Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: just peeked at the fightnews rankings
FightHype Community > BOXING HYPE > Boxing
AZWildCat
Short on staff cause their abomination made me wanna puke...how come we ain't got one?
klonopinz
too much work
mrchitown
QUOTE (AZWildCat @ Jan 20 2014, 06:58 PM) *
Short on staff cause that abomination made me wanna puke...how come we ain't got one?


On the site or on this forum?

I like Fightnews, it's actually my favorite boxing site
AZWildCat
QUOTE (mrchitown @ Jan 20 2014, 09:10 PM) *
On the site or on this forum?

I like Fightnews, it's actually my favorite boxing site

Both

For news yeah its great ...was my main source for years
Jack 1000
Mixed bag on Fight News for me,

They are quick with results of fights. But not so good at separating fact from rumor. Gossip often qualifies as news, just as much as facts. You need to check out sites like ours to see if what Fightnews is saying is true or not. They also make too big a deal out of stories that are not news worthy trying to use cute pseudo-sounding names to grab attention. Too often, the "news" stories are little more than innuendo. It's like the staff thinks, "We have to write, SOMETHING today, no matter what." They are a big Boxing "National Enquirer."


Jack
mrchitown
QUOTE (AZWildCat @ Jan 20 2014, 09:24 PM) *
Both

For news yeah its great ...was my main source for years


I'd be down to do our own rankings

I like fightnews because they report stuff that many of the other sites don't
AZWildCat
QUOTE (Jack 1000 @ Jan 20 2014, 10:52 PM) *
Mixed bag on Fight News for me,

They are quick with results of fights. But not so good at separating fact from rumor. Gossip often qualifies as news, just as much as facts. You need to check out sites like ours to see if what Fightnews is saying is true or not. They also make too big a deal out of stories that are not news worthy trying to use cute pseudo-sounding names to grab attention. Too often, the "news" stories are little more than innuendo. It's like the staff thinks, "We have to write, SOMETHING today, no matter what." They are a big Boxing "National Enquirer."


Jack


Damn Jack I know they're the comp and all but that's harsh ....plus haven't really been over there since I found fighthype..so n.e. they are
QUOTE (mrchitown @ Jan 20 2014, 10:57 PM) *
I'd be down to do our own rankings

I like fightnews because they report stuff that many of the other sites don't

I'm all the way wit it.
Plah
QUOTE (mrchitown @ Jan 20 2014, 10:57 PM) *
I'd be down to do our own rankings

I like fightnews because they report stuff that many of the other sites don't

This
Cshel86
I don't trust many people's P4P rankings or division rankings, and so on...it's a subjective thing at the end of the day. I don't even trust my own rankings...nor should you all trust it...I'd shamelessly put Joe Calzaghe on my 168 rankings every time...atop of the list, might I add.
AZWildCat
I would blast box rec but they at least on a points system. Making it not so ugly. Dan Rachel is bias as fuck.

A voting system is in order.

Fresh new board members blocked out to avoid sabatage(yeah I know)
AZWildCat
QUOTE (Cshel86 @ Jan 21 2014, 11:24 AM) *
I don't trust many people's P4P rankings or division rankings, and so on...it's a subjective thing at the end of the day. I don't even trust my own rankings...nor should you all trust it...I'd shamelessly put Joe Calzaghe on my 168 rankings every time...atop of the list, might I add.

I hear you on that note. ...but we'd have a blast arguing justified spots ...and not nessasarally a p4p by a ranking by. Division .
Dolimite
I will be the sacrificial lamb:

P4P

1. FMJ
2. T. Bradley
3. Andre Ward
4. Adonis Stevenson
5. Danny Garcia
6. G. Rigondeaux
7. Leo Santa Cruz
8. Mikey Garcia
9. Bernard Hopkins
10. V. Klit
Plah
QUOTE (Dolimite @ Jan 21 2014, 02:04 PM) *
I will be the sacrificial lamb:

P4P

1. FMJ
2. T. Bradley
3. Andre Ward
4. Adonis Stevenson
5. Danny Garcia
6. G. Rigondeaux
7. Leo Santa Cruz
8. Mikey Garcia
9. Bernard Hopkins
10. V. Klit

Swap Bradley with Ward and Adonis with Rigo and Danny with Klit..... uh nvm. I don't expect anyone here to have the exact order, criteria, etc.
mrchitown
QUOTE (Dolimite @ Jan 21 2014, 01:04 PM) *
I will be the sacrificial lamb:

P4P

1. FMJ
2. T. Bradley
3. Andre Ward
4. Adonis Stevenson
5. Danny Garcia
6. G. Rigondeaux
7. Leo Santa Cruz
8. Mikey Garcia
9. Bernard Hopkins
10. V. Klit


Here we go lol
AZWildCat
No one said now lets keep it professional lol
BrutUalBK
Here you go:

1. Floyd
2. Ward
3. Bradley
4. Rigo
5. Danny Garcia
6. BHop
7. Mikey Garcia
8. Adonis Stevenson
9. Sergio Martinez
10. V. Klits

11. Leo Santa Cruz
BoxingEinstein

Kinda surprised FH never had a ranking for division,champs, P4P, etc.

1.Mayweather
2.Ward
3.Bradley
4.Rigondeaux
5.Stevenson
6.JMM
7.Hopkins
8.D.Garcia
9.M.Garcia
10.R.Gonzalez
Jack 1000
QUOTE (BoxingEinstein @ Jan 22 2014, 01:15 PM) *
Kinda surprised FH never had a ranking for division,champs, P4P, etc.

1.Mayweather
2.Ward
3.Bradley
4.Rigondeaux
5.Stevenson
6.JMM
7.Hopkins
8.D.Garcia
9.M.Garcia
10.R.Gonzalez


I recall some years ago we had talked about doing a rating system, but it never materialized. What I remembered was the issue of subjectivity. My view was and remains that ratings are too subjective where everything is going to have different views about them. That's why I never really put that much into Ring Magazine ratings, especially since Golden Boy bought out the magazine. This is because:

1.) They are little more than who is the most popular fighter among each weight class.
2.) According to Ring policy-and post if this has changed, you can never get stripped of a title for inactivity. That means you can sit on your ass with a Ring belt and never have to fight and still be a ring "World Champion."
3.) Ring cannot force fights to take place. There's no elimination, there's no round robin. Ring talks about trying to compete against the alphabet federations, but until the ten contenders are actually fighting each other in round robin elimination tournaments, or something, it's still just a set of ratings.
4.) I remember Vitali Klitschko was made Ring Champion off of the "Loss" to Lennox Lewis, or off the strength of his effort, or some shit like that. Yes, it was a war. Yes, it was a hell of a fight. BUT Vitali lost that fight on a TKO cut eye stoppage, in one of the worst cuts seen in years. Ring promoted Vitali for losing.
5.) Arturo Gatti was made a top contender in a Ring Rating because of HBO's popular pom-poming of him, despite that he had never fought in that rated division before.

Ring is good for general consensus of who the champions and contenders are, but the writers and ratings committee can't force fights to happen. Only the promoters, sanctioning bodies, and fighters themselves can do that. The point is that whether it's Ring Magazine, Fightnews, or even if we at Fighthype did a rating system, there's always going to be subjectivity in it, and the only way you can reduce that subjectivity as a fighter, writer, reporter, or boxing fan, is to have the fighters fight each other. If your fighter wins he goes up in ratings, loses he goes down, draws, he stays the same until his next fight. If the fighters aren't fighting each other in elimination matches, anybody's ratings just becomes a subjectivity list. That's why my confidence in a rating system is only lukewarm

Jack
checkleft
QUOTE (Cshel86 @ Jan 21 2014, 11:24 AM) *
I don't trust many people's P4P rankings or division rankings, and so on...it's a subjective thing at the end of the day. I don't even trust my own rankings...nor should you all trust it...I'd shamelessly put Joe Calzaghe on my 168 rankings every time...atop of the list, might I add.

You'd have to be ashamed NOT to put him atop that list..

QUOTE (mrchitown @ Jan 21 2014, 11:26 PM) *
Here we go lol

Haha.
QUOTE (BrutUalBK @ Jan 22 2014, 12:24 PM) *
Here you go:

1. Floyd
2. Ward
3. Bradley
4. Rigo
5. Danny Garcia
6. BHop
7. Mikey Garcia
8. Adonis Stevenson
9. Sergio Martinez
10. V. Klits

11. Leo Santa Cruz

Good list Brut
AZWildCat
QUOTE (Jack 1000 @ Jan 23 2014, 04:47 PM) *
I recall some years ago we had talked about doing a rating system, but it never materialized. What I remembered was the issue of subjectivity. My view was and remains that ratings are too subjective where everything is going to have different views about them. That's why I never really put that much into Ring Magazine ratings, especially since Golden Boy bought out the magazine. This is because:

1.) They are little more than who is the most popular fighter among each weight class.
2.) According to Ring policy-and post if this has changed, you can never get stripped of a title for inactivity. That means you can sit on your ass with a Ring belt and never have to fight and still be a ring "World Champion."
3.) Ring cannot force fights to take place. There's no elimination, there's no round robin. Ring talks about trying to compete against the alphabet federations, but until the ten contenders are actually fighting each other in round robin elimination tournaments, or something, it's still just a set of ratings.
4.) I remember Vitali Klitschko was made Ring Champion off of the "Loss" to Lennox Lewis, or off the strength of his effort, or some shit like that. Yes, it was a war. Yes, it was a hell of a fight. BUT Vitali lost that fight on a TKO cut eye stoppage, in one of the worst cuts seen in years. Ring promoted Vitali for losing.
5.) Arturo Gatti was made a top contender in a Ring Rating because of HBO's popular pom-poming of him, despite that he had never fought in that rated division before.

Ring is good for general consensus of who the champions and contenders are, but the writers and ratings committee can't force fights to happen. Only the promoters, sanctioning bodies, and fighters themselves can do that. The point is that whether it's Ring Magazine, Fightnews, or even if we at Fighthype did a rating system, there's always going to be subjectivity in it, and the only way you can reduce that subjectivity as a fighter, writer, reporter, or boxing fan, is to have the fighters fight each other. If your fighter wins he goes up in ratings, loses he goes down, draws, he stays the same until his next fight. If the fighters aren't fighting each other in elimination matches, anybody's ratings just becomes a subjectivity list. That's why my confidence in a rating system is only lukewarm

Jack

ETHER
Cshel86
QUOTE (Jack 1000 @ Jan 23 2014, 03:47 PM) *
I recall some years ago we had talked about doing a rating system, but it never materialized. What I remembered was the issue of subjectivity. My view was and remains that ratings are too subjective where everything is going to have different views about them. That's why I never really put that much into Ring Magazine ratings, especially since Golden Boy bought out the magazine. This is because:

1.) They are little more than who is the most popular fighter among each weight class.
2.) According to Ring policy-and post if this has changed, you can never get stripped of a title for inactivity. That means you can sit on your ass with a Ring belt and never have to fight and still be a ring "World Champion."
3.) Ring cannot force fights to take place. There's no elimination, there's no round robin. Ring talks about trying to compete against the alphabet federations, but until the ten contenders are actually fighting each other in round robin elimination tournaments, or something, it's still just a set of ratings.
4.) I remember Vitali Klitschko was made Ring Champion off of the "Loss" to Lennox Lewis, or off the strength of his effort, or some shit like that. Yes, it was a war. Yes, it was a hell of a fight. BUT Vitali lost that fight on a TKO cut eye stoppage, in one of the worst cuts seen in years. Ring promoted Vitali for losing.
5.) Arturo Gatti was made a top contender in a Ring Rating because of HBO's popular pom-poming of him, despite that he had never fought in that rated division before.

Ring is good for general consensus of who the champions and contenders are, but the writers and ratings committee can't force fights to happen. Only the promoters, sanctioning bodies, and fighters themselves can do that. The point is that whether it's Ring Magazine, Fightnews, or even if we at Fighthype did a rating system, there's always going to be subjectivity in it, and the only way you can reduce that subjectivity as a fighter, writer, reporter, or boxing fan, is to have the fighters fight each other. If your fighter wins he goes up in ratings, loses he goes down, draws, he stays the same until his next fight. If the fighters aren't fighting each other in elimination matches, anybody's ratings just becomes a subjectivity list. That's why my confidence in a rating system is only lukewarm

Jack

On point Jack! I bet that you anonymously write hate letters to The Ring...hell, who wouldn't??? Lol

I may be way off here, but help me out. Does The Ring title make a fighter THE champion of that division...regardless of whether they hold the WBC, WBO, WBA, or IBF title? Or, does the WBC title mean that you're THE champ of the division (read: the recognized champ)???

QUOTE (checkleft @ Jan 23 2014, 03:59 PM) *
You'd have to be ashamed NOT to put him atop that list..

Smokin' Joe Cal..."the greatest of all time, that'll shock yo mind"!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.