BoxRec

mullenman wrote:Horse your scorecards mean jack poo and you must be looking at Murrary through blinkers as he aint that good

My scorecards do matter and Martin Murray is world class.

Horse wrote:

mullenman wrote:Horse your scorecards mean jack poo and you must be looking at Murrary through blinkers as he aint that good

My scorecards do matter and Martin Murray is world class.

your scorecards matter as much as a bear shitting in the woods,

When Martin steps up he gets beat

Sergio was injured and past it and the same can be said for Sturm
sergio got beat buy a welterweight and Sturm was avoiding big fights and still got beat

mullenman wrote:your scorecards matter as much as a bear shitting in the woods,

My scorecards matter a heck of a lot when it comes to my rankings.

mullenman wrote:When Martin steps up he gets beat

He drew with Sturm and most people thought he deserved the win against Martinez. It's not like he gets blown away at world level like Rose did recently.

mullenman wrote:Sergio was injured and past it and the same can be said for Sturm
sergio got beat buy a welterweight and Sturm was avoiding big fights and still got beat

You can talk down his best results all you want, but most of those below him have not fought that level of opposition or have fared worse against them.

Groves ranking is ridiculous as is Murrays. Neither are top 10, beaten nobody. If we are ranking on potential then I want Callum Smith and Luke Campbell inserted into the top 10

jackukmma wrote:Groves ranking is ridiculous as is Murrays. Neither are top 10, beaten nobody. If we are ranking on potential then I want Callum Smith and Luke Campbell inserted into the top 10

Anyone who leaves Murray and Groves out of their top 10 is a troll or a fool.

Let's see your top 10.

Horse, you and your man need to get a room. This homo-erotic love-in is starting to make me blush.

Ian1973 wrote:Horse, you and your man need to get a room. This homo-erotic love-in is starting to make me blush.

Murray deserves a high ranking.

What is wrong with everyone?

Horse wrote:

Ian1973 wrote:Horse, you and your man need to get a room. This homo-erotic love-in is starting to make me blush.

Murray deserves a high ranking.

What is wrong with everyone?

There is high and there is number three. Murray should be top ten I think but not as high as three. Maybe 6 / 7/ 8. He is not as good as Frampton for a start.

Ian1973 wrote:There is high and there is number three. Murray should be top ten I think but not as high as three. Maybe 6 / 7/ 8. He is not as good as Frampton for a start.

Frampton being above Murray would be fine, but what have fighters like Fury, DeGale, Brook or Quigg done to be ranked above him?

Horse wrote:

Ian1973 wrote:There is high and there is number three. Murray should be top ten I think but not as high as three. Maybe 6 / 7/ 8. He is not as good as Frampton for a start.

Frampton being above Murray would be fine, but what have fighters like Fury, DeGale, Brook or Quigg done to be ranked above him?

What has Murray done to be ranked above them? You're overpraising him for losses.

Ian1973 wrote:What has Murray done to be ranked above them? You're overpraising him for losses.

He drew with Sturm, it wasn't a loss.

I've already repeated many, many times what Murray has done to be ranked above them. Do you really want me to mention it yet again?

You're underpraising him for doing very well at world level. What has a chump like Brook done to deserve to be ranked higher than Murray?

Horse wrote:

Ian1973 wrote:What has Murray done to be ranked above them? You're overpraising him for losses.

He drew with Sturm, it wasn't a loss.

I've already repeated many, many times what Murray has done to be ranked above them. Do you really want me to mention it yet again?

You're underpraising him for doing very well at world level. What has a chump like Brook done to deserve to be ranked higher than Murray?

I didn't say Brook should be higher than Murray.

LOSING (OK one draw) at world level doesn't necessarily make a better fighter than winning at just below that level. It's like a racehorse being beaten a length in the Derby, it doesn't mean next time out he will win a group two race.

Getting in a rink and losing isn't ACHIEVING anything. I could do that.

Horse wrote:

Ian1973 wrote:What has Murray done to be ranked above them? You're overpraising him for losses.

He drew with Sturm, it wasn't a loss.

I've already repeated many, many times what Murray has done to be ranked above them. Do you really want me to mention it yet again?

You're underpraising him for doing very well at world level. What has a chump like Brook done to deserve to be ranked higher than Murray?

I didn't say Brook should be higher than Murray.

LOSING (OK one draw) at world level doesn't necessarily make a better fighter than winning at just below that level. It's like a racehorse being beaten a length in the Derby, it doesn't mean next time out he will win a group two race.

Getting in a ring and losing isn't ACHIEVING anything. I could do that.

Ian1973 wrote:I didn't say Brook should be higher than Murray.

Good.

Ian1973 wrote:Getting in a ring and losing isn't ACHIEVING anything. I could do that.

You are wrong. Some losses are a lot better than others.

All losses are not equal.

Horse wrote:

Ian1973 wrote:I didn't say Brook should be higher than Murray.

Good.

Ian1973 wrote:Getting in a ring and losing isn't ACHIEVING anything. I could do that.

You are wrong. Some losses are a lot better than others.

All losses are not equal.

A loss is a loss whichever way you dress it up.

You are a one man band here Horse. I would say everyone else can't be wrong but I seem to recall everyone saying the Titanic wouldn't sink, so I won't bother saying that!

Ian1973 wrote:A loss is a loss whichever way you dress it up.

A loss can be brilliant or pathetic. You are vastly oversimplifying things.

Ian1973 wrote:You are a one man band here Horse. I would say everyone else can't be wrong but I seem to recall everyone saying the Titanic wouldn't sink, so I won't bother saying that!

I'd rather be right and thought wrong than wrong and thought right.

Crusader, Horse - surely if I was so pro-Froch i would saying what a great scalp he is.

But Froch has better scalps than George Groves and like I have said, how can he enjoy such a lofty position, when he was won nothing at all - and yet a dethroned champion drops like a stone ?

"He looked good before being KTFO" is not an answer.

Horse wrote:

Ian1973 wrote:A loss is a loss whichever way you dress it up.

A loss can be brilliant or pathetic. You are vastly oversimplifying things.

Ian1973 wrote:You are a one man band here Horse. I would say everyone else can't be wrong but I seem to recall everyone saying the Titanic wouldn't sink, so I won't bother saying that!

I'd rather be right and thought wrong than wrong and thought right.

But surely the manner of Martinez's defeat to Cotto suggests that Murray's loss to Martinez was actually much worse than it looked at the time?

G0mez wrote:Crusader, Horse - surely if I was so pro-Froch i would saying what a great scalp he is.

But Froch has better scalps than George Groves and like I have said, how can he enjoy such a lofty position, when he was won nothing at all - and yet a dethroned champion drops like a stone ?

"He looked good before being KTFO" is not an answer.

Burns has lost his last three fights and looked awful in the fight before that. He's dropped a reasonable amount.

Groves has wins against DeGale, Johnson, Sierra, Smith & Anderson. He was also doing well against Froch in both fights before the stoppages. His record is not devoid of decent results.

Boxerbeetle123 wrote:But surely the manner of Martinez's defeat to Cotto suggests that Murray's loss to Martinez was actually much worse than it looked at the time?

No.

These rankings are crap apart from number 1 and 2

powderPuff wrote:These rankings are crap apart from number 1 and 2

You are wrong. Go away.

Horse wrote:

powderPuff wrote:These rankings are crap apart from number 1 and 2

You are wrong. Go away.

"Any comments/criticisms of the British Top 30 P4P list are very welcome"

Horse wrote:Burns has lost his last three fights and looked awful in the fight before that. He's dropped a reasonable amount.

Groves has wins against DeGale, Johnson, Sierra, Smith & Anderson. He was also doing well against Froch in both fights before the stoppages. His record is not devoid of decent results.

Well it's your list fella, but I think "looking good" is not tangible.

His defeats were far worse than Burns all added together, which whilst he lost, he was competitive until the final bell.

I agree with Gomez

Audley harrison was looking good againt Wilder for 10 seconds (Never got hit) before he got tagged Does he qualify for your list because he was looking good