British Top 30 P4P June 2017

[Stuarty]

You say Brook hasn't earned the right to stay above them yet you have Fury sitting above all three of them? He hasn't fought in a year and a half, hasn't got a licence and has nothing lined up.

The difference is that Fury's best win was 18 months ago, not three years ago and his best win was also a lot better than Brook's best win.

Fury has dropped one place a month for the last 2 months and he is likely to keep dropping at a steady rate now until he fights again.

Surely there has to be some sort of system in your rankings? You drop Brook for losing to two P4P'ers in good fights and in that time Fury has just released a few YouTube videos!

Golovkin battered Brook in 5 rounds.

Spence is only any sort of a P4Per because he beat Brook. He might turn out to be pretty average at world level. We don't know yet.

I'm a Tyson fan but you seem to make it up as you go along then come up with these silly arguements when someone calls you on it. It's the same every month.

This is how I see things, this is my opinion.

If you don't like it then go away.

You say that any 'comments/criticisms' are 'very welcome' but when someone disagrees with your rankings you spit the dummy? If you don't like criticism stop doing the list. I actually quite like your list every month even if I don't agree with it. It provokes debate but if you're going to act like a pre pubescent girl everytime somebody disagrees with you then maybe lists aint your thing

[Ossyrules]

Clear to anyone who follows boxing

If you don't like it I suggest you go away

People massively overrate speed, power & flashiness.

Brook is overrated.

Bellews name doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as brook

Mccdonells a decent fight and probably underrated generally as there's not much buzz about him, but he's a tough fight at his weight for sure

[Horse]

You say that any 'comments/criticisms' are 'very welcome' but when someone disagrees with your rankings you spit the dummy? If you don't like criticism stop doing the list. I actually quite like your list every month even if I don't agree with it. It provokes debate but if you're going to act like a pre pubescent girl everytime somebody disagrees with you then maybe lists aint your thing

"you seem to make it up as you go along then come up with these silly arguements when someone calls you on it. It's the same every month."

You were rude.

I was arguing the points reasonably until you decided to be unpleasant.

Pathetic behaviour from you as usual.

[Horse]

Bellews name doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as brook

The other way around if anything.

Bellew has had the better career and will probably be remembered more fondly in the future if Brook doesn't go on to achieve anything else in his career.

[fightfan95]

P4P lists shouldn't be about records in my opinion. We all have eyes and watch the fights, we can tell when somebody is better than another, you don't need records to prove that. I would say a high majority on this site would have Brook higher than Bellew and McDonnell. If we're going by latest wins and records, then Joshua is number 1, DeGale drew his last fight, Frampton lost his last fight. There's a lot of hypocrisy going on in this list.

[Ossyrules]

Bellews name doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as brook

The other way around if anything.

Bellew has had the better career and will probably be remembered more fondly in the future if Brook doesn't go on to achieve anything else in his career.

That's literally mental

[Covfefe]

Bellews name doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as brook

The other way around if anything.

Bellew has had the better career and will probably be remembered more fondly in the future if Brook doesn't go on to achieve anything else in his career.

That's literally mental

What's been so good about Brook's career? Seems to me he's had one headline win and then wasted his time as a champion. Hardly the stuff of memories is it?

[Horse]

P4P lists shouldn't be about records in my opinion. We all have eyes and watch the fights, we can tell when somebody is better than another, you don't need records to prove that.

P4P lists should mostly be about records.

The 'eye test' allows people to rate any fighter they want anywhere they want by simply saying that they think that they're really good.

It's a bit more difficult to do that if you have to back their ranking up with something that they've actually achieved.

I would say a high majority on this site would have Brook higher than Bellew and McDonnell. If we're going by latest wins and records, then Joshua is number 1, DeGale drew his last fight, Frampton lost his last fight. There's a lot of hypocrisy going on in this list.

Brook is overrated, so most people would overrate him in their lists.

He doesn't deserve to be rated so highly, so I don't rate him that highly.

[Horse]

What's been so good about Brook's career? Seems to me he's had one headline win and then wasted his time as a champion. Hardly the stuff of memories is it?

No, some might say that he's had a rather boring career.

[Covfefe]

BJS behind Khan at this point in their careers seems odd to me.

[Horse]

BJS behind Khan at this point in their careers seems odd to me.

Saunders almost lost to Akavov in his last fight and Akavov is not a particularly good fighter on paper.

Saunders has also only had three fights in the last two years and Andy Lee was his only good opponent. So he's not even been much more active than Khan either.

I think that Khan deserves to still be ahead of Saunders at the moment, but Saunders will move ahead of Khan if he beats Khurtsidze next month.

[Ossyrules]

The other way around if anything.

Bellew has had the better career and will probably be remembered more fondly in the future if Brook doesn't go on to achieve anything else in his career.

That's literally mental

What's been so good about Brook's career? Seems to me he's had one headline win and then wasted his time as a champion. Hardly the stuff of memories is it?

He's being compared to Bellew, not manny pacquaios cv.

In his 2 defeats Brooks shown more than any of bellews wins to start.

Bellew is not and I severely doubt will ever be at that level, at any time during his career

[Covfefe]

That's literally mental

What's been so good about Brook's career? Seems to me he's had one headline win and then wasted his time as a champion. Hardly the stuff of memories is it?

He's being compared to Bellew, not manny pacquaios cv.

In his 2 defeats Brooks shown more than any of bellews wins to start.

Bellew is not and I severely doubt will ever be at that level, at any time during his career

A comparison with Bellew is far more appropriate than one with Manny Pacquaio. He has one serious top win, I don't really understand the massive love for Kell Brook. He's pure class for six rounds but he fades badly, he was almost beaten by Carson Jones and interesting to note when they rematched him it was only over ten.

[Switch hitter]

Bellew's best win.... for a vacant title against pretty much an unknown or a shot to bits former champion who was injured early on in the fight.... Your lists are based on who you like at the time not results

[Ossyrules]

What's been so good about Brook's career? Seems to me he's had one headline win and then wasted his time as a champion. Hardly the stuff of memories is it?

He's being compared to Bellew, not manny pacquaios cv.

In his 2 defeats Brooks shown more than any of bellews wins to start.

Bellew is not and I severely doubt will ever be at that level, at any time during his career

A comparison with Bellew is far more appropriate than one with Manny Pacquaio. He has one serious top win, I don't really understand the massive love for Kell Brook. He's pure class for six rounds but he fades badly, he was almost beaten by Carson Jones and interesting to note when they rematched him it was only over ten.

You've misunderstood my post.

When people question Kell brook and who he's fought I said he's not exactly being compared to Pacquaio, it's Tony Bellew who holds no legitimate wins over any top level opponents, has been beaten by European level fighter.

Bellews done nothing to merit being rated p4p better than brook. You can like Bellew if you're into that type of clown, but be realistic

[Covfefe]

He's being compared to Bellew, not manny pacquaios cv.

In his 2 defeats Brooks shown more than any of bellews wins to start.

Bellew is not and I severely doubt will ever be at that level, at any time during his career

A comparison with Bellew is far more appropriate than one with Manny Pacquaio. He has one serious top win, I don't really understand the massive love for Kell Brook. He's pure class for six rounds but he fades badly, he was almost beaten by Carson Jones and interesting to note when they rematched him it was only over ten.

You've misunderstood my post.

When people question Kell brook and who he's fought I said he's not exactly being compared to Pacquaio, it's Tony Bellew who holds no legitimate wins over any top level opponents, has been beaten by European level fighter.

Bellews done nothing to merit being rated p4p better than brook. You can like Bellew if you're into that type of clown, but be realistic

I don't particularly like Bellew. But Brook has done nothing since he beat Porter. He fought well the other night but was beaten by the better fighter, how much credit can you get for losing? Bellew hasn't lost in nearly four years, avenged one of his defeats, become a world champion and has got a win against David Haye (I know, I know) on his record. I don't see the problem with him being above Brook based on that. Brook is the better fighter but I rank by form and Brook hasn't had a decent win in nearly three years.

[Ossyrules]

A comparison with Bellew is far more appropriate than one with Manny Pacquaio. He has one serious top win, I don't really understand the massive love for Kell Brook. He's pure class for six rounds but he fades badly, he was almost beaten by Carson Jones and interesting to note when they rematched him it was only over ten.

You've misunderstood my post.

When people question Kell brook and who he's fought I said he's not exactly being compared to Pacquaio, it's Tony Bellew who holds no legitimate wins over any top level opponents, has been beaten by European level fighter.

Bellews done nothing to merit being rated p4p better than brook. You can like Bellew if you're into that type of clown, but be realistic

I don't particularly like Bellew. But Brook has done nothing since he beat Porter. He fought well the other night but was beaten by the better fighter, how much credit can you get for losing? Bellew hasn't lost in nearly four years, avenged one of his defeats, become a world champion and has got a win against David Haye (I know, I know) on his record. I don't see the problem with him being above Brook based on that. Brook is the better fighter but I rank by form and Brook hasn't had a decent win in nearly three years.

Brook hasn't a good win since Porter

When's Bellew had a top win that's close go that. Sorry but the Haye fight can't be mentioned to give Bellew kudos

I've seen more from brook and the level he's at in defeat to golovkin and spence than Bellew "beating" David Haye

Boxers shouldn't take risks against the best opponents to be rated highly in case they lose, while the guys fighting domestic and European level opponents can be rated high as they're putting them away? That doesn't make sense to me.

P4P is hugely subjective, people will like who they like, but I don't see how Bellew is above brook on this one. He's never proven to at the levelbrook fought at

[sweetscience]

FFS Brook cant stay up there forever

like Horse said he only has one win, you cant dine off that for 5 years

in a Mythical matchup with Bellew he could win.... but you have to draw the line somewhere, and 1 win in 13 years is that I am afraid

[Covfefe]

You've misunderstood my post.

When people question Kell brook and who he's fought I said he's not exactly being compared to Pacquaio, it's Tony Bellew who holds no legitimate wins over any top level opponents, has been beaten by European level fighter.

Bellews done nothing to merit being rated p4p better than brook. You can like Bellew if you're into that type of clown, but be realistic

I don't particularly like Bellew. But Brook has done nothing since he beat Porter. He fought well the other night but was beaten by the better fighter, how much credit can you get for losing? Bellew hasn't lost in nearly four years, avenged one of his defeats, become a world champion and has got a win against David Haye (I know, I know) on his record. I don't see the problem with him being above Brook based on that. Brook is the better fighter but I rank by form and Brook hasn't had a decent win in nearly three years.

Brook hasn't a good win since Porter

When's Bellew had a top win that's close go that. Sorry but the Haye fight can't be mentioned to give Bellew kudos

I've seen more from brook and the level he's at in defeat to golovkin and spence than Bellew "beating" David Haye

Boxers shouldn't take risks against the best opponents to be rated highly in case they lose, while the guys fighting domestic and European level opponents can be rated high as they're putting them away? That doesn't make sense to me.

P4P is hugely subjective, people will like who they like, but I don't see how Bellew is above brook on this one. He's never proven to at the levelbrook fought at

Brook hasn't won in over a year, in that time Bellew has won a world title, defended it and gotten the W against Haye. Brook can't live forever on one win three years ago.

[Covfefe]

FFS Brook cant stay up there forever

like Horse said he only has one win, you cant dine off that for 5 years

in a Mythical matchup with Bellew he could win.... but you have to draw the line somewhere, and 1 win in 13 years is that I am afraid

[Stuarty]

You say that any 'comments/criticisms' are 'very welcome' but when someone disagrees with your rankings you spit the dummy? If you don't like criticism stop doing the list. I actually quite like your list every month even if I don't agree with it. It provokes debate but if you're going to act like a pre pubescent girl everytime somebody disagrees with you then maybe lists aint your thing

"you seem to make it up as you go along then come up with these silly arguements when someone calls you on it. It's the same every month."

You were rude.

I was arguing the points reasonably until you decided to be unpleasant.

Pathetic behaviour from you as usual.

I don't think that's rude. It's pointing out the glaringly obvious. You have the same arguements/debates on the first of every month.

[Stuarty]

FFS Brook cant stay up there forever

like Horse said he only has one win, you cant dine off that for 5 years

in a Mythical matchup with Bellew he could win.... but you have to draw the line somewhere, and 1 win in 13 years is that I am afraid

It's a P4P list and Brook is a better fighter than the two guys in question IMO.

[Covfefe]

Will you add a link back to the previous months listings from now on please, Horse?

[sweetscience]

FFS Brook cant stay up there forever

like Horse said he only has one win, you cant dine off that for 5 years

in a Mythical matchup with Bellew he could win.... but you have to draw the line somewhere, and 1 win in 13 years is that I am afraid

It's a P4P list and Brook is a better fighter than the two guys in question IMO.

so is khan

[Ossyrules]

I don't particularly like Bellew. But Brook has done nothing since he beat Porter. He fought well the other night but was beaten by the better fighter, how much credit can you get for losing? Bellew hasn't lost in nearly four years, avenged one of his defeats, become a world champion and has got a win against David Haye (I know, I know) on his record. I don't see the problem with him being above Brook based on that. Brook is the better fighter but I rank by form and Brook hasn't had a decent win in nearly three years.

Brook hasn't a good win since Porter

When's Bellew had a top win that's close go that. Sorry but the Haye fight can't be mentioned to give Bellew kudos

I've seen more from brook and the level he's at in defeat to golovkin and spence than Bellew "beating" David Haye

Boxers shouldn't take risks against the best opponents to be rated highly in case they lose, while the guys fighting domestic and European level opponents can be rated high as they're putting them away? That doesn't make sense to me.

P4P is hugely subjective, people will like who they like, but I don't see how Bellew is above brook on this one. He's never proven to at the levelbrook fought at

Brook hasn't won in over a year, in that time Bellew has won a world title, defended it and gotten the W against Haye. Brook can't live forever on one win three years ago.

That sounds great, but theirs a reason you didn't go into detail with Bellew

Won a world title - beat a complete unknown and unproven for a vacant belt

Defended it - against a guy with no credentials who didn't deserve the shot but got it via bad mouthing on twitter

Beat haye - if you can call it that. Technically yes. Looked absolutely dreadful. Thankfully Hayes Achilles gave in with 7 rounds to go. If it went with only 5 to go it wasn't enough time for Bellew to see off a one legged man.

Wins are better than losses. But look at their recent fights to judge their level

Vs Haye - Bellew looked dreadful against an injured opponent who had fought 2 bums on his comeback from career threatening injury

Vs spence - fought a hard fight. Top level fight. Ended with a tko loss 11.

The brook fight is at a much better level. Much better