BoxRec

Switch hitter wrote:Porter was far better than Martinez.....Jamie Mc should now be top 10 definitely above Groves

Porter isn't proven to be much better than Martinez.

cocka09 wrote:I'd have Frampton at Nuber 1

Froch has to be No. 1.

Horse wrote:

cocka09 wrote:I'd have Frampton at Nuber 1

Froch has to be No. 1.

Been almost a year since his last fight and with no sign of any coming up. Frampton has won a world title and made an impressive defence since Froch last stepped in the ring. Although I'm not sure if Frampton could do it at Wembley area in front of 80,000

cocka09 wrote:Been almost a year since his last fight and with no sign of any coming up. Frampton has won a world title and made an impressive defence since Froch last stepped in the ring. Although I'm not sure if Frampton could do it at Wembley area in front of 80,000

Froch is a consensus World top 10 P4P fighter. Frampton isn't close to that level yet.

Horse wrote:

cocka09 wrote:Been almost a year since his last fight and with no sign of any coming up. Frampton has won a world title and made an impressive defence since Froch last stepped in the ring. Although I'm not sure if Frampton could do it at Wembley area in front of 80,000

Froch is a consensus World top 10 P4P fighter. Frampton isn't close to that level yet.

No he isn't, not on my list.

He beat Groves twice, that's good, but it ain't top ten P4P worthy by a long shot.

Horse wrote:

cocka09 wrote:Been almost a year since his last fight and with no sign of any coming up. Frampton has won a world title and made an impressive defence since Froch last stepped in the ring. Although I'm not sure if Frampton could do it at Wembley area in front of 80,000

Froch is a consensus World top 10 P4P fighter. Frampton isn't close to that level yet.

How long do you need to be inactive before being removed from the list?

Ian1973 wrote:No he isn't, not on my list.

He beat Groves twice, that's good, but it ain't top ten P4P worthy by a long shot.

He is a consensus top 10 P4P fighter.

Froch's ranking is not solely based on beating Groves, is it?

cocka09 wrote:How long do you need to be inactive before being removed from the list?

There is no inactivity rule.

When does inactivity end and retirement beginning in the HORSE scheme of things?

If a fighter is hanging round hoping for a career ending payday like Froch, fair enough keep rating him.

But even when fighters have announced their retirement (Rendall Munroe and Gavin Rees spring to mind) you insist on keeping them in the ratings?

Galvanised Clout wrote:When does inactivity end and retirement beginning in the HORSE scheme of things?

If a fighter is hanging round hoping for a career ending payday like Froch, fair enough keep rating him.

But even when fighters have announced their retirement (Rendall Munroe and Gavin Rees spring to mind) you insist on keeping them in the ratings?

Inactivity + retirement = Getting taken out.

Horse wrote:

cocka09 wrote:How long do you need to be inactive before being removed from the list?

There is no inactivity rule.

Surely there was to be? So if Froch doesn't say he is retiring but doesn't fight for another year - he'll still be on the list?

Jim Watt never formerly announced his retirement, why isn't he rated @HORSE ?

Galvanised Clout wrote:

Would you stop with that?

cocka09 wrote:Surely there was to be? So if Froch doesn't say he is retiring but doesn't fight for another year - he'll still be on the list?

Yes.

Galvanised Clout wrote:Jim Watt never formerly announced his retirement, why isn't he rated @HORSE ?

Because he's been inactive for 34 years.

If Froch is inactive for 34 years then he will fall out by being overtaken 30 times, without needing to be taken out.

Horse wrote:

Galvanised Clout wrote:

Would you stop with that?

Horse wrote:

Galvanised Clout wrote:Jim Watt never formerly announced his retirement, why isn't he rated @HORSE ?

Because he's been inactive for 34 years.

If Froch is inactive for 34 years then he will fall out by being overtaken 30 times, without needing to be taken out.

But there is no inactivity rule. Put Jim on the list horse lol

cocka09 wrote:But there is no inactivity rule. Put Jim on the list horse lol

No.

Horse wrote:

cocka09 wrote:But there is no inactivity rule. Put Jim on the list horse lol

No.

So there is an inactivity rule? You need to have a think about this list and its rules.

Yes put Jim on the list Horse.

Sorry I nearly forgot ..

Switch hitter wrote: Porter was unbeaten unlike Kiko who had lost 3 times to the bin man

A prime Rendall Munroe was not somebody to scoff at, and was a physical beast. What shame is there in losing to him (who was clearly not the same man Quigg beats years later)

When will people learn an unbeaten record means nothing. Porter is a very good win, and so is Kiko who was coming off some very good wins of his own.

cocka09 wrote:So there is an inactivity rule? You need to have a think about this list and its rules.

No.

Horse wrote:If Froch is inactive for 34 years then he will fall out by being overtaken 30 times, without needing to be taken out.

It's fairly simple.

Horse wrote:

cocka09 wrote:So there is an inactivity rule? You need to have a think about this list and its rules.

No.

Horse wrote:If Froch is inactive for 34 years then he will fall out by being overtaken 30 times, without needing to be taken out.

It's fairly simple.

So Jim Watt is still on your overall list? He just been over taken by a lot of people?