Captain Hook wrote:Scott Harrison shouldn't be anywhere near this list, let alone the top 10.
How much better would it be if he was outside the top 10?
Just fcuk him off out of it altogether, I've got nothing against Scot, but he hasn't fought in over 18 months. You should have a 12 months activity policy in your rankings
Captain Hook wrote:Scott Harrison shouldn't be anywhere near this list, let alone the top 10.
How much better would it be if he was outside the top 10?
Just fcuk him off out of it altogether, I've got nothing against Scot, but he hasn't fought in over 18 months. You should have a 12 months activity policy in your rankings
In some cases it seems impossible to get fights.... like for example I brought up about Mark Krence - nobody would confirm he has retired.
Wayne McCullough - clearly wants to fight on, now has a licence and has been a bit unlucky with opponents.
Having said that, Scott Harrison's scenerio is entirely different - he's been inactive for 2 years... there is no sign of that stopping soon and there must be a huge doubt if he is ever coming back.
So while I agree with you (Chambers) on Harrison, not sure I entirely agree on a strict 12 month policy.
cobrakai wrote:Saying the system is based mainly on achievement excuses having Gavin Rees in the top 10 when he is nowhere near one of the 10 best boxers in Britain, but if thats the case how is Commonwealth Champion Bradley Pryce a full 10 places behind John Duddy?
I overlooked Pryce for a long time, so he probably should be higher. Duddy is perhaps higher than he should be based on achievement, but he has beaten some decent fighters and is highly ranked. I thought since I was entering him into the list, I would give him the benefit of the doubt, and place him just inside the top 20.
oscar wrote:i think lynes could be higher an ex world champ two defences distance with witter wins british and euro belts against two top british fighters both better than lauri imo and only 19th?
I moved Lynes into the list for the Morrison victory and up 10 places for the Mutley win, I thought that was fair.
Horse wrote:
How much better would it be if he was outside the top 10?
Just fcuk him off out of it altogether, I've got nothing against Scot, but he hasn't fought in over 18 months. You should have a 12 months activity policy in your rankings
In some cases it seems impossible to get fights.... like for example I brought up about Mark Krence - nobody would confirm he has retired.
Wayne McCullough - clearly wants to fight on, now has a licence and has been a bit unlucky with opponents.
Having said that, Scott Harrison's scenerio is entirely different - he's been inactive for 2 years... there is no sign of that stopping soon and there must be a huge doubt if he is ever coming back.
So while I agree with you (Chambers) on Harrison, not sure I entirely agree on a strict 12 month policy.
Yes, 12 Months would be too strict in my opinion, 18 Months might be okay though.
As for Harrison, he hasn't retired so I don't want to take him off, that may seem stupid but it is fair.
Chambers2 wrote:
Just fcuk him off out of it altogether, I've got nothing against Scot, but he hasn't fought in over 18 months. You should have a 12 months activity policy in your rankings
In some cases it seems impossible to get fights.... like for example I brought up about Mark Krence - nobody would confirm he has retired.
Wayne McCullough - clearly wants to fight on, now has a licence and has been a bit unlucky with opponents.
Having said that, Scott Harrison's scenerio is entirely different - he's been inactive for 2 years... there is no sign of that stopping soon and there must be a huge doubt if he is ever coming back.
So while I agree with you (Chambers) on Harrison, not sure I entirely agree on a strict 12 month policy.
Yes, 12 Months would be too strict in my opinion, 18 Months might be okay though.
As for Harrison, he hasn't retired so I don't want to take him off, that may seem stupid but it is fair.
The problem I have with Harrison's inclusion is that he has had his licence suspended and there is the possibility, probably a strong one, that he will never get it back. Indeed, he might be heading for a handy stint behind bars - and even when he comes back will need to go through a battery of tests, physical and psychological, to get his licence back.
I'd be tempted to drop Harrison all together but leave an asterix by the person who has replaced him - saying that should Harrison get his licence back he returns to this position.
stujones wrote:The problem I have with Harrison's inclusion is that he has had his licence suspended and there is the possibility, probably a strong one, that he will never get it back. Indeed, he might be heading for a handy stint behind bars - and even when he comes back will need to go through a battery of tests, physical and psychological, to get his licence back.
I'd be tempted to drop Harrison all together but leave an asterix by the person who has replaced him - saying that should Harrison get his licence back he returns to this position.
I think the asterix idea sounds a bit untidy, and I would still have to mention Scott Harrison every Month anyway.
Is there anyone who thinks Scott Harrison should be ranked?
MIKEE wrote:lol @ jennings going for inactivity and Harrison getting a pass
josh fg wrote:Given that Woods is stagnating a bit and going over old ground and witters performance tonight is that going to have a baring on your rankings.
Yes, it will have a baring, nothing decided yet though.
josh fg wrote:probably take Harrison out cos I can't imagen any promoter talking to him again.
