BoxRec

Sids wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:

Mexi-Box wrote:Jeff Horn is way too low. I'd have him at least above Danny Garcia.

Why?

Danny Garcia has actually beaten some top fighters, not just been gifted decisions against them.

Garcia has some questionable wins on his record.

I'm aware

RScarf1 wrote:Ring Magazine rates Horn lower than top 5 at 147 even though Pacquiao was top 5 in Ring ratings before the fight and Horn won by decision. Roman Gonzalez is No. 3 pound for pound after losing to Wangek. Ring is not consistent. They pick and choose what they want to acknowledge as a legitimate win or not. They obviously felt that Gonzalez deserved to win against Wangek, but they could not rate him higher than Wangek in the junior bantamweight division, so they rate Wangek No. 2 and Gonzalez No. 3 in the division, but have Gonzalez No. 3 pound for pound, basically inferring that they disagree with the decision of Wangek winning over Gonzalez.

I had Pacquiao at #3 prior to this win, but I only put Horn at #6...why? Because he didn't actually beat him. There's only so much you can be rewarded for a tainted victory.

gilgamesh wrote:

RScarf1 wrote:Ring Magazine rates Horn lower than top 5 at 147 even though Pacquiao was top 5 in Ring ratings before the fight and Horn won by decision. Roman Gonzalez is No. 3 pound for pound after losing to Wangek. Ring is not consistent. They pick and choose what they want to acknowledge as a legitimate win or not. They obviously felt that Gonzalez deserved to win against Wangek, but they could not rate him higher than Wangek in the junior bantamweight division, so they rate Wangek No. 2 and Gonzalez No. 3 in the division, but have Gonzalez No. 3 pound for pound, basically inferring that they disagree with the decision of Wangek winning over Gonzalez.

I had Pacquiao at #3 prior to this win, but I only put Horn at #6...why? Because he didn't actually beat him. There's only so much you can be rewarded for a tainted victory.

This is what The Ring wrote on the website,

Pacquiao was rated No. 4 on the 147-pound list when the relatively unknown Horn roughhoused his way to a unanimous, but controversial decision in his hometown of Brisbane, Australia. One thing that wasn’t in dispute: Pacquiao looked all of his 38 years.

As a result, the Filipino icon was destined to fall in the Top 10. But how far? And is it reasonable to knock him off the list altogether? And what about Horn, who wasn’t rated going into the fight? He beat a badly faded star. Should he enter the Top 10? If so, how high?

These are the questions with which the Ratings Panel and Editorial Board wrestled this week.

In the end, we decided to leave Pacquiao on the list, give Horn credit for his victory and reshuffle the bottom half of the Top 10.

So I think, they too, also consider how the fight panned out

Ruthless-RKO wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:

RScarf1 wrote:Ring Magazine rates Horn lower than top 5 at 147 even though Pacquiao was top 5 in Ring ratings before the fight and Horn won by decision. Roman Gonzalez is No. 3 pound for pound after losing to Wangek. Ring is not consistent. They pick and choose what they want to acknowledge as a legitimate win or not. They obviously felt that Gonzalez deserved to win against Wangek, but they could not rate him higher than Wangek in the junior bantamweight division, so they rate Wangek No. 2 and Gonzalez No. 3 in the division, but have Gonzalez No. 3 pound for pound, basically inferring that they disagree with the decision of Wangek winning over Gonzalez.

I had Pacquiao at #3 prior to this win, but I only put Horn at #6...why? Because he didn't actually beat him. There's only so much you can be rewarded for a tainted victory.

This is what The Ring wrote on the website,

Pacquiao was rated No. 4 on the 147-pound list when the relatively unknown Horn roughhoused his way to a unanimous, but controversial decision in his hometown of Brisbane, Australia. One thing that wasn’t in dispute: Pacquiao looked all of his 38 years.

As a result, the Filipino icon was destined to fall in the Top 10. But how far? And is it reasonable to knock him off the list altogether? And what about Horn, who wasn’t rated going into the fight? He beat a badly faded star. Should he enter the Top 10? If so, how high?

These are the questions with which the Ratings Panel and Editorial Board wrestled this week.

In the end, we decided to leave Pacquiao on the list, give Horn credit for his victory and reshuffle the bottom half of the Top 10.

So I think, they too, also consider how the fight panned out

It's Boxing, you have to. There's more to this game than just "Who won" or "Who lost" sometimes.

Interesting that they say Pacquiao looked all of his 38 years when Horn looked like the boxer who took more punishment. Ring really is biased against Pacquiao. Horn was not unknown. He was a legitimate top 15 contender.

gilgamesh wrote:

Mexi-Box wrote:Jeff Horn is way too low. I'd have him at least above Danny Garcia.

Why?

Danny Garcia has actually beaten some top fighters, not just been gifted decisions against them.

I guess he would have him that high because Horn beat Pacquiao.

amwsnw wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:

Mexi-Box wrote:Jeff Horn is way too low. I'd have him at least above Danny Garcia.

Why?

Danny Garcia has actually beaten some top fighters, not just been gifted decisions against them.

I guess he would have him that high because Horn beat Pacquiao.

That's the official decision. It earned him a Top 10 ranking, but the objective reality of the situation sees him placed where he belongs off of a "win" like that, and if he doesn't belong that high or that low it'll sort itself out soon enough.

gilgamesh wrote:

RScarf1 wrote:Ring Magazine rates Horn lower than top 5 at 147 even though Pacquiao was top 5 in Ring ratings before the fight and Horn won by decision. Roman Gonzalez is No. 3 pound for pound after losing to Wangek. Ring is not consistent. They pick and choose what they want to acknowledge as a legitimate win or not. They obviously felt that Gonzalez deserved to win against Wangek, but they could not rate him higher than Wangek in the junior bantamweight division, so they rate Wangek No. 2 and Gonzalez No. 3 in the division, but have Gonzalez No. 3 pound for pound, basically inferring that they disagree with the decision of Wangek winning over Gonzalez.

I had Pacquiao at #3 prior to this win, but I only put Horn at #6...why? Because he didn't actually beat him. There's only so much you can be rewarded for a tainted victory.

Do you believe Manny beat Floyd ? There were plenty that did. Did that make Floyds victory tainted ?

amwsnw wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:

RScarf1 wrote:Ring Magazine rates Horn lower than top 5 at 147 even though Pacquiao was top 5 in Ring ratings before the fight and Horn won by decision. Roman Gonzalez is No. 3 pound for pound after losing to Wangek. Ring is not consistent. They pick and choose what they want to acknowledge as a legitimate win or not. They obviously felt that Gonzalez deserved to win against Wangek, but they could not rate him higher than Wangek in the junior bantamweight division, so they rate Wangek No. 2 and Gonzalez No. 3 in the division, but have Gonzalez No. 3 pound for pound, basically inferring that they disagree with the decision of Wangek winning over Gonzalez.

I had Pacquiao at #3 prior to this win, but I only put Horn at #6...why? Because he didn't actually beat him. There's only so much you can be rewarded for a tainted victory.

Do you believe Manny beat Floyd ? There were plenty that did. Did that make Floyds victory tainted ?

No I didn't. The ones that thought Manny beat Floyd were wrong. Floyd's victory was obvious. The people that thought Manny beat him probably agreed that Canelo fought him to a draw.

Damn what a boring division.

Welcome to the two fight a year club, sometimes one.

Yeah a lot of the bigger names aren't very active.

Juan Manuel Marquez has stated he'd like to come back and fight Jeff Horn if that entices you at all

For sure. The least popular quality Mexican fighter of all times? Give Chris John a call..

Gilgamesh spot on this thread

gilgamesh wrote:

amwsnw wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:
I had Pacquiao at #3 prior to this win, but I only put Horn at #6...why? Because he didn't actually beat him. There's only so much you can be rewarded for a tainted victory.

Do you believe Manny beat Floyd ? There were plenty that did. Did that make Floyds victory tainted ?

No I didn't. The ones that thought Manny beat Floyd were wrong. Floyd's victory was obvious. The people that thought Manny beat him probably agreed that Canelo fought him to a draw.

Such an awful comparison. As I said, your logic is riddled with holes. Horn should be higher than Danny Garcia. I'd even put him above Kell Brook because Brook has done nothing except lose and have shallow victories since Porter. That's not enough to keep you in the top 5.

Ossyrules wrote:Gilgamesh spot on this thread

No, not at all. His rankings are horrible, and he comes up with some nonsense arguments.

Mexi-Box wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:

amwsnw wrote:
Do you believe Manny beat Floyd ? There were plenty that did. Did that make Floyds victory tainted ?

No I didn't. The ones that thought Manny beat Floyd were wrong. Floyd's victory was obvious. The people that thought Manny beat him probably agreed that Canelo fought him to a draw.

Such an awful comparison. As I said, your logic is riddled with holes. Horn should be higher than Danny Garcia. I'd even put him above Kell Brook because Brook has done nothing except lose and have shallow victories since Porter. That's not enough to keep you in the top 5.

And as I said, if you disagree with my logic then by all means provide rankings of your own. Rankings can be a subjective thing, they're not written in stone. I rank the fighters based on where I feel they belong at the moment based on their resume and their level of performance.

I follow the sport pretty damn closely, some follow it even more obsessively than me, but when you're one of the people that takes the time to keep up to date rankings of all 17 weight classes, I think it's fair to say you're in rare company among Boxing fans because few are THAT obsessed.

I've explained my logic to you on my rankings. If you have any further questions about Why this guy ranks there ask away. If you don't like my answers...I don't know what to tell you, but you'll get them if you seek them, and they'll make sense regardless of whether you agree with them or not.

Mexi-Box wrote:

Ossyrules wrote:Gilgamesh spot on this thread

No, not at all. His rankings are horrible, and he comes up with some nonsense arguments.

Yes spot on. Sensible rankings, well thought out

Pac has dropped two placed in the ESPN rankings.