Exactly. Froch won is what really happened. Just because you disagree with the stoppage, doesn't change what actually happened.Horse wrote:Rankings should be based on what really happened in a fight.keithmoonhangover wrote:If they are unbiased, then they are based on actual results, not what ifs. BoxRec's ratings are unbiased, that's why Groves moved down.
Pound for pound British rankings
-
keithmoonhangover
- Cruiserweight
- Posts: 17165
- Joined: 16 Sep 2010, 10:42
Re: Pound for pound British rankings
Re: Pound for pound British rankings
It shouldn't have been stopped, that's the reality.keithmoonhangover wrote:Exactly. Froch won is what really happened. Just because you disagree with the stoppage, doesn't change what actually happened.
-
keithmoonhangover
- Cruiserweight
- Posts: 17165
- Joined: 16 Sep 2010, 10:42
Re: Pound for pound British rankings
That's your opinion Horse, not a fact. Ratings should be based on facts, not opinions.Horse wrote:It shouldn't have been stopped, that's the reality.keithmoonhangover wrote:Exactly. Froch won is what really happened. Just because you disagree with the stoppage, doesn't change what actually happened.
Re: Pound for pound British rankings
Impossible.keithmoonhangover wrote:That's your opinion Horse, not a fact. Ratings should be based on facts, not opinions.
-
keithmoonhangover
- Cruiserweight
- Posts: 17165
- Joined: 16 Sep 2010, 10:42
Re: Pound for pound British rankings
Not impossible. Boxrec ratings are done that way.Horse wrote:Impossible.keithmoonhangover wrote:That's your opinion Horse, not a fact. Ratings should be based on facts, not opinions.
Re: Pound for pound British rankings
And they are not very good.keithmoonhangover wrote:Not impossible. Boxrec ratings are done that way.
-
keithmoonhangover
- Cruiserweight
- Posts: 17165
- Joined: 16 Sep 2010, 10:42
Re: Pound for pound British rankings
But it's not impossible is it Horse?Horse wrote:And they are not very good.keithmoonhangover wrote:Not impossible. Boxrec ratings are done that way.
Re: Pound for pound British rankings
Yes.keithmoonhangover wrote:But it's not impossible is it Horse?
Re: Pound for pound British rankings
I know this sounds extreme but let's say groves was way up after 8 rounds, and then paddy Fitzpatrick jumped in the ring and took matters into his own hands after the 3rd low blow or head butt from froch and that caused groves to be disqualified, well that would go down as a froch win. But if froch was getting an arse whipping until this point you wouldnt drop groves ranking would you ? Of course horse is right to give his opinion on his rankings, froch got the win but we know that wasn't the full story, it should without doubt effect the rankings, performance is everything (especially on a p4p list).
I did say it was extreme, but my point is sometimes losers are better fighters but lose through no fault of there own
I did say it was extreme, but my point is sometimes losers are better fighters but lose through no fault of there own
Re: Pound for pound British rankings
pot....kettle...black...Horse wrote:Awful list.2. Kell Brook
Re: Pound for pound British rankings
you rate bellew above cleverly....Horse wrote:Rankings should be based on what really happened in a fight.keithmoonhangover wrote:If they are unbiased, then they are based on actual results, not what ifs. BoxRec's ratings are unbiased, that's why Groves moved down.
-
squared circle
- Light Heavyweight
- Posts: 518
- Joined: 21 Oct 2011, 07:38
Re: Pound for pound British rankings
No way is brook 2nd p4p. That is just silly. Good performance last time out but barker, khan, Murray and burns for starters should be higher based on actual titles won or held and /or records
-
Boxerbeetle
- Light Heavyweight
- Posts: 33014
- Joined: 19 Sep 2011, 10:59
Re: Pound for pound British rankings
P4P rankings are surely always based on the observer's subjective perception of a fighter's skills, rather than purely results.
Groves boxed much better against Froch than many people thought he was capable of, so it makes sense that his P4P status could improve off the back of that performance, controversial stoppage notwithstanding.
Groves boxed much better against Froch than many people thought he was capable of, so it makes sense that his P4P status could improve off the back of that performance, controversial stoppage notwithstanding.
Re: Pound for pound British rankings
Why do people get so riled over P4P rankings ?
Re: Pound for pound British rankings
Because if someone disagrees it always becomes a name throwing issue you got me on the reason why though.G0mez wrote:Why do people get so riled over P4P rankings ?
-
Frankie Gavin
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 393
- Joined: 09 Jul 2009, 17:39
Re: Pound for pound British rankings
Brook shouldn't be top 5 IMO but he will be when he gets the shots I believe or takes them.
Re: Pound for pound British rankings
jessi wrote:I know this sounds extreme but let's say groves was way up after 8 rounds, and then paddy Fitzpatrick jumped in the ring and took matters into his own hands after the 3rd low blow or head butt from froch and that caused groves to be disqualified, well that would go down as a froch win. But if froch was getting an arse whipping until this point you wouldnt drop groves ranking would you ? Of course horse is right to give his opinion on his rankings, froch got the win but we know that wasn't the full story, it should without doubt effect the rankings, performance is everything (especially on a p4p list).
I did say it was extreme, but my point is sometimes losers are better fighters but lose through no fault of there own
Re: Pound for pound British rankings
Their fight was over two years ago and the fight was close. Bellew has done better since their fight.los2 wrote:you rate bellew above cleverly....
Because people like arguing.G0mez wrote:Why do people get so riled over P4P rankings ?
-
keithmoonhangover
- Cruiserweight
- Posts: 17165
- Joined: 16 Sep 2010, 10:42
Re: Pound for pound British rankings
Thumbs up, but guess what? That didn't happen.Horse wrote:jessi wrote:I know this sounds extreme but let's say groves was way up after 8 rounds, and then paddy Fitzpatrick jumped in the ring and took matters into his own hands after the 3rd low blow or head butt from froch and that caused groves to be disqualified, well that would go down as a froch win. But if froch was getting an arse whipping until this point you wouldnt drop groves ranking would you ? Of course horse is right to give his opinion on his rankings, froch got the win but we know that wasn't the full story, it should without doubt effect the rankings, performance is everything (especially on a p4p list).
I did say it was extreme, but my point is sometimes losers are better fighters but lose through no fault of there own
If the ref had given Froch a standing eight count or Groves had gone done and got up, Froch would have only been 1 or 3 rounds behind on any normal score cards, with three rounds to go.
Re: Pound for pound British rankings
kell is mandatory for a world title.....ur boxing no.377 in the world next....Frankie Gavin wrote:Brook shouldn't be top 5 IMO but he will be when he gets the shots I believe or takes them.
Re: Pound for pound British rankings
And?los2 wrote:kell is mandatory for a world title.....ur boxing no.377 in the world next....Frankie Gavin wrote:Brook shouldn't be top 5 IMO but he will be when he gets the shots I believe or takes them.
Re: Pound for pound British rankings
Where's will Barker be next month Horse?
Re: Pound for pound British rankings
he's having a pop at kell saying he's not top 5 till he gets a shot...he has got a shot...crusader wrote:And?los2 wrote:kell is mandatory for a world title.....ur boxing no.377 in the world next....Frankie Gavin wrote:Brook shouldn't be top 5 IMO but he will be when he gets the shots I believe or takes them.
Re: Pound for pound British rankings
You're the one having a pop. He had a shot 12 months ago, but still hasn't taken it. Frankie said that he thinks that when Kell gets his shot, which will be next against Porter, he will take it and that will push him into the top 5, you're just too thick to understand that.los2 wrote:he's having a pop at kell saying he's not top 5 till he gets a shot...he has got a shot...crusader wrote:And?los2 wrote: kell is mandatory for a world title.....ur boxing no.377 in the world next....