British Top 30 P4P October 2007

Horse · Post by **Horse** » 04 Oct 2007, 13:15

sweetscience wrote:but he has been beat of a few other brits who arnt even in your list

Simpson has lost to Lee Holmes, Dazzo Williams, Stephen Foster, Andy Morris and Derry Matthews.

Lee Holmes and Dazzo Williams have retired, so I will discount them. He beat Andy Morris twice in a row, so I will discount him.

So that leaves Matthews and Foster: Since the Foster vs Simpson fight, Foster has stopped two journey men and lost to Matthews by way of a one sided beating, Simpson has stopped Morris twice, stopped Ryan Barrett and lost a close fight to Matthews, so I think Simpson deserves a place more than Foster.

I think Matthews is a reasonable candidate for a place on the list, but since his victory over Simpson he has not fought, whereas Simpson has beaten Barrett and Morris by KO, so I feel Simpson deserves a place more than Matthews. If the Matthews victory had been undisputed then I would probably have a different take on the issue, and it could be Matthews on the list instead of Simpson.

m1kee50 · Post by **m1kee50** » 04 Oct 2007, 14:46

Terry D wrote:
Horse wrote:
MIKEE wrote:#1 IMO Elcock beating Eastman is not on a par with Lynes' recent bouts.
Maybe, but Eastman was in my top 10, and as Elcock beat him I couldn't put Elcock too much below that position. Lynes fights Branco in November, so it should be sorted out then.

MIKEE wrote:#2 Wayne and Scott... this time, they havent even dropped the customary one place!
Well, they are my brothers.

MIKEE wrote:#3 Thaxton shouldnt have lost his place at all, he should be higher, IMO Danny Williams could have gone in his stead.
I only dropped them because they were the bottom two. I didn't want to drop them, but I felt I had to include Elcock and Simpson after their wins.
It just goes to show that a Horse can lead people to water but he cannot make them drink it.

lol at this and Horses post

states · Post by **states** » 04 Oct 2007, 19:39

Horse wrote:
states wrote:Horse, as much as I admire your monthly lists, surely you have to drop Harrison now? I refrained from mentioning it for several months, mentioned it last month, and find it hard to avoid now. He hasn't fought for almost 2 years now, and is surely unlikely to fight again. You might as well include Hamed in your p4p list.
Hamed has been out of the ring for over 5 years and 4 Months, I think it would be a lot sillier to have Hamed in a list than Harrison.

Of course it would. My point is that Harrison is about as active a boxer as Hamed is these days. Perhaps less so, as Hamed has served his time. Harrison must be odds-on for a spell inside. And surely you can't include a fighter who hasn't fought for 2 years in a current list? Scott is surely nowhere near the fighter he once was. Sorry, but he has to go.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 04 Oct 2007, 20:33

Horse wrote:
sweetscience wrote:but he has been beat of a few other brits who arnt even in your list
Simpson has lost to Lee Holmes, Dazzo Williams, Stephen Foster, Andy Morris and Derry Matthews.

Lee Holmes and Dazzo Williams have retired, so I will discount them. He beat Andy Morris twice in a row, so I will discount him.

So that leaves Matthews and Foster: Since the Foster vs Simpson fight, Foster has stopped two journey men and lost to Matthews by way of a one sided beating, Simpson has stopped Morris twice, stopped Ryan Barrett and lost a close fight to Matthews, so I think Simpson deserves a place more than Foster.

I think Matthews is a reasonable candidate for a place on the list, but since his victory over Simpson he has not fought, whereas Simpson has beaten Barrett and Morris by KO, so I feel Simpson deserves a place more than Matthews. If the Matthews victory had been undisputed then I would probably have a different take on the issue, and it could be Matthews on the list instead of Simpson.

I think your view is a tad harsh there Horse, Matthews beat Foster DECISIVELY, Foster beat Simpson decisively. What is too say that Andy Morris hasn't just been completely overated. Who has Andy Morris beaten to earn such a massive respect... oh yeah - Jon Simpson. As controvesial as Simpson's loss to Matthews was, couldn't a similar line of thought be said about Simpson vs Morris 2.

Think both have GOT to be ranked above Simpson. As you have said before you don't really have activity or class of opponent in your criteria, e.g. when we debated between Froch and Eastman last month you said as long as Howard keeps winning, it doesn't matter who he beats he'll remain ahead (unless Froch does something spectacular)... shouldn't you remain consistent. Why should Morris be considered better than Foster/Matthews.

Best way to get out of this one, is not include any of them and bring in Thaxton/Pryce etc.

Max Molyneux · Post by **Max Molyneux** » 04 Oct 2007, 21:28

but since his victory over Simpson he has not fought,

Yet Scott Harrison hasn't fought since 2005.

Horse · Post by **Horse** » 05 Oct 2007, 19:24

earsjohn wrote:
Horse wrote:
nickd wrote:Scott Harrison should be removed.
He'll be back.
He may well be in a few years (I don't believe he will), but surely given that this is a current p4p list, there is no case for him to be included? This is especially so as you are including other fighters based on performances in the last 18 months. Naz keeps threatening a comeback, maybe he should be restored????

Don't get me wrong, it's a good list (I have my disagreements, but thats to be expected) and it promotes some interesting debate. Maybe, Harrison should be removed, but with an Emeritus status, allowing him to return higher than would normally be expected for a new entrant? I'm sure no-one would have too many qualms, in the event that he did actually make a comeback.

I am quite sure Harrison will still be in at least until the years end, but I will consider your proposal.

Horse · Post by **Horse** » 05 Oct 2007, 20:24

Captain Hook wrote:How can you think Alex Arthur's career has more depth to it than Macarinelli's?

British, Commonwealth and European titles for a start, Arthur has also been beating his opposition far more convincingly than Maccarinelli has.

Captain Hook wrote:And McCullough and Harrison have to go, the list is a joke with them on it.....

:(

Captain Hook wrote:In fairness as well, Gavin Rees should be above people like Haye until Haye becomes a world champ.

Haye has proven himself far more than Rees has, Rees may be WBA champion but he is considered to be one of the weakest reigning World champions, so I don't see why a WBA belt should automatically put him above a fighter like Haye.

Captain Hook wrote:Most of this list is on potential or past fights.

What else should I judge it on?

Captain Hook wrote:For example, Nicky Cook is very high considering he got pasted recently.

But so did Kelly and Dunne, I don't think I could have dropped him much lower than he is. You wouldn't want him going below McCullough would you?

Horse · Post by **Horse** » 05 Oct 2007, 20:42

Captain Hook wrote:PS Harrison will be back in the next 18 months because like Herbie Hide he is a car crash that needs the money, but that doesn't rank him so highly.

I look forward to that time.

stujones wrote:
Captain Hook wrote:Why the eff has Pryce been moved out? For beating credible opponents? Who has been moved in instead of him????

Judging by the list - Elcock and Simpson.

Correct.

Horse · Post by **Horse** » 09 Oct 2007, 19:21

Ash-Weston wrote:Why is Rees above Froch? Gavin Rees has only been 12 rounds with M'Baye and looked knackered after the ninth round but hung on. I reckon Froch will be more dominant at world level than Rees will ever be!!

Rees won the WBA title so I had to give him a decent ranking, whether he is as talented as all those below him or not.

Horse · Post by **Horse** » 09 Oct 2007, 19:40

Terry D wrote:It just goes to show that a Horse can lead people to water but he cannot make them drink it.

Nice one. 8)

states wrote:Of course it would. My point is that Harrison is about as active a boxer as Hamed is these days. Perhaps less so, as Hamed has served his time. Harrison must be odds-on for a spell inside. And surely you can't include a fighter who hasn't fought for 2 years in a current list? Scott is surely nowhere near the fighter he once was. Sorry, but he has to go.

We will have to agree to disagree.

Max Molyneux wrote:
but since his victory over Simpson he has not fought,

Yet Scott Harrison hasn't fought since 2005.

5th November 2005 to be precise.

Mario · Post by **Mario** » 09 Oct 2007, 20:01

I understand that all rankings are just based on opinions but these ones are really bad.

They're just so inconsistant and make no sense whatsoever.

They cant be based on achievement otherwise Commonwealth champ Bradley Pryce would be ahead of Duddy, Elcock etc. Likewise, if it was based on talent Froch would be in front of Rees and Woods.

I know its a bit of a running joke on here but McCulloch and Harrison shouldnt be near the list

Horse · Post by **Horse** » 09 Oct 2007, 21:25

stujones wrote:I think your view is a tad harsh there Horse, Matthews beat Foster DECISIVELY, Foster beat Simpson decisively. What is too say that Andy Morris hasn't just been completely overated. Who has Andy Morris beaten to earn such a massive respect... oh yeah - Jon Simpson.

Whether Morris was overrated or not, Simpson beat him twice as well as Barrett in British title fights, he is also only one voluntary defence away from winning the belt outright, these are good achievements and a few losses a while ago shouldn't negate these achievements.

stujones wrote:As controvesial as Simpson's loss to Matthews was, couldn't a similar line of thought be said about Simpson vs Morris 2.

Simpson destroyed Morris in the 3rd fight, so that makes up for that.

stujones wrote:Think both have GOT to be ranked above Simpson.

Surely not. What has Foster done recently?

stujones wrote: As you have said before you don't really have activity or class of opponent in your criteria, e.g. when we debated between Froch and Eastman last month you said as long as Howard keeps winning, it doesn't matter who he beats he'll remain ahead (unless Froch does something spectacular)... shouldn't you remain consistent..

I can't remember saying that in any Month, and I am certain that I didn't write that last Month. So, I am unsure of the inconsistency of which you speak.

stujones wrote:Why should Morris be considered better than Foster/Matthews.

I don't consider him better than those two, but knocking him out is quite impressive.

stujones wrote:Best way to get out of this one, is not include any of them and bring in Thaxton/Pryce etc.

It is too late to get out of it, but anyway I think Simpson deserves his place and it is up to Matthews and Foster to join him.

Horse · Post by **Horse** » 09 Oct 2007, 21:48

Mario wrote:I understand that all rankings are just based on opinions but these ones are really bad.

Well, that's a real kick in the crotch.

Mario wrote:They're just so inconsistant and make no sense whatsoever.

Whatsoever? I sense exaggeration.

Mario wrote:They cant be based on achievement otherwise Commonwealth champ Bradley Pryce would be ahead of Duddy, Elcock etc.

Elcock is a British and Commonwealth champion and by beating Eastman has a better scalp than anyone on Pryce's record. Duddy has beaten a few decent fighters but he is perhaps overrated on my list I concede.

Mario wrote:Likewise, if it was based on talent Froch would be in front of Rees and Woods.

Can't the list be based on a mixture of things? Why can it only be based on one thing or another according to you?

Mario wrote:I know its a bit of a running joke on here but McCulloch and Harrison shouldnt be near the list

Fair opinion.

Horse · Post by **Horse** » 10 Oct 2007, 20:47

1. Ricky Hatton.....................30+20=50
2. Joe Calzaghe....................29+19=48
3. Junior Witter.....................28+18=46
4. Clinton Woods..................27+17=44
5. Enzo Maccarinelli...............25+16=41
6. Alex Arthur.......................26+14=40
7. David Haye.......................23+15=38
8. Carl Froch........................21+13=34
9. Gavin Rees.......................22+11=33
10. Jamie Moore...................20+12=32

11. Nicky Cook.....................19+10=29
12. Scott Harrison................24+0=24
13. Wayne Elcock.................15+5=20
14. Ted Bami........................13+7=20
15. Colin Lynes....................12+8=20
16. Kevin Anderson..............11+9=20
17. Bernard Dunne...............18+0=18
18. Damaen Kelly.................17+0=17
19. Matt Skelton...................16+0=16
20. Wayne McCullough.........14+0=14

21. Michael Hunter................8+4=12
22. Howard Eastman............10+0=10
23. John Duddy....................9+0=9
24. Esham Pickering.............7+2=9
25. John Simpson.................6+0=6
26. Jonathan Thaxton..........0+6=6
27. Brian Magee..................5+0=5
28. Robin Reid.....................4+0=4
29. Graham Earl..................3+0=3
30. Carl Johanneson...........2+1=3

No. Bradley Pryce................0+3=3
No. Danny Williams.............1+0=1

Mine and Lenny's lists intertwined.
Sorry, I had to finish responding to posts; I couldn't be bothered finishing yesterday.

SticknMove · Post by **SticknMove** » 10 Oct 2007, 21:10

I know that a few Irish posters have been 'flogging a dead Horse' over the John Duddy is British/Irish issue, but I fear your British P4P ratings will give new meaning to that phrase when they see that Bernard Dunne is thrown in there.

earsjohn · Post by **earsjohn** » 11 Oct 2007, 09:00

Edited for being wrong!

Horse · Post by **Horse** » 11 Oct 2007, 21:31

SticknMove wrote:I know that a few Irish posters have been 'flogging a dead Horse' over the John Duddy is British/Irish issue, but I fear your British P4P ratings will give new meaning to that phrase when they see that Bernard Dunne is thrown in there.

Good Lord.

earsjohn wrote:Edited for being wrong!

Okay.

SticknMove · Post by **SticknMove** » 12 Oct 2007, 03:07

Horse wrote:
SticknMove wrote:I know that a few Irish posters have been 'flogging a dead Horse' over the John Duddy is British/Irish issue, but I fear your British P4P ratings will give new meaning to that phrase when they see that Bernard Dunne is thrown in there.

Good Lord.

Amen.

n1ebf · Post by **n1ebf** » 12 Oct 2007, 07:05

[quote="Mario"]I understand that all rankings are just based on opinions but these ones are really bad....
Likewise, if it was based on talent Froch would be in front of Rees and Woods.

Woods is an establised IBF champion, are u sure about that one (regarding Froch that is) ??????????????????????

Captain Hook · Post by **Captain Hook** » 12 Oct 2007, 07:16

Is this list purely for our benefit or does it go in a mag or on another site?

Because it's rubbish.....sorry horse...

n1ebf · Post by **n1ebf** » 12 Oct 2007, 08:31

Captain Hook wrote:Is this list purely for our benefit or does it go in a mag or on another site?

Because it's rubbish.....sorry horse...

The list is clearly far too restrictive...is 30 the magic number?? what is so special about 30?

The obvious solution would be to re-name the list, wait for it, the 53 Best Boxers in Britain......there would be some great scraps wouldn't there.....and that's just on the forum

m1kee50 · Post by **m1kee50** » 12 Oct 2007, 08:33

Captain Hook wrote:Is this list purely for our benefit or does it go in a mag or on another site?

Because it's rubbish.....sorry horse...

I think its for us to argue over (mission accomplished lol)

I dont think its bad per se, Horse has his reasons, its a certainly better list than the p4p shit on current scene.

Horse · Post by **Horse** » 12 Oct 2007, 08:37

Captain Hook wrote:Is this list purely for our benefit or does it go in a mag or on another site?

It is only posted on this site and it does not go in any magazine.

Captain Hook wrote:Because it's rubbish.....sorry horse...

You are entitled to your opinion but you are wrong.

Horse · Post by **Horse** » 12 Oct 2007, 08:38

MIKEE wrote:
Captain Hook wrote:Is this list purely for our benefit or does it go in a mag or on another site?

Because it's rubbish.....sorry horse...
I think its for us to argue over (mission accomplished lol)

I dont think its bad per se, Horse has his reasons, its a certainly better list than the p4p shit on current scene.

Thank you.

m1kee50 · Post by **m1kee50** » 12 Oct 2007, 08:54

Wayne McCullough wrote:
MIKEE wrote:
Captain Hook wrote:Is this list purely for our benefit or does it go in a mag or on another site?

Because it's rubbish.....sorry horse...
I think its for us to argue over (mission accomplished lol)

I dont think its bad per se, Horse has his reasons, its a certainly better list than the p4p shit on current scene.
Thank you.

dont mention it Scott

British Top 30 P4P October 2007

Re: British Top 30 P4P October 2007

Re: British Top 30 P4P October 2007