British Pound For Pound Consensus Poll

[KO Artist]

1. Calzaghe
2. Hatton
3. Haye
4. Witter
5. Woods
6. Maccarinelli
7. Arthur
8. Moore
9. Froch
10. Elcock

11. Rees
12. Pryce
13. Lynes
14. Cook
15. Thaxton
16. Johansson
17. Eastman
18. Matthews
19. Simpson
20. Lockett

Good list Len, might have Lynes in top 8 though.

[stujones]

1. Calzaghe
2. Hatton.
3. Haye.
4. Witter
5. Woods.
6. Enzo Mac
7. Arthur
8. Froch
9. Rees.
10. Moore

11. Lynes
12. Cook
13. Hunter
14. Earl
15. Bami (if he counts)
16. Elcock
17. Matthews
18. Eastman
19. Skelton
20. Thaxton
21 (Should Bami not be elligable) - Johannesson

[m1kee50]

Bami is Congolese mate

[stujones]

Bami is Congolese mate

Geography is awful, but are people from the Congo eligable to fight for the EBU title?

[Poncey]

Bami is Congolese mate

Geography is awful, but are people from the Congo eligable to fight for the EBU title?

He hasn't been registered on Boxrec as British, and hasn't fought for the British title, but he has his residence as Brixton so I'm tempted to change the rule and say any fighter who either has fought for a Brit title, has a birthplace of Brit or resides in Brit can be on the list.

If anyone disagrees, lt me know and I'll reconsider. As I said before, I'm open to suggestions guys.

Thanks

[m1kee50]

Bami is Congolese mate

Geography is awful, but are people from the Congo eligable to fight for the EBU title?

I take your point lol, I reckon leave it up to EPNG to make the rules or distinctions

[stujones]

Bami is Congolese mate

Geography is awful, but are people from the Congo eligable to fight for the EBU title?

He hasn't been registered on Boxrec as British, and hasn't fought for the British title, but he has his residence as Brixton so I'm tempted to change the rule and say any fighter who either has fought for a Brit title, has a birthplace of Brit or resides in Brit can be on the list.

If anyone disagrees, lt me know and I'll reconsider. As I said before, I'm open to suggestions guys.

Thanks

Personally, I would say eligable to fight for the British title should be the limit... cause then you get alot of different stories as to who resides in the UK and how long they have been here. For example, Yuri Ramonov was once in the BM British rankings, Tontcho Tontchev has had a few recent fights here - is he back in the UK (not that he would make the list)... what about Greenberg, Olusugen, Asiku, Munyai - how long will they be british based.

What about Duddy - I actually forgot about him, is he up for consideration? Being he is ELIGABLE to fight for the title.

I don't know for certain, but if Bami can fight for the EBU title - doesn't that mean he can fight for the British title? Isn't it only through his British connections that he fought for the EBU title? I don't know hence why I put 21 down.

Let me know regarding Duddy - cause I think I will have him in the top 20 somewhere.

[Poncey]

Let's do it for British and Irish top 20 fighters and say they have to be born in a British (including Northern Ireland) country, or Ireland.

Or if they fought for a British (or Irish) title they can be included.

Residency of Britain doesn't allow them to be included, as it's too messy tracking where they live (thanks for that stu).

Man this is complicated!

8)

[n1ebf]

it's a nigh on bloody impossible task.

how do you compare a featherweight to a cruiserweight, specially when they've both boxed and wo the same amount of fights? The little one is faster, the bigger one punches harder, it's a frigging nightmare to be honest. I know it's all down to pound for pound ability etc....except is it?? then you start getting into "who's got the potential?" "who's got the titles".
If you have a world title does that mean you can't get ranked lower than someone who's "only" got a European title? (but who'll likely go on to world titles).........see what I mean??
The intricacies are so many that I think 20 is too many, so I'm gonna throw ten up, though it's hardly "definitive".

1 - Calzaghe (people who think Hatton first go and take the dog for a walk or something til we're done here)

2 - Hatton (surprise!)

3 - Witter (who I think beats Hatton inside the distance, work that one out).

4 - Woods (assured campaigner who consistently achieves)

5 - Maccarinelli (don't have a reason just think he's good. Fluid mover allied with raw power)

6 - Haye (good mix of title, potential, balls and seems a nice guy, good for the sport, got a bit of the old Bruno "vulnerability" about him too this guy. Let down by crap recent ring entrances IMO - see Bonin. Explain that to the grandkids)

7 - Arthur (size at weight, power, skills, going places - doesn't seem the most active)

8 - Froch (awesome one punch power, there's more to come from this man)

9 - Hunter (don't know what he's got in the tank today but as far as business in the ring goes he has done nothing to diminish his status as a dominant (see 3 defences) Euro champ who lost to Molitor at first crack at stepping up, which frankly tells us nothing as Molitor's probably top 5)

10 - Cooke (seems capable, potential to have another dabble at world level having lost only to Leuvano who was world class by all accounts)

11 - Eastman (seems to be getting worse rather than better but I'm including him as he has fallen short at world level 2/3 times ?and I put Hunter up on similar grounds so Eastman deserves it for now.

END OF LIST. Omissions (in no particular order): REES - I think that night we learned that M'Baye boxed rubbish more than we learned about Rees, but credit to the little fella all the same - he saw it and went for it and why the eff not. The M'Baye who beat Kotelnik was a different proposition.

PRYCE - campaigns as Commonwealth champ, not sure how he'd fare at Euro. Think Michael Jones would beat Pryce inside distance.

MOORE - would have to see a bit more as so far "only" proven himself at Brit level.

DUNNE - probably unluckiest not to make cut, think there's potential, didn't get enough credit for win over tough guy Walstad. Also never saw it but he schooled Esham Pickeing.

ANDERSON - operating comfortably ( ) until recently at Brit level, so we need to see more. I believe the Anderson who saw off Eamonn Magee and Francis Jones would have seen off Kevin Mcintyre.

JOHANNESON - plateud sort of at Brit level for now. We only really saw him at Euro level against the one good guy, could fare better against a different oppo - ps. anyone know if Kirakosyan is stepping up or what/when??

KHAN over MITCHELL. (he'll beat Earl, I also think Mitchell may struggle against Johanneson).

Really all these names mean nowt unless you are trying to rank them in order of a top 20......as I stated at the start I am not trying to do that as I'm chucking the toys out the pram on this one. So these are really just pointless thoughts.........I hope some of you found them interesting.

[Poncey]

it's a nigh on bloody impossible task.

how do you compare a featherweight to a cruiserweight, specially when they've both boxed and wo the same amount of fights? The little one is faster, the bigger one punches harder, it's a frigging nightmare to be honest. I know it's all down to pound for pound ability etc....except is it?? then you start getting into "who's got the potential?" "who's got the titles".
If you have a world title does that mean you can't get ranked lower than someone who's "only" got a European title? (but who'll likely go on to world titles).........see what I mean??
The intricacies are so many that I think 20 is too many, so I'm gonna throw ten up, though it's hardly "definitive".

1 - Calzaghe (people who think Hatton first go and take the dog for a walk or something til we're done here)

2 - Hatton (surprise!)

3 - Witter (who I think beats Hatton inside the distance, work that one out).

4 - Woods (assured campaigner who consistently achieves)

5 - Maccarinelli (don't have a reason just think he's good. Fluid mover allied with raw power)

6 - Haye (good mix of title, potential, balls and seems a nice guy, good for the sport, got a bit of the old Bruno "vulnerability" about him too this guy. Let down by crap recent ring entrances IMO - see Bonin. Explain that to the grandkids)

7 - Arthur (size at weight, power, skills, going places - doesn't seem the most active)

8 - Froch (awesome one punch power, there's more to come from this man)

9 - Hunter (don't know what he's got in the tank today but as far as business in the ring goes he has done nothing to diminish his status as a dominant (see 3 defences) Euro champ who lost to Molitor at first crack at stepping up, which frankly tells us nothing as Molitor's probably top 5)

10 - Cooke (seems capable, potential to have another dabble at world level having lost only to Leuvano who was world class by all accounts)

11 - Eastman (seems to be getting worse rather than better but I'm including him as he has fallen short at world level 2/3 times ?and I put Hunter up on similar grounds so Eastman deserves it for now.

END OF LIST. Omissions (in no particular order): REES - I think that night we learned that M'Baye boxed rubbish more than we learned about Rees, but credit to the little fella all the same - he saw it and went for it and why the eff not. The M'Baye who beat Kotelnik was a different proposition.

PRYCE - campaigns as Commonwealth champ, not sure how he'd fare at Euro. Think Michael Jones would beat Pryce inside distance.

MOORE - would have to see a bit more as so far "only" proven himself at Brit level.

DUNNE - probably unluckiest not to make cut, think there's potential, didn't get enough credit for win over tough guy Walstad. Also never saw it but he schooled Esham Pickeing.

ANDERSON - operating comfortably ( ) until recently at Brit level, so we need to see more. I believe the Anderson who saw off Eamonn Magee and Francis Jones would have seen off Kevin Mcintyre.

JOHANNESON - plateud sort of at Brit level for now. We only really saw him at Euro level against the one good guy, could fare better against a different oppo - ps. anyone know if Kirakosyan is stepping up or what/when??

KHAN over MITCHELL. (he'll beat Earl, I also think Mitchell may struggle against Johanneson).

Really all these names mean nowt unless you are trying to rank them in order of a top 20......as I stated at the start I am not trying to do that as I'm chucking the toys out the pram on this one. So these are really just pointless thoughts.........I hope some of you found them interesting.

I'm happy for anyone to provide less than 20, however I think it would make the list more interesting if we keep it above 10 so that we can track people's opinions of up and coming fighters (bit like Current Scene has with it's Contenders section).

If anyone decides to change their list at any time, please edit your original post. Would really help me out.

Cheers

[earsjohn]

I'll post my list once i've given it due consideration.

One thing i will say following the experience on the Current Scene list - you need to make the 'rules' crystal clear. EG, only boxers involved in fights can move positions, inactive fighters can not be moved just because someone thinks they should be higher or lower. You need to make the eligibilty requirements clear in terms of inactivity (I think one year is a reasonable timespan - if a fighter takes more than that between fights is it really reasonable for them to retain their previously high rating and in any event, if they are good enough, they will prove ot on their return to the ring.) I think it may also be worthwhile to consider introducing a periodic requirement for a complete list to be submitted - this will ensure that new posters views are adequately accounted for and will help to eliminate anomolies caused by varying activity levels. Every 12-18 months for this should suffice.

And make it absolutely apparent that the list is a composite of views. You'll still get numpties ripping you because the list doesn't agree with their pov, but you can just smugly refer to the instructions and show them up for the ignorant morons they are (you can probably tell that this is something that really bugs me!!!)

I think if someone wants to post a list, they should post a full 20 - anything else is likely to provide a skewed result. Given that at inception (ie now) is the only time posters are required to provide a full list, it's not too much of a problem.

Blimey - I care more about this than I thought - Great work EPNG

[Poncey]

I'll post my list once i've given it due consideration.

One thing i will say following the experience on the Current Scene list - you need to make the 'rules' crystal clear. EG, only boxers involved in fights can move positions, inactive fighters can not be moved just because someone thinks they should be higher or lower. You need to make the eligibilty requirements clear in terms of inactivity (I think one year is a reasonable timespan - if a fighter takes more than that between fights is it really reasonable for them to retain their previously high rating and in any event, if they are good enough, they will prove ot on their return to the ring.) I think it may also be worthwhile to consider introducing a periodic requirement for a complete list to be submitted - this will ensure that new posters views are adequately accounted for and will help to eliminate anomolies caused by varying activity levels. Every 12-18 months for this should suffice.

And make it absolutely apparent that the list is a composite of views. You'll still get numpties ripping you because the list doesn't agree with their pov, but you can just smugly refer to the instructions and show them up for the ignorant morons they are (you can probably tell that this is something that really bugs me!!!)

I think if someone wants to post a list, they should post a full 20 - anything else is likely to provide a skewed result. Given that at inception (ie now) is the only time posters are required to provide a full list, it's not too much of a problem.

Blimey - I care more about this than I thought - Great work EPNG

Yeah, I pretty much took that as read but I will ensure only a boxer that has fought in the calendar month (might extend this to every three months, depending on activity of boxers on the list) can move up, down, or off the list to ensure there's no crap.

As eluded to above, I will try and get this reviewed every month and see how the list goes. If it doesn't work, we'll say every two or three months. However maybe every three months is a little too long to keep active fighters in your mind for voting so will see.

The complete review every 12 months is a good idea that I intend on adding. I will place a full list of the rules on the post once I get everything sorted, I'm back full time in the UK and I post up the final results.

Keep up the good ideas folks!

[Mario]

Heres my top 20 for what its worth

1 Calzaghe
2 Hatton
3 Haye
4 Froch
5 Witter
6 Arthur
7 Maccarinelli
8 Woods
9 Khan
10 Moore

11 Lynes
12 Thaxton
13 Jennings
14 Earl
15 Rees
16 Mitchell
17 Cook
18 Pryce
19 Johannesen
20 Francis

Im pretty settled on the top 10 but after that it got quite difficult. I havent had too much time to think about it but i think its about right.

Its hard to get the balance right between talent and achievement, i've got Froch quite high at number 4 despite only getting as far as the commonwealth title and tbh i didnt even want to include Rees at all but i suppose he is a 'world' champion. Likewise i dont think Woods is half as good as many below him in the list.

Im sure some ommisions will be controversial, no Elcock, Eastman or Matthews. And there were some i wanted to include like Michael Hunter and Kevin Anderson but just couldnt fit them in.

Some others i feel have the potential to be here in about a year if they carry on the way they're going are John Murray, Paul Smith, Paul Appleby, John Fewkes

[stujones]

Let's do it for British and Irish top 20 fighters and say they have to be born in a British (including Northern Ireland) country, or Ireland.

Or if they fought for a British (or Irish) title they can be included.

Residency of Britain doesn't allow them to be included, as it's too messy tracking where they live (thanks for that stu).

Man this is complicated!

8)

Okay, just for clarification are these fighters eligable.

Wayne McCullough (from December) - One time eligable to fight for the British title, now US Citizen.

Ben Dunne - Republic of Ireland - Not eligable for the British title, but eligable for the Irish title.

John Duddy - N.Ireland - Eligable for both British and Irish titles, never fought in the UK and has no intention (if you believe the posts here) for fighting for the British title.

Ted Bami - Congo born, but seems to be a bit "unclear" regarding his status for the British title... I cannot understand how he could fight for the EBU title if he wasn't eligable to fight for the British title - I didn't think Congo was part of the EU.

[Poncey]

Let's do it for British and Irish top 20 fighters and say they have to be born in a British (including Northern Ireland) country, or Ireland.

Or if they fought for a British (or Irish) title they can be included.

Residency of Britain doesn't allow them to be included, as it's too messy tracking where they live (thanks for that stu).

Man this is complicated!

8)

Okay, just for clarification are these fighters eligable.

Wayne McCullough (from December) - One time eligable to fight for the British title, now US Citizen.

Ben Dunne - Republic of Ireland - Not eligable for the British title, but eligable for the Irish title.

John Duddy - N.Ireland - Eligable for both British and Irish titles, never fought in the UK and has no intention (if you believe the posts here) for fighting for the British title.

Ted Bami - Congo born, but seems to be a bit "unclear" regarding his status for the British title... I cannot understand how he could fight for the EBU title if he wasn't eligable to fight for the British title - I didn't think Congo was part of the EU.

Wayne, John and Ben yes.

Ted not at the moment, but would be considered if he fought for the Brit title.

If residency wasn't so complicated with fighters moving in and out of the UK, I'd have said residency too but it's so hard for me to track.

Sorry stu.

[Captain Hook]

This was tough after the first 6/7, but I'll say:

Calzaghe
Hatton
Haye
Macarinelli
Witter
Woods
Froch
Rees
Arthur
Moore
Hunter
Khan
Jennings
Lynes
Elcock
Pryce
Thaxton
Lockett
Napa
Johannesson

[stujones]

Okay, I cannot be bothered to type it out again but this is how I would like you to ammend it.

Take about Bami and move Ben Dunne straight in at 15. Keep 16, 17, 18, 19 as they are

Take out Thaxton and move in John Duddy.

[Poncey]

Okay, I cannot be bothered to type it out again but this is how I would like you to ammend it.

Take about Bami and move Ben Dunne straight in at 15. Keep 16, 17, 18, 19 as they are

Take out Thaxton and move in John Duddy.

Cool.

[Poncey]

S/sheet is now updated with your picks.

You have until the end of November 30th to get your picks in to me!

I have lists for the following posters:

Phenominal Nutrition
Lenny
stujones
NorthEastBoxingFan
Mario
Captain Hook

[Norseman]

hatton
calzaghe
haye
witter
clinton woods
macca
froch
alex arthur
Skelton
jamie moore
thaxton
john duddy
wayne elcock
kevin mcintyre
khan
dean francis
Howard Eastman
Micheal Sprott
bradley pryce
mark hobson

[Poncey]

Been trying to sort out the rankings and I have a question, as I'm not sure which would be better.

There's several fighters that have only received one vote. If a fighter only has one vote, in this instance should I include them in the rankings or exclude them?

My concern is trolls.

8)

[sockdolager]

Been trying to sort out the rankings and I have a question, as I'm not sure which would be better.

There's several fighters that have only received one vote. If a fighter only has one vote, in this instance should I include them in the rankings or exclude them?

My concern is trolls.

8)

The way I did it (entirely up to you obviously) was to set a #, say top 20 and stick to it. If the fighters mentioned only have one vote and still fall outside the top 20 than you can simply leave them off and have an update thread on them after their next fight for possible entry.

[Poncey]

Been trying to sort out the rankings and I have a question, as I'm not sure which would be better.

There's several fighters that have only received one vote. If a fighter only has one vote, in this instance should I include them in the rankings or exclude them?

My concern is trolls.

8)

The way I did it (entirely up to you obviously) was to set a #, say top 20 and stick to it. If the fighters mentioned only have one vote and still fall outside the top 20 than you can simply leave them off and have an update thread on them after their next fight for possible entry.

Thanks Sock, I'll do that.

[Coco]

1. Calzaghe
2. Hatton
3. Haye
4. Witter
5. Woods
6. Maccrinelli
7. Rees
8. Arthur
9. Froch
10. Nicky Cook
11. Lynes
12. Elcock Bernard Dunne
13. Earl
14. John Duddy
15. Hunter
16. Moore
17. Khan
18. Pryce
19. Thaxton
20. Francis

10-20 was hard to do, i've ommitted Alexander and McCulloch thru inactivity, Skelton, Lockett, Mitchell, and Jennings were close to the list to

[Poncey]

1. Calzaghe
2. Hatton
3. Haye
4. Witter
5. Woods
6. Maccrinelli
7. Rees
8. Arthur
9. Froch
10. Nicky Cook
11. Lynes
12. Elcock Bernard Dunne
13. Earl
14. John Duddy
15. Hunter
16. Moore
17. Khan
18. Pryce
19. Thaxton
20. Francis

10-20 was hard to do, i've ommitted Alexander and McCulloch thru inactivity, Skelton, Lockett, Mitchell, and Jennings were close to the list to

Could you clarify number 12 please Coco, Elcock or Dunne?