Premier Boxing Rankings June Top 100

Wait, wait, wait, Lebedev number 3 under Glowacki AND Huck? Yeah, already terrible rankings. Looks like complete newbies/knobies made this list.

Shabranskyy not in the top 10 at LHW?

That's as far as I got. I can't go any further. Terrible list.

 

Canelo back at #1 in his natural weight class

Good list

 

The forum I frequent's fan list is better than the junk list you've got there.

Shabranksyy has a win over Yuniesky Gonzalez who arguably has a win over Pascal. If you didn't know that, then you probably should stop talking about rankings. FFS, you have Skoglund higher than Shabranksyy. Suck start a handgun. That list is terrible.

 

See, these formula things never work because you end up with a mess like the one you have there. BoxRec also does a formula, and their list is just as bad, if not worse, than yours.

No one in their right mind would rank Lomachenko outside of the top 5. You seriously have Lomachenko at 25? Seriously, that's laughable. I didn't get past LHW IIRC and for good reason.

Pointless list. You're lucky this place is mainly forum trolls. I'm going to put your list up on another forum. See what they think. These guys are a lot more knowledgeable than the posters here.

 

Making 100% solid rankings is basically an impossible thing. It relies on triangle theory being concrete but that's not the case, guys have off days, people improve or get worse, people get injuries, styles make fights, people get a lucky KO, all kinds of **** can happen and lists like PBO's one basically have the best integrity and are generally the easiest to audit for sanity.

It's straight up who beat who and rewarding for fighting at an appropriate level, or "punishment" for inactivity - so Shannon Briggs despite having very few losses and lots of wins is still out of the top 50 on PBO, but in the top 30 in Boxrec and top 10 in some alphabet organisation.

PBO is NOT perfect, but on the merit of recent wins it is the best representative list of proven accomplishments for fighters in order of best to worst.

To re-iterate an earlier thing I said as boxing fans don't always seem to be great with listening to logic - I'm not saying this is a perfect list where #1 beats #2, #2 thrashes #8 etc etc... but THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE. You can't make a list like that. If you're going to map achievements, this is probably the most reliable way to - just bare in mind some of those achievements may be flukes or bad luck which result in a number which doesn't represent ability.... but that is life.

 

It doesn't rely on triangle theory. It more relies on who beat who. You still have to look at the win even a while after.

For example, Lomachenko is the perfect example. GRJ was a nobody when he beat him. After, GRJ becomes arguably the man at featherweight after beating Gonzalez. That makes Lomachenko's win over him better.

Lomachenko is #1 at featherweight that cannot be argued.

Plus, how do you have Skoglund over Shabranskyy? Skoglund has beaten absolutely no one. See, any sane boxing fan would have Shabranskyy in the top 10.

 

It does rely on who beats who, but being points based someone has earned points by beating other people with points so it's not really triangle theory but it's kindof implied triange theory in effect... someone doesn't end up with lots of points against their name without beating other people with points.

Where it gets unstuck is if people fight lots of mismatched opponents and clock up wins, though if the maths are done well then they will have little/no effect on their own points rating. Every fight worth "points" is a risk so the more consistent the even vaguely competitive wins the more proven a fighter is, even if it's perceived they are fighting tomato cans.

More wins = more proven, though some losses realistically need to come into it to make things start really getting accurate but funnily enough nobody wants to put themselves in a position where that's going to happen. Nonetheless, this is how things become hard to measure.

Chess is quite good like this - it uses a points system as well but people don't get to negotiate who they play, you just get paired up against people of a similar level and just have to play. It means you don't get to dodge - basically every battle is like a mandatory defense of your current ranking.

 

So, how do you explain Stevenson being above Kovalev if Kovalev's competition has been better ?

... or Abraham being above DeGale and Jack ???

 

To be fair, Huck has not "ruled" the cruiserweight division, having only won the WBO belt which he in truth defended so many times. There were so many champions like Wlodarczyk, Lebedev, Drozd, Hernandez that he didn't fight, and thus didn't establish his "rule" over the division.

You could say that Klitschko "ruled" heavyweight division. Huck surely didn't "rule" at cruiserweight.

 

The list doesn't take weight classes into consideration. Canelo beating Khan is listed like beating a #6 ranked fighter, but Khan was rated #6 at WW, not JMW ! So, if Canelo fought Roman Gonzalez, would it have been considered beating #1 ???