BoxRec

Horse wrote:What are you even complaining about?

Your confrontational attitude. It's very childish.

Horse wrote:You are whining because Frampton isn't No. 1?

Nope, you can rate Carl wherever you so want - I just have him ranked higher. We are entitled to disagree, as you don't seem to comprehend.

Horse wrote:I haven't changed my mind, so I'm a scumbag?

I did not call you that, nor any names whatsoever. I just find it difficult to understand how multiple people can tell you that you are wrong - and you can just keep saying "no I'm not"...

How many people need to tell you that your list isn't 100% accurate before you start listening?

At the end of the day, these lists are very subjective, the idea that anyone thinks that their own list is definitive is pretty ridiculous. It's just an opinion based on analysis of a fighters records.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:At the end of the day, these lists are very subjective, the idea that anyone thinks that their own list is definitive is pretty ridiculous. It's just an opinion based on analysis of a fighters records.

Records and their skill set as well surely? Well I would take that into consideration if it was me doing it. Thankfully I'm not though. Just arguing with Horse is tiring enough!

Stuarty30 wrote:He's ahead of Williams IMO. You've got this one wrong.

Walsh should be in also. He has better wins than Skeete and Williams and has more talent than a lot of the names on that list.

Walsh's only win in the last 12 months is against Troy James. Walsh is too inactive and his opposition isn't good enough.

Smith fights sub-British top 10 standard in his WBO title fights. A fighter cannot maintain a top 30 ranking with that sort of opposition.

Crease wrote:Your confrontational attitude. It's very childish.

How am I meant to behave?

Who have I been rude to who wasn't rude first?

Crease wrote:Nope, you can rate Carl wherever you so want - I just have him ranked higher. We are entitled to disagree, as you don't seem to comprehend.

Crease wrote:I did not call you that, nor any names whatsoever. I just find it difficult to understand how multiple people can tell you that you are wrong - and you can just keep saying "no I'm not"...

How many people need to tell you that your list isn't 100% accurate before you start listening?

I do listen, but if I'm right then I'm right.

Which argument am I meant to have been convinced by this month?

Horse wrote:

Stuarty30 wrote:He's ahead of Williams IMO. You've got this one wrong.

Walsh should be in also. He has better wins than Skeete and Williams and has more talent than a lot of the names on that list.

Walsh's only win in the last 12 months is against Troy James. Walsh is too inactive and his opposition isn't good enough.

Smith fights sub-British top 10 standard in his WBO title fights. A fighter cannot maintain a top 30 ranking with that sort of opposition.

Khan hasn't had A win in the last 12 months.

He's still higher up than Williams.

Stuarty30 wrote:Khan hasn't had A win in the last 12 months.

He's still higher up than Williams.

Because Khan is a beast.

Stuarty30 wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:At the end of the day, these lists are very subjective, the idea that anyone thinks that their own list is definitive is pretty ridiculous. It's just an opinion based on analysis of a fighters records.

Records and their skill set as well surely? Well I would take that into consideration if it was me doing it. Thankfully I'm not though. Just arguing with Horse is tiring enough!

I wasn't being exhaustive in that comment, yes, I agree that skill set should be taken into account, however, judging someone's skill set is best done by seeing them utilise it against top level opposition.

Horse wrote:

Stuarty30 wrote:Khan hasn't had A win in the last 12 months.

He's still higher up than Williams.

Because Khan is a beast.

Is that an attempt at humour?

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Is that an attempt at humour?

No, I was deadly serious.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Stuarty30 wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:At the end of the day, these lists are very subjective, the idea that anyone thinks that their own list is definitive is pretty ridiculous. It's just an opinion based on analysis of a fighters records.

Records and their skill set as well surely? Well I would take that into consideration if it was me doing it. Thankfully I'm not though. Just arguing with Horse is tiring enough!

I wasn't being exhaustive in that comment, yes, I agree that skill set should be taken into account, however, judging someone's skill set is best done by seeing them utilise it against top level opposition.

Horse wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Is that an attempt at humour?

No, I was deadly serious.

He's a beast at sniffing canvas

Stuarty30 wrote:He's a beast at sniffing canvas

He's a beast at building a British ATG record.

When you fight the best, sometimes you get knocked out. Big deal.

Horse wrote:

Stuarty30 wrote:He's a beast at sniffing canvas

He's a beast at building a British ATG record.

When you fight the best, sometimes you get knocked out. Big deal.

He's a delusional part time fighter. Next good fighter he gets in with will spark him again and he'll still not get moved down! Yawn

Stuarty30 wrote:He's a delusional part time fighter. Next good fighter he gets in with will spark him again and he'll still not get moved down! Yawn

You respect garbage like Smith more than a British ATG like Khan?

What's wrong with you?

Horse wrote:

Stuarty30 wrote:He's a delusional part time fighter. Next good fighter he gets in with will spark him again and he'll still not get moved down! Yawn

You respect garbage like Smith more than a British ATG like Khan?

What's wrong with you?

Two separate arguements. My beef concerning Smith is he should at least be on the list. My arguement about Khan is that he's too high. I'm in no way comparing the two.

Maybe Liam Smith could be low in the list but people are putting way too much value in these belts now.

What is his best win ?.?? John Thompson who was iced in a couple of rounds no too long before? I think Williams win over Corcoran can be considered better. Just because you are holding one of these belts doesn't make you world class it's actually beating good fighters.

He has his chance to prove how good he is in a few weeks and I want him to win as I can't stand Canelo.

I respect Canelo. Any ginge has had it hard

forcefraser wrote:I respect Canelo. Any ginge has had it hard

True that blud! Me and my ginger brothers and sisters have had it rough fam! Fanta pants, indicator ulcsters, burning bush, carrot top and ginger pudendum is just some of the names most of us has experienced over the years. The hate has to stop! Gingers are people too

Stuarty30 wrote:

forcefraser wrote:I respect Canelo. Any ginge has had it hard

True that blud! Me and my ginger brothers and sisters have had it rough fam! Fanta pants, indicator ulcsters, burning bush, carrot top and ginger pudendum is just some of the names most of us has experienced over the years. The hate has to stop! Gingers are people too

But yous have no souls

watsupdoc87 wrote:

Stuarty30 wrote:

forcefraser wrote:I respect Canelo. Any ginge has had it hard

True that blud! Me and my ginger brothers and sisters have had it rough fam! Fanta pants, indicator ulcsters, burning bush, carrot top and ginger pudendum is just some of the names most of us has experienced over the years. The hate has to stop! Gingers are people too

But yous have no souls

So the story goes

Stuarty30 wrote:

BigDoofus wrote:

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.

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.

Degale was an Olympic Gold medallist and British champion when he Groves beat him, and Groves is still the only man to beat him. It's nonsense to suggest that Groves' win over Glencoffe Johnson tops this.

Horse wrote:

Stuarty30 wrote:He's a beast at sniffing canvas

He's a beast at building a British ATG record.

When you fight the best, sometimes you get knocked out. Big deal.

Khan held a world title between the ages of 22-24. He'll turn 30 soon - it's delusional to suggest he's building an ATG record.

People complain when fighters cherry pick, but lets look at this thread, people saying peple that have fought no one should be ranked higher than people with solid wins and losses to top opponents. Fighters will always take on mostly easy opponents while they get more credit for it, give some respect to the people that go up against the best.

As well people need to stop hyping someone for being undefeated at anything above area level. Most people are undefeated, having never stepped into a boxing ring, it's all about who you beat.

BigDoofus wrote:

Stuarty30 wrote:

BigDoofus wrote:
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.

Degale was an Olympic Gold medallist and British champion when he Groves beat him, and Groves is still the only man to beat him. It's nonsense to suggest that Groves' win over Glencoffe Johnson tops this.

I'm not suggesting that. In my comment I meant 'bar the DeGale fight which was close his best wins are Murray and Johnson'. In any case his best win was over 5 years ago now. More recently he's known for his defeats. I'm not saying he's not a good fighter I'm just saying IMO he's too high.