Is Oleksandr Usyk in your top 10 ATG rankings?

Choose One.

  • Yes, he's in my top 10 all time.

    Votes: 27 34.6%

  • Yes, in fact he's in my top 5 all time.

    Votes: 16 20.5%

  • No, but he's in my top 15 all time.

    Votes: 8 10.3%

  • No, but he's in my top 20 all time.

    Votes: 8 10.3%

  • No, he's not even close to top 10 all time.

    Votes: 19 24.4%
  • Total voters
    78
codfather said:
Chin is absolutely not even.

38 year old Usyk has never been stopped.
Tyson was stopped 5 times before his 39th birthday.
Click to expand...
Holyfield didn't stop him based on chin weakness in their first meeting and didn't stop him all in the rematch.
You can hardly include his fights vs. Lewis, Danny Williams and McBride in the evaluation. He was absolutely shot at that point.
Tyson had a world class chin.
Usyk is never a stationary target, he's a mover and never fights force to force, that's why he never got close to being stopped. His toughness hasn't been tested.
 
Last edited:
codfather said:
In 1993, 3 of the top 5 heavyweights in the world were black guys born in London; Lewis, Bruno and Akinwande.

In 2019, 0 of the top 5 heavyweights in the world were black guys born in London, despite that demographic roughly doubling in number since 1993.
Click to expand...
In 1993 Bruno and Akiwande were ranked ahead of Bowe, Holyfield, Moorer, Mercer, Morrison, McCall? Where you got that from? Lol
 
defjaam said:
It's funny you say that, because the comment you quoted uses totally AI logic with the stats.
Click to expand...
How do you know the guy I quoted didn't just research it himself? Besides, the stats he posted are common knowledge to boxing fans. Usyk has never been stopped? Yeah. Mike has been stopped several times? Yeah.
 
@defjaam

He most likely didn't use AI but rather Wikipedia where Mike's age is noted at the time of each bout (stoppage in this case).

Mike-2.png

Mike-1.png

Mike-0.png
 
Kovalev's Man Bag said:
How do you know the guy I quoted didn't just research it himself? Besides, the stats he posted are common knowledge to boxing fans. Usyk has never been stopped? Yeah. Mike has been stopped several times? Yeah.
Click to expand...
I don't think he used AI, it's just the same logic that AI uses. When you know boxing, you know you can't argue like that. Holyfield has also been stopped more often than Usyk, even George Foreman. Does that mean Usyk has a better chin than them?
 
defjaam said:
I don't think he used AI, it's just the same logic that AI uses. When you know boxing, you know you can't argue like that. Holyfield has also been stopped more often than Usyk, even George Foreman. Does that mean Usyk has a better chin than them?
Click to expand...
Possibly, yes. Usyk has always had a granite chin. I've never seen him go down from a shot to the chin in the amateurs or pros and he had a very extensive amateur career. That would've given him the confidence to fight AJ in only his 3rd professional fight at heavyweight. He wasn't even fully acclimated to the division yet. Remember he used to spar Wladimir Klitschko regularly as one of his chief sparring partners. Gassiev, who according to Roy is one of the biggest punchers he's seen in "quite some time", "hits harder than most heavyweights" and still couldn't put a dent in him despite catching him flush with a counter right hand.
 
Kovalev's Man Bag said:
You should be using Ring Magazine's annual ratings. In 1993 the Top 5 heavies were: Bowe, Lewis, Holyfield, Moorer, Tucker.
Click to expand...

An objective, transparent system that's consistent across time and has been the considered the industry standard for a while now is defo superior to an opaque system that's presumably just a bunch of take-merchant, slave-to-the-moment journalists with no real experience competing in the sport, spitballing and speculating over their faves. An American magazine is also obviously going to have American bias, and that's not even talking about The Ring's history with corruption.

Anyway, I'll just leave this here...

ring-magazine-cover-audley-harrison-dominick-guinn-and-joe-mesi.jpg
 
codfather said:
An objective, transparent system that's consistent across time and has been the considered the industry standard for a while now is defo superior to an opaque system that's presumably just a bunch of take-merchant, slave-to-the-moment journalists with no real experience competing in the sport, spitballing and speculating over their faves. An American magazine is also obviously going to have American bias, and that's not even talking about The Ring's history with corruption.

Anyway, I'll just leave this here...

ring-magazine-cover-audley-harrison-dominick-guinn-and-joe-mesi.jpg
Click to expand...
A transparent ratings system based on an objective but flawed algorithm. Yes. BoxRec didn't even exist in 1993 but Ring Magazine has been around for over 100 years. Sure, they've lost some credibility over the years with their version of the lineal title particularly after Oscar bought the publication, but he no longer owns it. As for their journalists, they're more than qualified. Most of them are full Boxing Writers Association of America members that actually get to help induct fighters into the hall of fame (IBHOF).
 
Kovalev's Man Bag said:
A transparent ratings system based on an objective but flawed algorithm. Yes. BoxRec didn't even exist in 1993 but Ring Magazine has been around for over 100 years. Sure, they've lost some credibility over the years with their version of the lineal title particularly after Oscar bought the publication, but he no longer owns it. As for their journalists, they're more than qualified. Most of them are full Boxing Writers Association of America members that actually get to help induct fighters into the hall of fame (IBHOF).
Click to expand...

What's your issue with BoxRec's algorithm?

Also, their journalists could be great, they still don't have a crystal ball. The top fighters simply don't fight each other enough for "real time" rankings to mean anything; you have to take into account future events, otherwise you just don't have enough data points to extrapolate anything. BoxRec ratings do that. It's also how people do it in the real world. We obviously view Lennox's performance against Vitali more favorably in retrospect than we did at the time, while we clearly view Holyfield's performances over Tyson less favorably than we did at the time, given Tyson's career afterwards.
 
codfather said:
What's your issue with BoxRec's algorithm?

Also, their journalists could be great, they still don't have a crystal ball. The top fighters simply don't fight each other enough for "real time" rankings to mean anything; you have to take into account future events, otherwise you just don't have enough data points to extrapolate anything. BoxRec ratings do that. It's also how people do it in the real world. We obviously view Lennox's performance against Vitali more favorably in retrospect than we did at the time, while we clearly view Holyfield's performances over Tyson less favorably than we did at the time, given Tyson's career afterwards.
Click to expand...
Anyone that actually follows the sport can immediately point out the flaws in BoxRec's ratings algorithm. It often doesn't make sense when looking at their rankings. Objective ratings in theory are great but in reality they're not very useful. Feel free to read why below.

“Since the 90s, other parties have experimented with objective computerized rankings, but these are sometimes regarded as incapable of accounting for all of boxing's quirks and subtleties.”

Subjective, but fair, ratings panels produce more sensible rankings. It leaves room for manipulation but most of the popular media ratings sites publish transparency reports nowadays in the form of "rankings movement" explanations.
 
I'm also going to address the "American bias" allegation. Let's take a look at Ring Magazine's last 15 Fighter of the Year award winners. All of them are foreigners except for 2 that are American, Andre Ward & Teofimo Lopez. Even their current choice of P4P king, Usyk, isn't American.

2010s​

2020s​


The Ring magazine Fighter of the Year
 
Kovalev's Man Bag said:
Anyone that actually follows the sport can immediately point out the flaws in BoxRec's ratings algorithm. It often doesn't make sense when looking at their rankings. Objective ratings in theory are great but in reality they're not very useful. Feel free to read why below.

“Since the 90s, other parties have experimented with objective computerized rankings, but these are sometimes regarded as incapable of accounting for all of boxing's quirks and subtleties.”

Subjective, but fair, ratings panels produce more sensible rankings. It leaves room for manipulation but most of the popular media ratings sites publish transparency reports nowadays in the form of "rankings movement" explanations.
Click to expand...

I don't treat BoxRec ratings as gospel, their major issue is that they're based on official boxing results, when we know judges and refs are often incompetent/corrupt, and it runs into issues when fighters move divisions. I think the P4P rankings shouldn't be taken as seriously.
Also, their current ratings obviously can't take into account future results, so they're all unreliable, but that isn't an issue when looking at post hoc ratings calculated recently for far gone eras like the 00s or the 90s.

Another thing, I'm not necessarily talking about a Ring bias towards US-born fighters, so much as a broader boxing media bias towards fighters who regularly compete in North America... and I'll give you seven reasons why.

Based in/founded in North America...
  1. The Ring
  2. BoxingScene.com
  3. IBHOF
  4. WBA
  5. WBC
  6. IBF
  7. WBO

Plus, in hindsight, BoxRec's ratings are just obviously more accurate, once the present-day fog is cleared. The Ring had Bermane Stiverne as the #3 heavyweight in the world in 2014! Ahead of Fury!
 
Last edited:
codfather said:
I don't treat BoxRec ratings as gospel, their major issue is that they're based on official boxing results, when we know judges and refs are often incompetent/corrupt.
Also, their current ratings obviously can't take into account future results, so they're all unreliable, but that isn't an issue when looking at post hoc ratings calculated recently for far gone eras like the 00s or the 90s.

Another thing, I'm not necessarily talking about a Ring bias towards US-born fighters, so much as a broader boxing media bias towards fighters who regularly compete in North America... and I'll give you seven reasons why.

Based in/founded in North America...
  1. The Ring
  2. BoxingScene.com
  3. IBHOF
  4. WBA
  5. WBC
  6. IBF
  7. WBO

Plus, in hindsight, BoxRec's ratings are just obviously more accurate, once the present-day fog is cleared. The Ring had Bermane Stiverne as the #3 heavyweight in the world in 2014! Ahead of Fury!
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter where these orgs were founded as long as that bias doesn't significantly affect their rankings. How do you feel about the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, MLS, UFC, etc? These are the biggest sports leagues in the world and they were also established in North America.

If you really think that BoxRec's ratings are more accurate than a fully qualified panel of credentialed boxing journalists, analysts, historians & pundits then I don't know what else to tell you. BoxRec 'believes' in their algorithm so much that they no longer even encourage people to use it for P4P rankings. Guess what they did? They've opened it to BoxRec members that can now vote and submit their own P4P lists. Says it all, really.
 
Kovalev's Man Bag said:
It doesn't matter where these orgs were founded as long as that bias doesn't significantly affect their rankings. How do you feel about the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, MLS, UFC, etc? These are the biggest sports leagues in the world and they were also established in North America.

If you really think that BoxRec's ratings are more accurate than a fully qualified panel of credentialed boxing journalists, analysts, historians & pundits then I don't know what else to tell you. BoxRec 'believes' in their algorithm so much that they no longer even encourage people to use it for P4P rankings. Guess what they did? They've opened it to BoxRec members that can now vote and submit their own P4P lists. Says it all, really.
Click to expand...

The major soccer and cricket competitions are bigger in terms of viewership, and those American leagues and the way they are covered absolutely is biased. Ever wonder why the last time the NBA champs played the EuroLeague champs was over 14 years ago? You really don't think the UFC is biased towards fighters who can speak English?

I already mentioned that BoxRec's current ratings shouldn't be taken seriously, since they obviously don't account for future events, and P4P is a whole other can of worms.
I'm just discussing BoxRec's ratings within divisions, and only once everything has played out, which is required for BoxRec's WHR to truly show its advantages.
 
codfather said:
The major soccer and cricket competitions are bigger in terms of viewership, and those American leagues and the way they are covered absolutely is biased. Ever wonder why the last time the NBA champs played the EuroLeague champs was over 14 years ago? You really don't think the UFC is biased towards fighters who can speak English?

I already mentioned that BoxRec's current ratings shouldn't be taken seriously, since they obviously don't account for future events, and P4P is a whole other can of worms.
I'm just discussing BoxRec's ratings within divisions, and only once everything has played out, which is required for BoxRec's WHR to truly show its advantages.
Click to expand...
You know where else NBA players can play truly internationally? At the Olympics. We have EuroLeague standouts like Doncic already in the NBA and he's arguably the greatest player they've ever produced.

BoxRec's divisional rankings aren't as bad but they're still riddled with issues like when fighters move up/down they'll still get points in their new division that carry over. Back to their computerized P4P rankings. Right now they have Usyk sitting at P4P #13. They had him at #14 the other day lol. Meanwhile in their "People's P4P" ratings he's been voted #1 by BoxRec's own community. That's quite the discrepancy. Hardcore boxing fans mostly use TBRB's or Ring Magazine's ratings. BoxRec doesn't even recognize WBA champions anymore (this was politically motivated). It's really become a joke.
 
Kovalev's Man Bag said:
You know where else NBA players can play truly internationally? At the Olympics. We have EuroLeague standouts like Doncic already in the NBA and he's arguably the greatest player they've ever produced.

BoxRec's divisional rankings aren't as bad but they're still riddled with issues like when fighters move up/down they'll still get points in their new division that carry over. Back to their computerized P4P rankings. Right now they have Usyk sitting at P4P #13. They had him at #14 the other day lol. Meanwhile in their "People's P4P" ratings he's been voted #1 by BoxRec's own community. That's quite the discrepancy. Hardcore boxing fans mostly use TBRB's or Ring Magazine's ratings. BoxRec doesn't even recognize WBA champions anymore (this was politically motivated). It's really become a joke.
Click to expand...

Did you actually read how BoxRec ratings work? Belts don't affect ratings; it's basically an Elo system that accounts for future results.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,275,234
Messages
57,976,462
Members
175,889
Latest member
MEthzale

Share this page

Back
Top