BoxRec

Horse wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:If they are unbiased, then they are based on actual results, not what ifs. BoxRec's ratings are unbiased, that's why Groves moved down.

Rankings should be based on what really happened in a fight.

Exactly. Froch won is what really happened. Just because you disagree with the stoppage, doesn't change what actually happened.

keithmoonhangover wrote:Exactly. Froch won is what really happened. Just because you disagree with the stoppage, doesn't change what actually happened.

It shouldn't have been stopped, that's the reality.

Horse wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:Exactly. Froch won is what really happened. Just because you disagree with the stoppage, doesn't change what actually happened.

It shouldn't have been stopped, that's the reality.

That's your opinion Horse, not a fact. Ratings should be based on facts, not opinions.

keithmoonhangover wrote:That's your opinion Horse, not a fact. Ratings should be based on facts, not opinions.

Impossible.

Horse wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:That's your opinion Horse, not a fact. Ratings should be based on facts, not opinions.

Impossible.

Not impossible. Boxrec ratings are done that way.

keithmoonhangover wrote:Not impossible. Boxrec ratings are done that way.

And they are not very good.

Horse wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:Not impossible. Boxrec ratings are done that way.

And they are not very good.

But it's not impossible is it Horse?

keithmoonhangover wrote:But it's not impossible is it Horse?

Yes.

I know this sounds extreme but let's say groves was way up after 8 rounds, and then paddy Fitzpatrick jumped in the ring and took matters into his own hands after the 3rd low blow or head butt from froch and that caused groves to be disqualified, well that would go down as a froch win. But if froch was getting an arse whipping until this point you wouldnt drop groves ranking would you ? Of course horse is right to give his opinion on his rankings, froch got the win but we know that wasn't the full story, it should without doubt effect the rankings, performance is everything (especially on a p4p list).
I did say it was extreme, but my point is sometimes losers are better fighters but lose through no fault of there own

Horse wrote:

2. Kell Brook

Awful list.

pot....kettle...black...

Horse wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:If they are unbiased, then they are based on actual results, not what ifs. BoxRec's ratings are unbiased, that's why Groves moved down.

Rankings should be based on what really happened in a fight.

you rate bellew above cleverly....

No way is brook 2nd p4p. That is just silly. Good performance last time out but barker, khan, Murray and burns for starters should be higher based on actual titles won or held and /or records

P4P rankings are surely always based on the observer's subjective perception of a fighter's skills, rather than purely results.

Groves boxed much better against Froch than many people thought he was capable of, so it makes sense that his P4P status could improve off the back of that performance, controversial stoppage notwithstanding.

Why do people get so riled over P4P rankings ?

G0mez wrote:Why do people get so riled over P4P rankings ?

Because if someone disagrees it always becomes a name throwing issue you got me on the reason why though.

Brook shouldn't be top 5 IMO but he will be when he gets the shots I believe or takes them.

jessi wrote:I know this sounds extreme but let's say groves was way up after 8 rounds, and then paddy Fitzpatrick jumped in the ring and took matters into his own hands after the 3rd low blow or head butt from froch and that caused groves to be disqualified, well that would go down as a froch win. But if froch was getting an arse whipping until this point you wouldnt drop groves ranking would you ? Of course horse is right to give his opinion on his rankings, froch got the win but we know that wasn't the full story, it should without doubt effect the rankings, performance is everything (especially on a p4p list).
I did say it was extreme, but my point is sometimes losers are better fighters but lose through no fault of there own

los2 wrote:you rate bellew above cleverly....

Their fight was over two years ago and the fight was close. Bellew has done better since their fight.

G0mez wrote:Why do people get so riled over P4P rankings ?

Because people like arguing.

Horse wrote:

jessi wrote:I know this sounds extreme but let's say groves was way up after 8 rounds, and then paddy Fitzpatrick jumped in the ring and took matters into his own hands after the 3rd low blow or head butt from froch and that caused groves to be disqualified, well that would go down as a froch win. But if froch was getting an arse whipping until this point you wouldnt drop groves ranking would you ? Of course horse is right to give his opinion on his rankings, froch got the win but we know that wasn't the full story, it should without doubt effect the rankings, performance is everything (especially on a p4p list).
I did say it was extreme, but my point is sometimes losers are better fighters but lose through no fault of there own

Thumbs up, but guess what? That didn't happen.

If the ref had given Froch a standing eight count or Groves had gone done and got up, Froch would have only been 1 or 3 rounds behind on any normal score cards, with three rounds to go.

Frankie Gavin wrote:Brook shouldn't be top 5 IMO but he will be when he gets the shots I believe or takes them.

kell is mandatory for a world title.....ur boxing no.377 in the world next....

los2 wrote:

Frankie Gavin wrote:Brook shouldn't be top 5 IMO but he will be when he gets the shots I believe or takes them.

kell is mandatory for a world title.....ur boxing no.377 in the world next....

And?

Where's will Barker be next month Horse?

crusader wrote:

los2 wrote:

Frankie Gavin wrote:Brook shouldn't be top 5 IMO but he will be when he gets the shots I believe or takes them.

kell is mandatory for a world title.....ur boxing no.377 in the world next....

And?

he's having a pop at kell saying he's not top 5 till he gets a shot...he has got a shot...

los2 wrote:

crusader wrote:

los2 wrote: kell is mandatory for a world title.....ur boxing no.377 in the world next....

And?

he's having a pop at kell saying he's not top 5 till he gets a shot...he has got a shot...

You're the one having a pop. He had a shot 12 months ago, but still hasn't taken it. Frankie said that he thinks that when Kell gets his shot, which will be next against Porter, he will take it and that will push him into the top 5, you're just too thick to understand that.