Stuarty30 wrote:He won a British title and defended it two or three times. Never lost the title in the ring. How is that not above domestic level.
Because that isn't above domestic level. He never even won the Lonsdale belt outright in a very weak domestic division were he wasn't even taking on our best fighters.
Stuarty30 wrote:Have you ever watched him fight? He shouldn't be a world champion but he's good enough to be in your top 30. You have Nurse and Skeete there ahead of him and Walsh? Walsh will be a world champion this time next year I reckon.
Also if Smith did manage a win against Boxrecs top P4P fighter he would be going from not being in your top 30 to potentially top! Makes a mockery of your system. You've under estimated him and Walsh.
Stuarty30 wrote:They're at different points in their careers. Khan has been brutally KO'd 3 times and hasn't won a fight in well over a year and even then he looked awful against a limited Algieri. Smith and Walsh are unbeaten and still climbing the ladder.
Neither has come close to beating anyone as good as Algieri.
Stuarty30 wrote:He won a British title and defended it two or three times. Never lost the title in the ring. How is that not above domestic level.
Because that isn't above domestic level. He never even won the Lonsdale belt outright in a very weak domestic division were he wasn't even taking on our best fighters.
Stuarty30 wrote:Have you ever watched him fight? He shouldn't be a world champion but he's good enough to be in your top 30. You have Nurse and Skeete there ahead of him and Walsh? Walsh will be a world champion this time next year I reckon.
Also if Smith did manage a win against Boxrecs top P4P fighter he would be going from not being in your top 30 to potentially top! Makes a mockery of your system. You've under estimated him and Walsh.
He's not going to beat Alvarez.
He could've and probably would've won it outright but chose to go a different route. He has a better record than Liam Williams (who I'm a fan of) but you have Williams above him? How does that make sense?
Probably won't beat Alvarez but stranger things have happened and if he did it makes your rankings look silly doesn't it. I'd bet he does better than Amir done.
Stuarty30 wrote:They're at different points in their careers. Khan has been brutally KO'd 3 times and hasn't won a fight in well over a year and even then he looked awful against a limited Algieri. Smith and Walsh are unbeaten and still climbing the ladder.
Neither has come close to beating anyone as good as Algieri.
Stuarty30 wrote:Groves is too high. You're giving him a higher ranking because he's beaten your hero Murray who was also too high.
George Groves' top 10 results:
James DeGale
Carl Froch I - (Lost)
Martin Murray
Carl Froch II - (Lost)
Badou Jack - (Lost)
Glen Johnson
Paul Smith
Christopher Rebrasse
Francisco Sierra
Kenny Anderson
Groves has a very solid record and I think that he deserves a high ranking.
He has a decent record. Nothing more. He's lost his three biggest fights and arguably lost to DeGale. His best wins are a faded Middleweight in Murray and an ancient Glen Johnson. Hardly top ten material.
Be that as it may, that is what they were. Factually, American betting companies had Carl at 9/2 on the day of the fight. That's a helluva drop from 5/1 a month prior to it.
Horse wrote:This fight was not considered to be a routine defence for Santa Cruz.
Dan Rafael (to his credit) was the only American boxing pundit that predicted that the fight was even going to be close. (Even though he predicted a Santa Cruz win).
Stuarty30 wrote:Groves is too high. You're giving him a higher ranking because he's beaten your hero Murray who was also too high.
George Groves' top 10 results:
James DeGale
Carl Froch I - (Lost)
Martin Murray
Carl Froch II - (Lost)
Badou Jack - (Lost)
Glen Johnson
Paul Smith
Christopher Rebrasse
Francisco Sierra
Kenny Anderson
Groves has a very solid record and I think that he deserves a high ranking.
He has a decent record. Nothing more. He's lost his three biggest fights and arguably lost to DeGale. His best wins are a faded Middleweight in Murray and an ancient Glen Johnson. Hardly top ten material.
The world's number 1 super-mid is Degale who has only lost once. Groves has beaten him both amateur and pro.
Stuarty30 wrote:He could've and probably would've won it outright but chose to go a different route. He has a better record than Liam Williams (who I'm a fan of) but you have Williams above him? How does that make sense?
Williams just beat Corcoran who is arguably better than anyone that Smith has ever beaten.
Stuarty30 wrote:Probably won't beat Alvarez but stranger things have happened and if he did it makes your rankings look silly doesn't it. I'd bet he does better than Amir done.
Smith doesn't deserve to be rated based on what he has done so far.
Him going on to achieve something does not make me look silly for not rating him highly in the past.
Stuarty30 wrote:
Horse wrote:Neither has come close to beating anyone as good as Algieri.
James DeGale
Carl Froch I - (Lost)
Martin Murray
Carl Froch II - (Lost)
Badou Jack - (Lost)
Glen Johnson
Paul Smith
Christopher Rebrasse
Francisco Sierra
Kenny Anderson
Groves has a very solid record and I think that he deserves a high ranking.
He has a decent record. Nothing more. He's lost his three biggest fights and arguably lost to DeGale. His best wins are a faded Middleweight in Murray and an ancient Glen Johnson. Hardly top ten material.
The world's number 1 super-mid is Degale who has only lost once. Groves has beaten him both amateur and pro.
What's that got to do with anything? DeGale has went on to become world champion. Groves has so far proved he's not good enough. Groves scraped past DeGale when they were both novice pros for the British title. You can't give him a high ranking based on a win 5 years ago.
Stuarty30 wrote:McDonnells two wins against Kameda eclipse any win over Warren if the fight happens.
Fighters don't only move up the rankings for getting their best win ever.
Stuarty30 wrote:He has a decent record. Nothing more. He's lost his three biggest fights and arguably lost to DeGale. His best wins are a faded Middleweight in Murray and an ancient Glen Johnson. Hardly top ten material.
Stuarty30 wrote:He could've and probably would've won it outright but chose to go a different route. He has a better record than Liam Williams (who I'm a fan of) but you have Williams above him? How does that make sense?
Williams just beat Corcoran who is arguably better than anyone that Smith has ever beaten.
Stuarty30 wrote:Probably won't beat Alvarez but stranger things have happened and if he did it makes your rankings look silly doesn't it. I'd bet he does better than Amir done.
Smith doesn't deserve to be rated based on what he has done so far.
Him going on to achieve something does not make me look silly for not rating him highly in the past.
Stuarty30 wrote:
Horse wrote:Neither has come close to beating anyone as good as Algieri.
Well, they haven't.
Williams and Corocoran put on a good fight but they are both untested. Smith rates above both for me.
If he beats Canelo then it makes your rankings look daft. I'm not even a big fan of Smith but talent wise he deserves to be in anyone's British top 30. Certainly before guys like Williams, Skeete and Nurse.
Algieri is a one win wonder. A flash in the pan. Very limited and made Khan look the same when he went life and death with him. It was not an impressive win and it was well over a year ago. He doesn't deserve his position. There are more active fighters with better and more importantly more recent wins in there.
Stuarty30 wrote:McDonnells two wins against Kameda eclipse any win over Warren if the fight happens.
Fighters don't only move up the rankings for getting their best win ever.
Stuarty30 wrote:He has a decent record. Nothing more. He's lost his three biggest fights and arguably lost to DeGale. His best wins are a faded Middleweight in Murray and an ancient Glen Johnson. Hardly top ten material.
Dan Rafael (to his credit) was the only American boxing pundit that predicted that the fight was even going to be close. (Even though he predicted a Santa Cruz win).
I assumed that Frampton would win.
They got it wrong. Them overrating Santa Cruz doesn't make him a great fighter.
How does Frampton win? The Englishman is no slouch when it comes to heart and guts - as evidenced in his defeat of Quigg in February -
Stuarty30 wrote:Williams and Corocoran put on a good fight but they are both untested. Smith rates above both for me.
Smith is untested above domestic level.
Stuarty30 wrote:If he beats Canelo then it makes your rankings look daft.
No, it won't.
Stuarty30 wrote:I'm not even a big fan of Smith but talent wise he deserves to be in anyone's British top 30. Certainly before guys like Williams, Skeete and Nurse.
I disagree.
Stuarty30 wrote:Algieri is a one win wonder. A flash in the pan. Very limited and made Khan look the same when he went life and death with him. It was not an impressive win and it was well over a year ago. He doesn't deserve his position. There are more active fighters with better and more importantly more recent wins in there.
Algieri is far superior to anyone that Smith has beaten.
Stuarty30 wrote:Williams and Corocoran put on a good fight but they are both untested. Smith rates above both for me.
Smith is untested above domestic level.
Stuarty30 wrote:If he beats Canelo then it makes your rankings look daft.
No, it won't.
Stuarty30 wrote:I'm not even a big fan of Smith but talent wise he deserves to be in anyone's British top 30. Certainly before guys like Williams, Skeete and Nurse.
I disagree.
Stuarty30 wrote:Algieri is a one win wonder. A flash in the pan. Very limited and made Khan look the same when he went life and death with him. It was not an impressive win and it was well over a year ago. He doesn't deserve his position. There are more active fighters with better and more importantly more recent wins in there.
Algieri is far superior to anyone that Smith has beaten.
From now on, why don't you just call it: Horse's British top 30 dated with the month. Because it is very clear that you do not take on board input from other people.
You become argumentative when asked about why you rate a fighter highly and downright nasty when you are asked why you rate a fighter overly lowly.
Crease wrote:From now on, why don't you just call it: Horse's British top 30 dated with the month. Because it is very clear that you do not take on board input from other people.
You become argumentative when asked about why you rate a fighter highly and downright nasty when you are asked why you rate a fighter overly lowly.
