BoxRec

mickey1975 wrote:Murray got stopped late on. I blame his stamina. He has zero impressive wins, either.

Trolling now?

What is Murray's best win?

Horse wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:Murray got stopped late on. I blame his stamina. He has zero impressive wins, either.

Trolling now?

U mad bro?

Boxerbeetle wrote:What is Murray's best win?

His back catalogue is entirely composed of moral victories and near misses. Plus a green Blackwell, and, umm, khomitsky?

Mmm yeah.

Boxerbeetle wrote:What is Murray's best win?

Sergio Martinez.

Counter-puncher wrote:U mad bro?

Yes, the disrespect that Martin Murray receives disgusts me.

Counter-puncher wrote:His back catalogue is entirely composed of moral victories and near misses. Plus a green Blackwell, and, umm, khomitsky?

Mmm yeah.

Stop worshipping the judges, buddy.

Horse wrote:

Boxerbeetle wrote:What is Murray's best win?

Sergio Martinez.

I thought the remains of Martinez beat him. It's bad that Murray couldn't even beat him. He was about as fit as Dazzling Daz Barker was in his only defense.

Horse wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:His back catalogue is entirely composed of moral victories and near misses. Plus a green Blackwell, and, umm, khomitsky?

Mmm yeah.

Stop worshipping the judges, buddy.

.

Stop worshipping your own biased scorecards concerning a fighter you have a mancrush on.

The nature of the game is that I have to accept the judgement of three men sat at ringside over that of any random crank posting on an internet forum, in terms of who won the fight.

mickey1975 wrote:I thought the remains of Martinez beat him. It's bad that Murray couldn't even beat him. He was about as fit as Dazzling Daz Barker was in his only defense.

No, he was like that against Cotto.

Against Murray he was nowhere near that over the hill.

Counter-puncher wrote:Stop worshipping your own biased scorecards concerning a fighter you have a mancrush on.

The nature of the game is that I have to accept the judgement of three men sat at ringside over that of any random crank posting on an internet forum, in terms of who won the fight.

No, you choose to accept their scorecards.

I do not.

davie wrote:

simonwalsh wrote:Continually miffed by high rankings for Bellew, Burns and Groves, but that's probably just because I don't like them.

Who doesn't like Ricky Burns?
Don't rate him? Fine
Think he's made some poor defences or not fought who you thought he should? Fine

But you can't not like Ricky Burns. He has to be one of the least offensive people in the sport

Perhaps I should have clarified, I meant as boxers. I'm sure he's a lovely person.

Horse wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:Stop worshipping your own biased scorecards concerning a fighter you have a mancrush on.

The nature of the game is that I have to accept the judgement of three men sat at ringside over that of any random crank posting on an internet forum, in terms of who won the fight.

No, you choose to accept their scorecards.

I do not.

i do not accept your scorecards.

Counter-puncher wrote:i do not accept your scorecards.

Do you accept your own?

Horse wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:i do not accept your scorecards.

Do you accept your own?

I don't wholly trust them. one person watching from a television screen isn't always going to score perfectly, especially in a close fight with close rounds.

when a mate and I score a fight together we often use a shorthand, its either a '3-0 round' (we reckon all judges will score one way), or a '2-1 round' (self-explanatory i hope). but quite often we will differ as to which fighter gets the 2 and which one gets the 1. many fights, we will have 3 or 4 '2-1 rounds'. the variable element this shows in scoring of close rounds/close fights is telling, IMO, because it means both of us are saying we could end up with a score 115-113 one way, but totally understand a score of 115-113 the other way.

many fights like this get called 'robberies', or used by cranks on the internet as definite wins for one fighter or another.

i think that is bogus.

Counter-puncher wrote:I don't wholly trust them. one person watching from a television screen isn't always going to score perfectly, especially in a close fight with close rounds.

So you respect the judges' decision more than your own?

Horse wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:I don't wholly trust them. one person watching from a television screen isn't always going to score perfectly, especially in a close fight with close rounds.

So you respect the judges' decision more than your own?

usually, very marginally, yes. they are ringside and I am not. in egregious cases, no, but in my opinion egregious cases are rarer than internet complainers make out, see my edits to previous post for the reason why i think that

Quite month with not much at all going on. Looks like this month may well be the same, particularly with the Flannagan card being pushed back.

Ryder got a good win over a solid Euro level opponent, that should probably be enough to see him sneak in ahead of Eggington imo, but I'm not that bothered either way.

It is a bit boring when hardly anyone on the list fights. you guys have even had to bring up Martin Murray again just so you have something to argue about.

keirw wrote:Ryder got a good win over a solid Euro level opponent, that should probably be enough to see him sneak in ahead of Eggington imo, but I'm not that bothered either way.

If Ryder hadn't lost to Blackwell recently then he might have sneaked in.

keirw wrote:Quite month with not much at all going on. Looks like this month may well be the same, particularly with the Flannagan card being pushed back.

keirw wrote:It is a bit boring when hardly anyone on the list fights. you guys have even had to bring up Martin Murray again just so you have something to argue about.

I was going to start a thread about how bad the British boxing line up was at the moment, but then I decided that I couldn't be bothered.

Things aren't looking very interesting at the moment, but things have got to pick up pretty soon.

We are not arguing about Murray. Horse is wrong. He just can't accept it.

mickey1975 wrote:We are not arguing about Murray. Horse is wrong. He just can't accept it.

I'm not wrong.

Murray is a British ATG. He deserves far more respect than he gets.

Horse wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:We are not arguing about Murray. Horse is wrong. He just can't accept it.

I'm not wrong.

Murray is a British ATG. He deserves far more respect than he gets.

Plucky loser. The stupid ranking in your list about his biggest achievement in the sport. Says it all, really.

mickey1975 wrote:Plucky loser. The stupid ranking in your list about his biggest achievement in the sport. Says it all, really.

How small-minded.

Horse wrote:Any comments/criticisms of the British Top 30 P4P list are very welcome.

Have you ever changed your top thirty after comments have been made?

keithmoonhangover wrote:Have you ever changed your top thirty after comments have been made?

My top 30 changes almost every month.