Top 10 HW's head to head record

benebox

Black Belt
@Black
Joined
Jan 4, 2015
Messages
7,397
Reaction score
2,785
690.jpg


The Ring is going to have the Wilder / Fury winner as the undisputed champ as they rank Fury #1 and Wilder as #2. Discuss
 
Why is Fury at no. 1 with zero wins and 1 draw according to Ring magazine? Lol
 
Why is Fury at no. 1 with zero wins and 1 draw according to Ring magazine? Lol
Why is Ortiz up there with 0 wins and 2 losses?
 
Why is Fury at no. 1 with zero wins and 1 draw according to Ring magazine? Lol
They value the fact that he was the last to beat the clear undisputed #1 and has not been defeated since.
I dont like it, but I see a valid argument for it.
 
top 5, no less
I'm also confused on the Povetkin, Parker, and Hunter positioning. If you wanna put Povetkin over Hunter because he's more established at HW even though they drew then fair enough, but why put Parker in the middle of them? Seems weird to me.
 
Isnt The Ring owned by Golden Boy? That would explain some weird stuff.
I think, but are any of the top heavyweights Golden Boy? I thought they were all Matchroom, PBC, and then one Top Rank. Just seems like a weird list.
 
I think, but are any of the top heavyweights Golden Boy? I thought they were all Matchroom, PBC, and then one Top Rank. Just seems like a weird list.

No, but Oscar might do Arum a favor.
 
Oh no here come the conspiracy theories because people dont agree with a subjective measurement....
I'm sure like most rankings they take other things besides paper thin resumes into consideration
I dont agree with it but its not horiible.
Think they aren't giving Parker credit for his paper win on Ruiz...
I dont put Povetkin over Parker.
Fury over Wilder is a personal preference pick
Justifiable either wY
Since Parker v Ruiz was super close and Hunter Povetkin was legit lame draw It makes more sense for those groups of guys to be next to each other on that list as opposed to mixed iin between. IMO

But there is nothing really out of bounds about that list.
The whole point of guys actually fighting is to make list like that meaningless.

I would love to see the guys NOT named Fury AJ or Wilder mix it up.
 
Going by the Rings own rankings they should have Joshua as #1 and if you just look at their records that's the only way to do it. Wins over 4 of the top ten is better than beating just one of the top 10 even if you fought the guy twice for no apparent reason.

Not that it really matters though.
 
Oh no here come the conspiracy theories because people dont agree with a subjective measurement....
I'm sure like most rankings they take other things besides paper thin resumes into consideration
I dont agree with it but its not horiible.
Think they aren't giving Parker credit for his paper win on Ruiz...
I dont put Povetkin over Parker.
Fury over Wilder is a personal preference pick
Justifiable either wY
Since Parker v Ruiz was super close and Hunter Povetkin was legit lame draw It makes more sense for those groups of guys to be next to each other on that list as opposed to mixed iin between. IMO

But there is nothing really out of bounds about that list.
The whole point of guys actually fighting is to make list like that meaningless.

I would love to see the guys NOT named Fury AJ or Wilder mix it up.

The 9/11 truthers are conspiracists... Probably the biggest bunch in human history... But I didn't know that doing someone a favor, which is what I suggested, counts as a "conspiracy".

This shit is way too irrelevant to even bring that term up.
 
The 9/11 truthers are conspiracists... Probably the biggest bunch in human history... But I didn't know that doing someone a favor, which is what I suggested, counts as a "conspiracy".

This shit is way too irrelevant to even bring that term up.
I use it more loose than you do. There are different levels to it. A conspiracy theory doesn't always have to be on a massive scale. Plenty of massive ones not just 911.
The people who are prone to making up and believing in them also apply that same logic to many other views big and small.
Unhealthy skepticism about everything they may not agree with based on speculation that can't be proven true.
 
I use it more loose than you do. There are different levels to it. A conspiracy theory doesn't always have to be on a massive scale. Plenty of massive ones not just 911.
The people who are prone to making up and believing in them also apply that same logic to many other views big and small.
Unhealthy skepticism about everything they may not agree with based on speculation that can't be proven true.

I disagree with that generally.
And specifically in this case I absolutely have reasonable doubts, and I delivered arguments to justify them.

I think you're being polemic. And to be honest, I see similarities between you and @aries.
 
Going by the Rings own rankings they should have Joshua as #1 and if you just look at their records that's the only way to do it. Wins over 4 of the top ten is better than beating just one of the top 10 even if you fought the guy twice for no apparent reason.

Not that it really matters though.

Depends how you look at it, Wilder has 2 wins against someone in the top 5.

Would be interesting how they placed wlad, if he was still around
 
I disagree with that generally.
And specifically in this case I absolutely have reasonable doubts, and I delivered arguments to justify them.

I think you're being polemic. And to be honest, I see similarities between you and @aries.
What makes your subjective criteria more valid or credible than Fury being the undefeated guy who destroyed the last undisputed champ and who fought even with the #1 or #2 guy?

Saying Fury is at the top of the list because Golden Boy owns the publication. Then owes Arum a made up favor is the exact definition of using speculation to come up with a conspiracy theory simply because somebody ranks a fighter higher than you.

Which is more likely?????

They ranked Fury #1 because he is A. Undefeated B. Was the last guy to beat a relevant #1 Undisputed Wlad. C. Because he fought even with the other clear #1 #2 guy
All those things are factual and add validity to them ranking him #1. Even though I don't agree with it.

Or

Golden Boy a seperate entity owed Fury's manager, Arum a favor. So even though it's not directly their fighter they went ahead and moved him up on the list. All just litterally made up on the spot speculation.

Great. I think you and aries have a lot in common as well.
 
What makes your subjective criteria more valid or credible than Fury being the undefeated guy who destroyed the last undisputed champ and who fought even with the #1 or #2 guy?

Saying Fury is at the top of the list because Golden Boy owns the publication. Then owes Arum a made up favor is the exact definition of using speculation to come up with a conspiracy theory simply because somebody ranks a fighter higher than you.

Which is more likely?????

They ranked Fury #1 because he is A. Undefeated B. Was the last guy to beat a relevant #1 Undisputed Wlad. C. Because he fought even with the other clear #1 #2 guy
All those things are factual and add validity to them ranking him #1. Even though I don't agree with it.

Or

Golden Boy a seperate entity owed Fury's manager, Arum a favor. So even though it's not directly their fighter they went ahead and moved him up on the list. All just litterally made up on the spot speculation.

Great. I think you and aries have a lot in common as well.

Stopped reading after the first sentence. Fury didn't destroy Wilder, it was draw... Fury was lucky that the ref didn't stop the fight, lol.

I think this magazine is biased. I don't know what or who's behind it, and I don't care.
 
Depends how you look at it, Wilder has 2 wins against someone in the top 5.

Would be interesting how they placed wlad, if he was still around
Well he has losses against 1 and 3, so he'd definitely be below that. Did The Ring rank Fury before his draw with Wilder? I can't remember.
 
Stopped reading after the first sentence. Fury didn't destroy Wilder, it was draw... Fury was lucky that the ref didn't stop the fight, lol.

I think this magazine is biased. I don't know what or who's behind it, and I don't care.
I never said Fury destroyed Wilder.
You should read it better. It never said that.
You are confusing a Wlad reference with Wilder.
I been arguing the fight was a draw for pages......
This place. Smh
 
I never said Fury destroyed Wilder.
You should read it better. It never said that.
You are confusing a Wlad reference with Wilder.
I been arguing the fight was a draw for pages......
This place. Smh

You're still quoting me you freak.
 
Back
Top