

 

I like “Universal Resume Ranking System” and “Universal Resume Ranker”, and then each categorization is named x10 or x15, in the case of listing every champion since 1990 by their top ten wins, I think “Heavyweight Champions Top Ten Wins by URRS”. As far as where to put it goes, you can obviously post it on this forum, and if we wanted somewhere more official to put it, we could look into creating a website for the lists, and maybe create YT videos on individual fighters’ top ten wins by URRS. See who the best non champion ever was, or by decade, and stuff like that.