British Top 30 P4P July 2014

[Horse]

"Any comments/criticisms of the British Top 30 P4P list are very welcome"

I welcome comments, but if they're dumb and nasty I'm not going to pretend I respect the post.

[Horse]

His defeats were far worse than Burns all added together, which whilst he lost, he was competitive until the final bell.

No, Groves' two losses to Froch are both a lot better than any of Burns' recent losses.

[Horse]

I agree with Gomez

Audley harrison was looking good againt Wilder for 10 seconds (Never got hit) before he got tagged Does he qualify for your list because he was looking good

No.

[crusader]

Crusader, Horse - surely if I was so pro-Froch i would saying what a great scalp he is.

But Froch has better scalps than George Groves and like I have said, how can he enjoy such a lofty position, when he was won nothing at all - and yet a dethroned champion drops like a stone ?

"He looked good before being KTFO" is not an answer.

The dethroned champion can drop like a stone because he's looked quite poor in his last 4 fights spanning roughly 2 years, and his most recent loss marks a drop in quality relating to the opponents he's deserved to lose to. Conversely, Groves has looked fairly good recently and fought extremely competitively with one of the 10 best fighters P4P globally, something Burns has never done. I think there is a good argument that Burns was dropped too far, and I would probably still have him above someone like Quigg, but I think it's defensible as well.

I think dismissing how one performs in a losing effort and going simply by results is extremely reductive. It takes no account of the quality a losing boxer shows during the bout and it gives far too much credit to the judgements of officials who often make poor decisions or decisions that are at least arguable.

You say that performing well until being stopped isn't tangible, but scoring a heavy knockdown is, being ahead on all three official cards is, and being well ahead in punches landed per a punch count is. Even in the rematch Groves was listed as landing significantly more punches and a higher percentage of punches, while he was also ahead by three points on one card and only down by a point on the other two, with many fans having him ahead as well. Now, I don't think punch stats, scores, and knockdowns tell the entire story, but they are certainly tangible if the decisions rendered by judges are.

Fighters can perform at very different levels in reaching the same result. People can win every round and score several knockdowns on their way to a decision win, or they can be dropped multiple times and seemingly be dominated, only to get a gift from the judges. Ranking in my view should consider how good fighters are based on how well they perform, and reducing everything to only the final outcome while not considering how that was reached is antithetical to that.

I agree with Gomez
Audley harrison was looking good againt Wilder for 10 seconds (Never got hit) before he got tagged Does he qualify for your list because he was looking good

How long one does well for should be considered because prolonged success is evidence of ability and it can also be considered an achievement in a way that doing well for 10 seconds cannot. Looking good for ten seconds then being stopped moments later in the first round isn't comparable to someone looking good for many rounds before being stopped well into the fight.