BoxRec

dirk2686 wrote:

TheGingerBomber wrote:

dirk2686 wrote:
You think Fury was more impressive than Joshua, and that's fine. I think most don't agree though.

I think 'most' have the bias of not rating or liking Fury.

They may love or hate him but the fact remains that there are serious cases of wanting to have your cake and eat it here. Fury even alluded to it; 'I toyed with him, you went life or death.'

This completely misses the point of fights having different styles of course, but also you can easily reverse it by saying Wlad was never remotely bothered by Fury and Joshua dropped him several times and stopped him.

Naandrew wrote:FairPlay for putting Joshua at number 3

Much deserved.

Only real issue is Fury being here as he hasn't fought in over 18 months no fight scheduled, no license and probably going to receive a doping ban. Furys situation will become very clear by the end of this month because of the UKAD hearing in a weeks time.

Naandrew wrote:Personally I would put Josh Warrington, Liam Walsh Or Liam Williams at the bottom end instead of Andrew Selby or Skeete.

Williams stock for me has actually increased because he schooled Liam Smith 3 weeks back and should have been declared the winner via disqualification.

wesshaw1985 wrote:

Rob3_142 wrote:

wesshaw1985 wrote: Held more weight with who?

Well everyone. Either it be BoxRec rankings, or to the boxing fraternity. The ethos of boxing, since its inception, is that you fight to knock the other guy out. That's why fights hundreds of years ago there was no limit to rounds, cause you just kept going until you got your guy out of there. Now obviously in the view of safety and time, limits were brought into affect, which relies on judges scorecards.

It's very much like a penalty shootout at the end of a football match. A team that win's 4-3 in the last 5 minutes will be held a lot higher in esteem than a team that wins in a penalty shootout after a 0-0 stalemate. Both are still worth the win, but in a sporting context, one is more valuable than the other.

Boxer vs. Puncher?
Which does the "boxing fraternity" tend to side with?

milpool wrote:Wouldn't argue too much about the rankings except I'd eliminate Tyson Fury and Andy Lee due to inactivity.

milpool wrote:Out of interest Horse, what's your criteria for inactivity?

Rob3_142 wrote:

wesshaw1985 wrote:

Rob3_142 wrote:
Well everyone. Either it be BoxRec rankings, or to the boxing fraternity. The ethos of boxing, since its inception, is that you fight to knock the other guy out. That's why fights hundreds of years ago there was no limit to rounds, cause you just kept going until you got your guy out of there. Now obviously in the view of safety and time, limits were brought into affect, which relies on judges scorecards.

It's very much like a penalty shootout at the end of a football match. A team that win's 4-3 in the last 5 minutes will be held a lot higher in esteem than a team that wins in a penalty shootout after a 0-0 stalemate. Both are still worth the win, but in a sporting context, one is more valuable than the other.

Boxer vs. Puncher?
Which does the "boxing fraternity" tend to side with?

Good question. I can't speak for everyone. But a vote should tell us.

http://editors.boxrec.com/forum/viewtop ... 2&t=211287

wesshaw1985 wrote:

Rob3_142 wrote:

wesshaw1985 wrote: Boxer vs. Puncher?
Which does the "boxing fraternity" tend to side with?

Good question. I can't speak for everyone. But a vote should tell us.

http://editors.boxrec.com/forum/viewtop ... 2&t=211287

You've asked the wrong question imo.

If we're going off votes, the Fury vs. Joshua vote tells us everything we need to know -
http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=200511
70% in Furys favour...

Rob3_142 wrote:

wesshaw1985 wrote:

Rob3_142 wrote:
Good question. I can't speak for everyone. But a vote should tell us.

http://editors.boxrec.com/forum/viewtop ... 2&t=211287

You've asked the wrong question imo.

If we're going off votes, the Fury vs. Joshua vote tells us everything we need to know -
http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=200511
70% in Furys favour...

I disagree. I think it is the right question to ask. I don't want to know who people think would win in between the two, I want to know which performance people value more.

wesshaw1985 wrote:cant see how you can keep Fury ranked and have him below AJ.
Either Fury is ranked and is above AJ or he isn't ranked and is totally out of the equation. IMO...

wesshaw1985 wrote:

Rob3_142 wrote:

wesshaw1985 wrote: Boxer vs. Puncher?
Which does the "boxing fraternity" tend to side with?

Good question. I can't speak for everyone. But a vote should tell us.

http://editors.boxrec.com/forum/viewtop ... 2&t=211287

You've asked the wrong question imo.

If we're going off votes, the Fury vs. Joshua vote tells us everything we need to know -
http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=200511
70% in Furys favour...

Horse wrote:

milpool wrote:Wouldn't argue too much about the rankings except I'd eliminate Tyson Fury and Andy Lee due to inactivity.

Andy Lee had a fight in March, so he's not really an inactive fighter at the moment.

davie wrote:

wesshaw1985 wrote:

Rob3_142 wrote:
Good question. I can't speak for everyone. But a vote should tell us.

http://editors.boxrec.com/forum/viewtop ... 2&t=211287

You've asked the wrong question imo.

If we're going off votes, the Fury vs. Joshua vote tells us everything we need to know -
http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=200511
70% in Furys favour...

That question was asked a year ago under very different circumstances