Who are really the top finishers in the heavyweight division?

I don't know what it is. I've heard of a lot of ratings orgs over the years, from the Police Gazette, to Sean O'Grady's dad's org, to Boxrec.

I don't know that one. And I just looked them up and, apparently, they aren't doing it anymore.

You can follow whatever ratings you like but ignoring the fighters rated by the actual orgs that run the sport ... the ratings the boxers in the sport follow ... is burying your head in the sand.

If any boxer ever said: "The PBA rates this guy #1 so I'm fighting him" ... I missed it.

But they say that about the four sanctioning bodies that govern the sport for decades all the time, no matter how much you want to dismiss them.

Whatever man.

 

I must've looked them up that day, too. I don't recall it. They never left an impression.

 

"The sanctioning bodies rank you, you're a ranked contender."

Many fans regard the sanctioning bodies as being corrupt and some create their own rankings based on their own criteria to get a better idea as to who is fighting the best opposition. Obviously the fan rankings aren't perfect, subjectivity and bias can come into it. But they may well be "better" than sanctioning body rankings.

Just be honest though: the reason why you have such a big problem with these fan rankings is they don't by consensus rate Wilder's opponents (barring Stiverne 1, Ortiz x2 and Fury x3) as being top 10/11. Of course, I bet Wilder's matchmakers knew that too.

 

Fans have ALWAYS had personal opinions about rankings. You can go back to old boxing magazines where fans write letters and fans will say this is who I have in my top five or top 10. It's nothing new.

But the ratings of those guys who wrote those letters had NO BEARING on the actual ratings of the sanctioning bodies any more than fan ratings on message boards do now.

Who you rate DOESN'T MATTER. At all.

People have been saying for years he only fought "one ranked guy" or "no ranked guys" ... because "they rate" this guy or that one.

But who they rate has no say in anything.

If you're ranked by the boxing organizations that run boxing, if you engage in eliminators for title shots, if you fight for the title not once but twice against different champions ... YOU'RE A CONTENDER.

Fans can cackle and laugh, but YOU ARE A CONTENDER.

Take one guy who gets some of the most flack - Eric Molina. Eric got two heavyweight title fights (against Wilder and Joshua). Eric Molina knocked out Adamek when he was a ranked heavyweight. And Eric Molina fought in a WBC eliminator with Breazeale and lost.

He was a fringe contender for a couple of years. But he was a contender, nonetheless.

As much as some may "hate" it, Eric Molina was in the actual title picture (and got title fights) for a longer period of time than a laundry list of guys from other eras someone might have on their "personal" list as a "contender."

Currently, Agit Kabayel is a contender. Fabio Wardley is a contender. Efe Ajagba is a contender. They may not all be for long. But they are. They are ACTUALLY in the title picture, whether a "fan" rates them or not.

Once the belts split up, they may all fight for a title. Some may fight for more than one. Hell, Jameel McCline never won a title but he fought for ALL FOUR of them against four different champs.

I simply don't care if any fan thinks his "personal" ratings are the best. Their "personal rankings" are their opinions.

If you're ranked by an actual sanctioning body and therefore can fight for one of the major titles, you're a contender. They aren't all great. But all the contenders have never been great in any era.



AS FOR WILDER, you and some others spend all freaking day talking about Deontay Wilder round the clock, whether to bash him or support him.

And you guys start countless threads about him.

You talk about him incessently.

I just checked, and you've STARTED 12 threads about Deontay Wilder in the 30 days. A DOZEN. JUST YOU. That's not counting the others.

I've been a fan of Wilder the fighter for years. I've gone off on tangents in long threads about him. He was very exciting. Knockouts are exciting.

But give it a rest already.

I've been a fan of a lot of fighters over the last 50 years. They come and go. I paid to see Lennox Lewis defend his title. He's the fighter I'm probably the biggest fan of.

However, when you aren't juicing constantly, like fighters in the last era or so have been, you tend to drop off a cliff around the age of 38. And that's what happened to Wilder.

I mentioned in a thread before the Parker fight it would go against the norm historically if he did win, because so many name fighters never won a fight after turning 38. Like I pointed out, he landed fewer punches than a 38-year-old Ali did against Holmes.

Wilder is essentially done. You can move on any time now. The sport will continue when Wilder leaves.

And, I'm SICK of talking about him.

He isn't that interesting when he isn't knocking people out. Not 12 threads in a month interesting.

But, just at a glance, he fought around 15 ranked fighters (by the sanctioning bodies), Joshua fought around 16, Fury and Parker around 12. (I posted their names in a previous post.)

None of those fighters fought ONE or TWO. Seriously, **** that. If you believe that as a fan, you just haven't been paying attention to the ACTUAL division and who has been in contention in the last era or two.

You've just been living in a fantasy world of your "own ratings." And your personal ratings have no bearing on anything.

Nobody is getting title shots based on YOUR ratings or any other fan's ratings. No one.

 

"Who you rate DOESN'T MATTER. At all."

You clearly think it does or you wouldn't have written an essay about it not mattering. Fans have their opinions about who is ranked where and how they rate fighters accordingly. It's not a big deal.

"However, when you aren't juicing constantly"

Funny how every other Joshua and Wilder opponent was juicing but those big A-sides weren't. I suppose they're just too moral!

"And that's what happened to Wilder."

Wilder lost all love for the sport (or as he'd say "the business") after he got KO'd by Fury twice. Getting "Cooney'd" destroyed his motivation.

"And, I'm SICK of talking about him."

Ironic.

 

And, lastly, I hate to break it to you Sports ...

But boxing is biased and/or corrupt.

It was biased and/or corrupt when it began, it was biased and/or corrupt before you followed it, it was biased and/or corrupt when you became a fan, it was biased and/or corrupt when you realized it was biased and corrupt.

None of this is new. No rating you could ever pull up in the history of the sport is a "pure" rating with Zero Bias.

None.

And YOUR ratings aren't going to save it.

If an outsider isn't paying the ratings people or using other ways to influence their ratings, the people who start independent ratings bodies eventually end up screwing up their own ratings with their own personal biases or dumb rules. So many have tried. And they all end up making the same mistakes.

The sanctioning body rankings that the fighters themselves adhere to are the rankings.

 

"true world level boxers"

Maybe Joshua hasn't beaten any either. Joshua's best win by a clear margin had been schooled by Fury 17 months prior and was 41. Ruiz's best win was a competitive 10 round decision over post-Wilder KO1 Liakhovich when he crushed Joshua. Was that a "world level" resume? If Wilder had beaten Ruiz a few years ago you'd regard him as another "poor opponent", maybe a tad better than Dustin Nichols.

Ortiz was a top 5 heavyweight when Wilder beat him. By your own admission, Ortiz has beat fighters better than a post-Takam Chisora and a pre-Joshua Takam. You ranked 2016 Martin as a better win for Joshua than 2017 Takam in 2022, there's zero room for goalpost-moving there.

If Joshua had beaten Wilder or Ortiz, they'd be "true world level boxers" for you, just as they were in 2018/2019.

 

AJ has beaten Wlad, Povetkin, Whyte, Parker and Ruiz who all have better records than Wilder.

 

Except you rated Wilder's record at No.3 before Fury beat him. Who were Ruiz's best wins when he crushed AJ?

Wilder has been ranked by Ring since 2013, ranked top 3 by Ring in 8 consecutive years (2016-2023), top 4 by TBRB in 9 consecutive years (2015-2023) and top 4 by PBO for as long as the rankings have been listed online (2016-2022). He was ranked 2nd by Ring, 2nd by PBO, 1st by Boxrec and 1st by TBRB when Fury beat him in 2020.

 

Ruiz most notable Wins
AJ
Ortiz

Wilders most notable Wins
Ortiz

Wilder maybe excessively tanked high by Ring magazine but so what? Jared Anderson is the current and Kownacki used to be rated in the top 10.

End of the day, what proven world level opponent has Wilder beaten? The fact that AJ has beaten 6 guys (Wlad, Povetking, Whyte, Parker, Ruiz and Pyl v)with better records than Wilder has ever beaten shows Wilders level.

 

Prior to AJ Mitch, who had Ruiz beat? Who were his top wins? Clearly having no wins above post-Wilder Liakhovich level didn't prevent him from smashing Joshua to bits. The same could be said of Puritty and Brewster vis a vis Wlad, or McCall and Lewis.

Ring, TBRB and PBO all ranked Wilder as top 3 or top 4 in 7, 8 or 9 consecutive years. Just as you did in 2018/2019. Every credible "independent" body had Wilder among the best handful of heavyweights in the world from 2015-2023, reaching peak rankings of 2nd or 1st in 2019/2020. These are facts, distinct from your opinion about whose record is better.

When it comes to records there's a huge degree of subjectivity Mitch, as you well know. Hence you rated 2016 Martin above 2017 Takam in 2021, gerrymandering to make Joshua's record look better, and lying in the aftermath of Ortiz beating Martin by claiming that you "always rated Takam above Martin".