BoxRec

Captain Hook wrote:Unbeaten WBO champ Nathan Cleverly is behind the retired David Haye and Amir Khan - who lost to Peterson - at number 5?

Yes, I think both Haye and Khan deserve to be above Cleverly at the moment. Both of them have multiple world class wins and both have been unified world champions.

If Khan loses to Peterson again in May then he might fall below Cleverly.

Captain Hook wrote:Groves has to be 5-10 after beating Smith and DeGale, surely?

They are good domestic level wins, but I don't think they are enough to earn him a place in the top 10.

Captain Hook wrote:Horse, your list is lame...

At least it's better than your recent article on Chisora and Haye.

Captain Hook wrote:Gavin Rees at 25?

Do you consider that to be too high or too low? In the last 18 months he has wins against John Watson and Andy Murray and a draw with Derry Mathews. That is pretty good, but it's not top 20 standard and its only just enough to be top 30 worthy.

Captain Hook wrote:Chisora has lost 3 out of his last 4 and is above the unbeaten Fury (who beat him)?

Sigh...

Chisora probably deserves to be the European champion now and his performance against Vitali was very good. He is now considered to be a top 10 ranked fighter in the world because of those two fights, so moving him up a few places is justified.

smoggy7188 wrote:I dont see how Chisora is so high because when you look at his record he only has one decent win on it in Sexton.

I chose to see the losses to Helenius and Vitali as good results and I moved him up the rankings because of those fights.

Ok, I was just wondering why Chisora was where he was. Overall, the list is pretty spot on.

Captain Hook wrote:I'm really not sure what criteria he is using.

It can't be based purely on results because Cleverly and Fury and Groves would surely be higher?

I don't think those fighters have results significantly (or at all) better than those above them.

Captain Hook wrote:Horse - is it purely on the performance, even if that person loses?

Chisora, for example

If Chisora had been given the decision against Helenius then he would have re-entered the rankings higher than he did, so the official decision from the judges does affect my decision on were to move a boxer, but the performance of the fighter is also taken into consideration.

smcb80 wrote:McCloskey shouldn't be rated higher than Murray, not given recent bouts

Martin Murray has only entered the rankings recently, whereas McCloskey has been in the rankings every month for over 2.5 years. Murray's recent form is better, but McCloskey has a better overall record which is keeping him above Murray for now.

If Murray picks up a good win in his next fight then he will probably overtake McCloskey.

jessi wrote:

Captain Hook wrote:He just said the result was better, a result is the outcome of the fight - win, lose or draw

So how are losses better than victories when it comes to the result?

And yes I will be pedantic because Horse is the most pedantic poster on Boxrec!

Ok I understand where your coming from, but if chisora's next fight is fury who wins iyo ?
I know your probably thinking that's irrelevant because they have fought and tyson won, but it's not Irrelevant because this is a p4p list, for example khans knocking on the door for world p4p top ten but Prescott isn't !
Chisora's last two looses have done so much more for him then beating two bums in 30 seconds, no one will ever agree on someone else's p4p list, but that's the beauty if it.

Not really though Jessi - yes, Khan is ahead of Prescott now in Light Welterweight and in P4P lists.... cause he has BEATEN better opposition than Prescott and Prescott has lost.

Khan will start as most people's favourite against Peterson, has a better overall record than Peterson and lost to him controvesially when they did fight. It would be REDICULOUS though to have Khan ahead of Peterson now though.

This is closer to the Chisora / Fury situation than the Khan/Prescott one. Who has Chisora beaten post fury to move ahead of him.... no-one.

Even if your talking mythical what if's scenario's based on performance. Is it beyond the realms of impossibility that Fury wouldn't have won more than 2 rounds (the amount of rounds the judges thought Chisora won) against a ONE ARMED Klitchsko..... his performance against Klitchsko wasn't all that either.

A

Captain Hook wrote:It must just be me then. Will leave you all to it...

Good luck!

It isn't just you

Good list overall but not sure how Degale can be 26th. He's the European Champion.

Lenny wrote:I get that, if he gives people a year to think about their retirements, then Nathan hasn't done a thing to be considered better than Haye or Khan. Haye and Khan both lost in world class, Cleverly has yet to go anywhere near that level, WBO belt or not

Murat is the best win Cleverly has and he is probably better than Haye's only wins in the last 2 years: Ruiz and Harrison. The Murat win was almost 1.5 years ago now though, so Cleverly hasn't been doing a great deal to impress in recent times either.

Haye has the much better career record,but a lot of his best wins were about 4 years ago or older (Mormeck and Maccarinelli) and his best win at heavyweight was over 2 years ago (Valuev).

My point is that Cleverly isn't that far behind Haye in my considerations and with another decent win (better than Karpency), he would deserve to move ahead of Haye.

Lenny wrote:But yes I'd have Chisora below Fury, Groves above Rhodes and Hatton, Macklin lower, Selby higher than McCloskey

Groves, Rhodes and Hatton all fight this month, so Groves may well move above the other two next month.

Macklin's perfromance against Sturm last year was enough allow Macklin to maintain his top 10 ranking. If he does poorly against Martinez later this month then I can drop him a few places.

Selby is the clear No.1 domestic featherweight. However, he only has two good wins (Simpson & Smith) and although both those wins are roughly as good as any single win McCloskey has, McCloskey has a much deeper record, so him being one place above Selby seems fair enough at this stage.

Horse wrote:Any comments, criticisms or P4P lists are very welcome.

i think tyson fury should be ahead of chisora he beat him and chisora has gone up losing his last 2 fights y? haye's retired isnt he so shouldnt really be in there and i think carl frampton should be in there, i think andy lee is about 5 places too high and i thought ajose olusegun wasn't as a british fighter anymore might be wrong though.

jessi wrote:How can bellew be 30th and cleverly 5th, bellew practically beat him, Hayes retired, surely chisora's last 2 loosing performances count for something, we all know he beat helenius and gave the world number 1 his toughest test since Lewis, I know you put him up 5 places but what does he need to do to move forward another 10, (beat fury) ? I understand it's hard to put together a list but bellew and chisora are top 15 at least

I thought Cleverly beat Bellew by a few points. I didn't think Bellew was very impressive in his two fights with McKenzie, so I don't think he deserves a top 15 spot.

Chisora would need a good domestic or above win in the next few months to enter the top 15 (beating Fury would do it).

Chisora above Fury? On the basis of Chisora losing three of his last four and being soundly outboxed by, er, Fury? Or him being banned from the sport INDEFINITELY?

Captain Hook wrote:Chisora has lost twice since Fury and Fury has not lost since Chisora (or at all) so how can you say his RESULTS are better?

A RESULT is the outcome....

The result was that Chisora put in two good performances against two of the best heavyweights in the world.

Captain Hook wrote:He just said the result was better, a result is the outcome of the fight - win, lose or draw

So how are losses better than victories when it comes to the result?

And yes I will be pedantic because Horse is the most pedantic poster on Boxrec!

Do you consider Chisora's win against Ziausys to be a better result than Chisora's losses to Helenius or Klitschko? I don't.

I love how you take comments from 24 hours ago and reply to them to keep bumping the thread up...

Very clever, you're a clever guy

PS I've banged my head against a brick wall far too many times on this thread, shan't be indulging again. Toodle pip...

Stujones, ok you have convinced me of a few points, however why would it be silly to have khan above Peterson right now ? you said yourself it was a controversial decision, ( just like the chisora/helenius result ) so why should a ranking be effected by it. And one more point on the world p4p list, I remember Roy jones jnr being number 1 and de la Hoya number 2 in the late 90's, de la Hoya fought and beat much better opposition, jones was number 1 for his sheer class and ability, it's not always who you beat but how you beat them

jessi wrote:Stujones, ok you have convinced me of a few points, however why would it be silly to have khan above Peterson right now ? you said yourself it was a controversial decision, ( just like the chisora/helenius result ) so why should a ranking be effected by it. And one more point on the world p4p list, I remember Roy jones jnr being number 1 and de la Hoya number 2 in the late 90's, de la Hoya fought and beat much better opposition, jones was number 1 for his sheer class and ability, it's not always who you beat but how you beat them

I think the Roy Jones ranking was based primarily on his manner of victories in key fights. There are some DLH non fans who think Oscar never won a true superfight against a guy at his prime at his weight devision..... Jones did (Toney).

Had DLH beaten Trinidad then a case might have been made for Jones to be ousted.... similarly had Trinidad beaten Hopkins - some people had Trinidad at #1 after beating Joppy.

If we rank fighters on who we think won fights then they would be all over the shop. We should go on the official decision. I saw some P4P lists on current scene that had Chad Dawson in the top ten and no mention of Hopkins, because after 2 rounds they made the judgement that Dawson was going to win. For me, the actual decision should hold the key..... close decision / controvesial decision should close the gap somewhat though (e.g. Clev and Bellew).

bengulnaci1 wrote:Degale, Smith and Anderson are a much better trio. Tony Belleuw is a good fighter and that was a good win against him. Saying Anderson is overrated might be fair comment but what about Murat? Stupidly overrated. Kuziemski? Brancalion, who got KO'd in 1 round by Braehmer? I think it's about perspective and the fact he holds a 'title' that misleads people, somewhat. I am not saying he isn't decent. he is a good fighter but 5th, in my opinion is just too high.

It is open to interpretation, but I really think Cleverly's record is much better than Groves's.

smoggy7188 wrote:Ok, I was just wondering why Chisora was where he was. Overall, the list is pretty spot on.

stujones wrote:This is closer to the Chisora / Fury situation than the Khan/Prescott one. Who has Chisora beaten post fury to move ahead of him.... no-one.

Even if your talking mythical what if's scenario's based on performance. Is it beyond the realms of impossibility that Fury wouldn't have won more than 2 rounds (the amount of rounds the judges thought Chisora won) against a ONE ARMED Klitchsko..... his performance against Klitchsko wasn't all that either.

Why do you keep putting down Chisora's performance against Vitali?

He did very well, the old injury excuse is not good enough to significantly take away from Chisora's achievement of winning about 4 rounds against Vitali (the judges might have only given him 2 rounds, but most people think otherwise).

stujones wrote:

jessi wrote:Stujones, ok you have convinced me of a few points, however why would it be silly to have khan above Peterson right now ? you said yourself it was a controversial decision, ( just like the chisora/helenius result ) so why should a ranking be effected by it. And one more point on the world p4p list, I remember Roy jones jnr being number 1 and de la Hoya number 2 in the late 90's, de la Hoya fought and beat much better opposition, jones was number 1 for his sheer class and ability, it's not always who you beat but how you beat them

I think the Roy Jones ranking was based primarily on his manner of victories in key fights. There are some DLH non fans who think Oscar never won a true superfight against a guy at his prime at his weight devision..... Jones did (Toney).

Had DLH beaten Trinidad then a case might have been made for Jones to be ousted.... similarly had Trinidad beaten Hopkins - some people had Trinidad at #1 after beating Joppy.

If we rank fighters on who we think won fights then they would be all over the shop. We should go on the official decision. I saw some P4P lists on current scene that had Chad Dawson in the top ten and no mention of Hopkins, because after 2 rounds they made the judgement that Dawson was going to win. For me, the actual decision should hold the key..... close decision / controvesial decision should close the gap somewhat though (e.g. Clev and Bellew).

The optimal method of ranking fighters depends on one's conception of rankings. Do they reflect level of opposition, ability, or a balanced combination of the two?

The first conception is too simplistic for me; it fails to differentiate between justified decisions and egregious decisions, and what transpires in the ring is largely insignificant. The second conception fails to put things in perspective; a fighter may look highly impressive at one level, but ordinary at another. The third conception synthesizes the previous two and reduces the shortcomings of each.

My position is consistent with the last one. Rankings should take into consideration the quality of a fighter's opponents and how well they performed against those opponents--which reflects ability. A loss need not be detrimental if the losing fighter performed well in relation to the quality of their opponent. Robberies and excessively wide scores don’t accurately reflect how a fighter compares to others, but a relatively impressive losing effort can.

It follows from this position that formulating ratings largely on the basis of results may produce a high degree of consistency, but at the cost of validity, which in my opinion is the paramount aspect of rankings. Judges scorecards are often inaccurate or fail to tell the whole story, or both, and consequently rankings that are heavily based on results suffer in the same way.

bengulnaci1 wrote:

crusader wrote:Why do you think Groves' opposition is better? Best 7 wins:

Clev: Murat, Bellew, Kuziemski, Mohammadi, Brancalion, McIntosh, Fry or Oakey
Groves: Degale, Smith, Anderson, Adamu, Conteras, Samuels, random Ghanaian

On a side note, Anderson is the most overrated fighter on this forum. He's defeated 4 opponents with winning records at the time of combat, and only one of them still has a winning record.

Degale, Smith and Anderson are a much better trio. Tony Belleuw is a good fighter and that was a good win against him. Saying Anderson is overrated might be fair comment but what about Murat? Stupidly overrated. Kuziemski? Brancalion, who got KO'd in 1 round by Braehmer? I think it's about perspective and the fact he holds a 'title' that misleads people, somewhat. I am not saying he isn't decent. he is a good fighter but 5th, in my opinion is just too high.

You keep mentioning flaws in Cleverly's opposition, but haven't stated why Groves' opposition is superior. I've done some head to head comparisons below; perhaps you could explain how Groves' opposition comes out on top. In my opinion, Clev's best opponent (Murat) is just as good if not better than Groves' best opponent (Degale), and all of Clev's opponents below are better than Anderson, Adamu, Samuels, and Contreras. Cleverly also defeated solid fighters in Oakey and Fry.

1. Murat: Former EBU champ with several wins at Euro level; two competitive fights with world-class Campillo
Degale: Best opponent prior to Groves' bout was Dilks; since losing to Groves scored a razor tight victory over EBU champ.

2. Bellew: Multiple wins at British level
Smith: Same, but a better record based on volume.

3. Kuziesmki: Former world title challenger; multiple wins over unbeatens and Euro level opponents
Anderson: Only win of note over 20 year old domestic operator Mendy, his lone victim currently with a winning record.

4. Mohhamedi: EBU-EU champ; stoppage over decent Czech fighter Adamek and a number of wins over fighters who win more than they lose
Adamu: Beneficiary of a gift against Dilks; most of his wins over debutants and novices with losing records; career best performance 8 years ago.

5. Brancalion: Long-time EBU level fighter; won 7 of last 8 entering Clev bout, with the defeat coming against world class Jurgen Brahmer
Samuels: Since 1999 he's beaten one opponent with a winning record; entered Groves' bout winning 3 of last 8 with losses to domestic class fighters

6. McIntosh: Several wins over domestic level contenders; won EBU title about a year and a half after Clev fight.
Conteras: Ok start to career, but won 4 of last 12 entering bout with Groves; loses to every decent opponent he faces

Twinkle Toes wrote:A

Captain Hook wrote:It must just be me then. Will leave you all to it...

Good luck!

It isn't just you

What?

SteveDow wrote:Good list overall but not sure how Degale can be 26th. He's the European Champion.

His loss to Groves stopped him climbing very high up the rankings after winning the European title. If he can defend it against Sanavia then he will climb a few places.