British Top 30 P4P January 2015

[Horse]

he was losing by 3-4 rounds, then knocked him the fuk out. korobov is twice the opponent that bjs has fought .

Korobov was unproven and lost when he stepped up against Lee. I'd give Eubank or Ryder a good chance of beating him.

[Horse]

Would ya go way ya clown!!! There was nothing in the Korobov fight until the fight ended, and boy did it end.

BJS scraped a points win over a novice that never had a 12 rounder before and he is ahead of a world champion in Lee! Give over will ya!!! Lol

Saunders is ahead of Lee because of his recent record, not just his win against Eubank.

Korobov was outclassing Lee and was winning widely at the time of the stoppage.

[Horse]

How can Brook be above Khan go have a look at their last 13 opponents

Porter whitewashed Alexander and is a much better win for Brook than Khan's against Alexander.

Khan's overall record is much better than Brook's, but Brook's win against Porter is way better than anything that Khan has done in the last 3 years.

I wouldn't be surprised if Khan could beat Porter much more clearly than Brook did, or even beat Brook comfortably next year. He has to actually do it though, his current ranking can't be based on what he did 4 or 5 years ago.

[Horse]

The only justification could be that one of them has a belt.

Because on the Devon Alexander performance, Khan is the better fighter.
As you state, on level of opposition Khan has the better resume (yes, despite the losses).
And although I had my doubts before and do rate Kell very highly, I'm fairly confident Khan beats Kell by a fairly wide UD unless Kell gets lucky.

Alexander had recently lost convincingly to Porter. It was not as good of a win as a lot of people are suggesting.

[slapbangwhallop]

Would ya go way ya clown!!! There was nothing in the Korobov fight until the fight ended, and boy did it end.

BJS scraped a points win over a novice that never had a 12 rounder before and he is ahead of a world champion in Lee! Give over will ya!!! Lol

Saunders is ahead of Lee because of his recent record, not just his win against Eubank.

Korobov was outclassing Lee and was winning widely at the time of the stoppage.

What idiotic bullshit.

You obviously never watched the Lee-Korobov fight.

I won't be commenting on these ratings again. Worthless.

[davie]

How can Brook be above Khan go have a look at their last 13 opponents

Porter whitewashed Alexander and is a much better win for Brook than Khan's against Alexander.

Khan's overall record is much better than Brook's, but Brook's win against Porter is way better than anything that Khan has done in the last 3 years.

I wouldn't be surprised if Khan could beat Porter much more clearly than Brook did, or even beat Brook comfortably next year. He has to actually do it though, his current ranking can't be based on what he did 4 or 5 years ago.

Porter beat Alexander fairly comfortably. Khan whitewashed Alexander.
Some were surprised Brook got the decision against Porter.

But "he beat him and he beat the other guy" seldom tells the full story

It was the nature of the dominance of Alexander that impressed me, no one has done that to Devon. Not Bradley, Porter, maidana, matthyssee, Witter. The guys been in with some top class opposition and Khan done him, absolutely done him. that happened a couple of weeks ago and that's what I'm basing my decision on.

[crusader]

Would ya go way ya clown!!! There was nothing in the Korobov fight until the fight ended, and boy did it end.

BJS scraped a points win over a novice that never had a 12 rounder before and he is ahead of a world champion in Lee! Give over will ya!!! Lol

Saunders is ahead of Lee because of his recent record, not just his win against Eubank.

Korobov was outclassing Lee and was winning widely at the time of the stoppage.

What idiotic bullshit.

You obviously never watched the Lee-Korobov fight.

I won't be commenting on these ratings again. Worthless.

I had it 4-1 Korobov while the official scores were 5-0 x2 and 3-2 for him. I've seen many people give their scores and only one didn't have Korobov ahead. I wouldn't say that Korobov was outclassing Lee as Horse suggests, but I also think you're wrong in saying that there was nothing in it.

Why so bothered?

[Yes We Can]

Would ya go way ya clown!!! There was nothing in the Korobov fight until the fight ended, and boy did it end.

BJS scraped a points win over a novice that never had a 12 rounder before and he is ahead of a world champion in Lee! Give over will ya!!! Lol

Saunders is ahead of Lee because of his recent record, not just his win against Eubank.

Korobov was outclassing Lee and was winning widely at the time of the stoppage.

What idiotic bullshit.

You obviously never watched the Lee-Korobov fight.

I won't be commenting on these ratings again. Worthless.

Let it go my man. He calls it as he see's it right or wrong. I had Korobov up 4 rds to 1, although all rounds were reasonably close in my opinion.

Korobov is the best win on either mans record, BJS has more depth i believe.

[handsofstone]

I had Lee 3-2 up at the end without much conviction though,there wasnt too much action,i can understand Korobov being in front but he wasnt dominating clearly,neither man won a round clearly from what i remember

My bias for Andy was what was probably swaying me ;;-)

[crusader]

I had Lee 3-2 up at the end without much conviction though,there wasnt too much action,i can understand Korobov being in front but he wasnt dominating clearly,neither man won a round clearly from what i remember

My bias for Andy was what was probably swaying me ;;-)

You are the one I mentioned in my post above. Lee clearly won the third in my view and had a good argument for the 5th, but I thought Korobov clearly won the other rounds. It's hard for me to see a case that he didn't do more than Lee in those rounds, even if there wasn't loads to split them.

Which rounds did you score for Lee out of curiosity?

[handsofstone]

I had Lee 3-2 up at the end without much conviction though,there wasnt too much action,i can understand Korobov being in front but he wasnt dominating clearly,neither man won a round clearly from what i remember

My bias for Andy was what was probably swaying me ;;-)

You are the one I mentioned in my post above. Lee clearly won the third in my view and had a good argument for the 5th, but I thought Korobov clearly won the other rounds. It's hard for me to see a case that he didn't do more than Lee in those rounds, even if there wasn't loads to split them.

Which rounds did you score for Lee out of curiosity?

I gave Andy the first 3,without too much action i was going for Lee's odd success with the back hand rather than Korobov's methodical approach

[Horse]

I think this is reasonable, bit surprised Lee was not at least on this list in December however,

He was having a very tough fight and was behind against John Jackson before the stoppage in is his fight before Korobov.

He was a strong contender for a place in the list, but the bottom 10 is pretty good at the moment and I didn't think he deserved a spot.

[Horse]

I would agree, I wouldn't have Bellew too much lower. But he absolutely has to drop 1 place.
No way should he be above 2 time world champion Jamie McDonnell

There's not much in it.

Hopefully McDonnell gets that unification against Kameda next year and shows that he's a proper world champion.

[Horse]

Korobov is the best win on either BJS & Lee's combined records but i do feel BJS probably has a little more depth to his resume so far, he's been on a good run of opponents so i won't shout to hard about him being above for now.

Yep, for me Saunders' recent record is far more solid than Lee's.

[Horse]

Can someone tell me why titles matter in these debates? Why care about them at all rather than just who someone's beaten and how they've performed?

It was mentioned that McDonnell is a two-time world champion, but who did he beat to win his titles and are they better than Issac Chilemba or even a blown up Cleverly (not too bothered about where Bellew and McDonnell place; just making a point)? Doesn't using titles as evidence that someone should be ranked more highly than someone else also help legitimize the alphabet trinkets around today?

I take titles into account and give a little boost if a fighter has won a respected title, but it is far more about the level of opponent.

I'd be willing to have a reigning British world champion outside of the top 30 if they bottom fed enough.

[Horse]

Having a p4p list with more than 5 fighters is madness. It's already subjective in a list of 5, let alone 30.

All a load of tosh

No.

[Horse]

Groves way too high.

Stopped twice, looked awful twice since, never held a world belt.

Should be ranked 31.

I don't think Groves looked anywhere near as bad in his last two fights as people say.

He won both pretty easily.

[davie]

Can someone tell me why titles matter in these debates? Why care about them at all rather than just who someone's beaten and how they've performed?

It was mentioned that McDonnell is a two-time world champion, but who did he beat to win his titles and are they better than Issac Chilemba or even a blown up Cleverly (not too bothered about where Bellew and McDonnell place; just making a point)? Doesn't using titles as evidence that someone should be ranked more highly than someone else also help legitimize the alphabet trinkets around today?

I'd say level of opposition has been similar (Stevenson being the stand out from either resume and he wiped the floor with bellew, so didn't really reckon in my thinking), other than that, both men have fought fighters on the fringes of world class and you could argue Julio Ceja is as good a bantam weight as Chilemba is at light heavy and better than Cleverly is a Cruiser.
Ultimately a case could be made for either man in strength of opponent, so for me the next thing to look at is 1 having won 2 world titles and the other has had 2 shots and lost both

even if you want to say one of mcdonnells wins isn't a legit world title, then the same case could be made for Cleverlys strap when Bellew challenged for it and still lost

titles are not the be all and end all, but in a tight case such as this, McDonnell has won 2 and must, for me, come out on top of Bellew, who has come up wanting twice and will again next time he gets his shot. He is not world level. Is McDonnell? We'll find out soon hopefully

[expe]

Can someone tell me why titles matter in these debates? Why care about them at all rather than just who someone's beaten and how they've performed?

It was mentioned that McDonnell is a two-time world champion, but who did he beat to win his titles and are they better than Issac Chilemba or even a blown up Cleverly (not too bothered about where Bellew and McDonnell place; just making a point)? Doesn't using titles as evidence that someone should be ranked more highly than someone else also help legitimize the alphabet trinkets around today?

I'd say level of opposition has been similar (Stevenson being the stand out from either resume and he wiped the floor with bellew, so didn't really reckon in my thinking), other than that, both men have fought fighters on the fringes of world class and you could argue Julio Ceja is as good a bantam weight as Chilemba is at light heavy and better than Cleverly is a Cruiser.
Ultimately a case could be made for either man in strength of opponent, so for me the next thing to look at is 1 having won 2 world titles and the other has had 2 shots and lost both

even if you want to say one of mcdonnells wins isn't a legit world title, then the same case could be made for Cleverlys strap when Bellew challenged for it and still lost

titles are not the be all and end all, but in a tight case such as this, McDonnell has won 2 and must, for me, come out on top of Bellew, who has come up wanting twice and will again next time he gets his shot. He is not world level. Is McDonnell? We'll find out soon hopefully

It isn't the same at all, whether you considered Cleverly to be a good world champion or not, he did hold a genuine, recognised world title. McDonnell's is not a world title, it's barely on the level of the WBU, WBF, IBO etc, in my eyes he's effectively been fighting non title fights since he was stripped of the IBF belt.

[davie]

Can someone tell me why titles matter in these debates? Why care about them at all rather than just who someone's beaten and how they've performed?

It was mentioned that McDonnell is a two-time world champion, but who did he beat to win his titles and are they better than Issac Chilemba or even a blown up Cleverly (not too bothered about where Bellew and McDonnell place; just making a point)? Doesn't using titles as evidence that someone should be ranked more highly than someone else also help legitimize the alphabet trinkets around today?

I'd say level of opposition has been similar (Stevenson being the stand out from either resume and he wiped the floor with bellew, so didn't really reckon in my thinking), other than that, both men have fought fighters on the fringes of world class and you could argue Julio Ceja is as good a bantam weight as Chilemba is at light heavy and better than Cleverly is a Cruiser.
Ultimately a case could be made for either man in strength of opponent, so for me the next thing to look at is 1 having won 2 world titles and the other has had 2 shots and lost both

even if you want to say one of mcdonnells wins isn't a legit world title, then the same case could be made for Cleverlys strap when Bellew challenged for it and still lost

titles are not the be all and end all, but in a tight case such as this, McDonnell has won 2 and must, for me, come out on top of Bellew, who has come up wanting twice and will again next time he gets his shot. He is not world level. Is McDonnell? We'll find out soon hopefully

It isn't the same at all, whether you considered Cleverly to be a good world champion or not, he did hold a genuine, recognised world title. McDonnell's is not a world title, it's barely on the level of the WBU, WBF, IBO etc, in my eyes he's effectively been fighting non title fights since he was stripped of the IBF belt.

And we're having a discussion about how titles matter so little, the fact that Nathan never fought Braemer, the fact he picked up the interim strap against mohammedi, then got upgraded against kuziemski, then went on to defend against Bellew, Karpency, Hawke and Krasniqi, not one of them world class, kind of backs that theory up. Even if the belt hold more kudos, he never fought a fighter worthy of becoming world champion until he faced Kovalev, who destroyed him.
I said this throughout Clev's supposed world champion run and maintain it now.

And as I point out, the key difference between Mcdonnell's tilt at a paper title and Bellews, was that Tony couldn't even beat a paper champion.

for me Jamie has still to prove he is genuine world class. With Bellew there is no doubt in my mind. He isn't!

[Horse]

Chisora is too high in my opinion

Chisora is still a world level heavyweight.

Okay the heavyweight division is awful, but Chisora consistently fights good opposition and the same can't be said for most on this list.

[Horse]

Sturminster clearly beat Martin that night in Germany

It wasn't a clear win for Sturm which is one of the main reasons the fight was a draw.

amir should also be ahead of kell

Porter is better than Alexander. Brook should be above Khan.

[Horse]

Your card means nothing compared to the official cards.

Yes, it does.

Yet, you have Paul Smith low on the rankings despite him getting robbed in Germany. Why isn't he in the top 10 based on your logic then.

Because that is not the consensus opinion and it was a close fight.

It wasn't a robbery, I just thought Smith deserved to nick it.

[Horse]

Degale aboves Groves?

Not having that...not yet. Groves has fought at the higher level and already has a win against Degale.

DeGale vs Groves was very close and was basically a draw.

DeGale is on better form at the moment, so I think he deserves to be slightly ahead.

[Horse]

No Kevin Mitchell ? Should be around 20 th .

Mitchell hasn't done enough recently, his last fight was 7 months ago. He's inactive and his opposition isn't very good.

I'm pretty sick of the guy, he seems to have a bad attitude.