BoxRec

Horse wrote: ↑15 Feb 2018, 14:50

gilgamesh wrote: ↑15 Feb 2018, 14:47It's just one of the forums running jokes that doesn't have to be. It's almost a good list. I don't know why Horse insists on embarrassing himself every month by insisting that you know who has remained one of the 10 most impressive fighters in England in spite of gaining at least 100 pounds, and doing f*ck all for over 2 years.

He's the lineal heavyweight champion.

No other British boxer is lineal champion.

He is one of the top 10 most impressive British fighters.

Horse wrote: ↑15 Feb 2018, 14:50

gilgamesh wrote: ↑15 Feb 2018, 14:47It's just one of the forums running jokes that doesn't have to be. It's almost a good list. I don't know why Horse insists on embarrassing himself every month by insisting that you know who has remained one of the 10 most impressive fighters in England in spite of gaining at least 100 pounds, and doing f*ck all for over 2 years.

He's the lineal heavyweight champion.

No other British boxer is lineal champion.

He is one of the top 10 most impressive British fighters.

It's a list that you update every month Horse..

It's not backdated is it? If it was a list of British top 30 P4P 2015-2018, then yeh, I ain't going to argue with Tyson Fury being #1..

gilgamesh wrote: ↑15 Feb 2018, 14:54Yeah, yeah. You were wrong last month. You're wrong this month. Fix your list or it'll never mean d*ck...even to the few people on this forum who are the only people it would even matter to anyway.

So think about that. Your list is seen as worthless by the handful of people that see it. It is a complete and absolute waste of time because you choose for it to be.

Fury will be back soon, so he's not going to be taken out.

Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑15 Feb 2018, 14:56It's a list that you update every month Horse..

It's not backdated is it? If it was a list of British top 30 P4P 2015-2018, then yeh, I ain't going to argue with Tyson Fury being #1..

Other fighters should do more.

Fury should be way lower than he is now after two years of inactivity, but the other fighters haven't stepped up.

Horse wrote: ↑15 Feb 2018, 14:56

gilgamesh wrote: ↑15 Feb 2018, 14:54Yeah, yeah. You were wrong last month. You're wrong this month. Fix your list or it'll never mean d*ck...even to the few people on this forum who are the only people it would even matter to anyway.

So think about that. Your list is seen as worthless by the handful of people that see it. It is a complete and absolute waste of time because you choose for it to be.

Fury will be back soon, so he's not going to be taken out.

I'd have no issue whatsoever to him being ranked when he returns. He's gonna return to my rankings at Heavyweight when he returns too. Key word there...WHEN HE RETURNS.

You should drop a fighter from rankings after 1 year of inactivity if they don't have a fight scheduled, but it's acceptable to leave them in if they at least have something in the works, and we know for a fact they're going to be returning soon.

Tyson Fury has been inactive for over 2 years, and still has nothing definitively set. It's just what if's and maybe's.

Would you give any other fighter in the world this much leeway on your rankings or do you just allow your hard on for Fury to make a Horse's ass out of you?

Brook is ridiculously low.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑15 Feb 2018, 15:01You should drop a fighter from rankings after 1 year of inactivity if they don't have a fight scheduled, but it's acceptable to leave them in if they at least have something in the works, and we know for a fact they're going to be returning soon.

That's not my policy and that will never be my policy.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑15 Feb 2018, 15:01Tyson Fury has been inactive for over 2 years, and still has nothing definitively set. It's just what if's and maybe's.

Would you give any other fighter in the world this much leeway on your rankings or do you just allow your hard on for Fury to make a Horse's ass out of you?

I have left many fighters in my rankings for over a year after their last fight and I will do it again in the future.

Boxerbeetle wrote: ↑15 Feb 2018, 15:04 Brook is ridiculously low.

Brook's losing efforts against GGG and Spence were more impressive than Fury's winning effort against Wladimir. They were fights. Punches were thrown with intent to hurt the opponent. Brook held his own in those fights before succumbing.

He might've been able to win both fights if Spence and GGG just stared at him for 12 rounds, and then everybody would think he was the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Horse wrote: ↑15 Feb 2018, 15:06

gilgamesh wrote: ↑15 Feb 2018, 15:01You should drop a fighter from rankings after 1 year of inactivity if they don't have a fight scheduled, but it's acceptable to leave them in if they at least have something in the works, and we know for a fact they're going to be returning soon.

That's not my policy and that will never be my policy.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑15 Feb 2018, 15:01Tyson Fury has been inactive for over 2 years, and still has nothing definitively set. It's just what if's and maybe's.

Would you give any other fighter in the world this much leeway on your rankings or do you just allow your hard on for Fury to make a Horse's ass out of you?

I have left many fighters in my rankings for over a year after their last fight and I will do it again in the future.

Your policy sucks

Boxerbeetle wrote: ↑15 Feb 2018, 15:04 Brook is ridiculously low.

Brook only has one world class win and that was 3.5 years ago.

His best result since then is getting stopped by Spence.

I think he's roughly where he should be.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑15 Feb 2018, 15:07Brook's losing efforts against GGG and Spence were more impressive than Fury's winning effort against Wladimir. They were fights. Punches were thrown with intent to hurt the opponent. Brook held his own in those fights before succumbing.

He might've been able to win both fights if Spence and GGG just stared at him for 12 rounds, and then everybody would think he was the greatest thing since sliced bread.

No, Fury's win was much better.

Luke Campbell and Crolla above Kell Brook Gimme fuckin peace!

Horse wrote: ↑15 Feb 2018, 15:10

gilgamesh wrote: ↑15 Feb 2018, 15:07Brook's losing efforts against GGG and Spence were more impressive than Fury's winning effort against Wladimir. They were fights. Punches were thrown with intent to hurt the opponent. Brook held his own in those fights before succumbing.

He might've been able to win both fights if Spence and GGG just stared at him for 12 rounds, and then everybody would think he was the greatest thing since sliced bread.

No, Fury's win was much better.

Whatever Horse

Fury's definitely been the best competitive eater of the all active boxers in the last few years that's for damn sure...not sure if that was his intent or not, but I'll bet he could give a lot of those guys a run for their money.

Horse wrote: ↑15 Feb 2018, 15:09

Boxerbeetle wrote: ↑15 Feb 2018, 15:04 Brook is ridiculously low.

Brook only has one world class win and that was 3.5 years ago.

His best result since then is getting stopped by Spence.

I think he's roughly where he should be.

Quite a few of the fighters above him don’t have a single world class win between them.

Stuarty wrote: ↑15 Feb 2018, 15:11 Luke Campbell and Crolla above Kell Brook Gimme fuckin peace!

They both belong above him.

Horse wrote: ↑15 Feb 2018, 15:13

Stuarty wrote: ↑15 Feb 2018, 15:11 Luke Campbell and Crolla above Kell Brook Gimme fuckin peace!

They both belong above him.

ok

Horse wrote: ↑15 Feb 2018, 15:13

Stuarty wrote: ↑15 Feb 2018, 15:11 Luke Campbell and Crolla above Kell Brook Gimme fuckin peace!

They both belong above him.

They both belong above Tyson Fury's inactive ass that's for goddamn sure.

Boxerbeetle wrote: ↑15 Feb 2018, 15:13Quite a few of the fighters above him don’t have a single world class win between them.

What a ridiculous thing to say.

Horse wrote: ↑15 Feb 2018, 15:15

Boxerbeetle wrote: ↑15 Feb 2018, 15:13Quite a few of the fighters above him don’t have a single world class win between them.

What a ridiculous thing to say.

Kinda like...Tyson Fury: an inactive fatass is one of the 10 best boxers in England?

gilgamesh wrote: ↑15 Feb 2018, 14:34

Taansend wrote: ↑15 Feb 2018, 14:29

Horse wrote: ↑15 Feb 2018, 14:19 Any comments/criticisms of the British Top 30 P4P list are very welcome.

Great list, 'orse.

Why encourage somebody to keep making a list that is so fundamentally wrong?

This is akin to teaching a 1st Grade math class that 2+2 = 6 each time he makes it. There is basically only a few whopping corrections he'd need to make which would make his list acceptable, but without those corrections it's a joke, and you might as well not even bother.

I don't think I need to remind you all what needs to be corrected because that would be beating a dead Horse...pun intended

'orse is making pound for pound lists great again

gilgamesh wrote: ↑15 Feb 2018, 15:16Kinda like...Tyson Fury: an inactive fatass is one of the 10 best boxers in England?

We get it!

You think that Fury is inactive and shouldn't be ranked.

Horse wrote: ↑15 Feb 2018, 15:19

gilgamesh wrote: ↑15 Feb 2018, 15:16Kinda like...Tyson Fury: an inactive fatass is one of the 10 best boxers in England?

We get it!

You think that Fury is inactive and shouldn't be ranked.

Apparently you don't got it. He's inactive and shouldn't be ranked. So fix it.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑15 Feb 2018, 15:19Apparently you don't got it. He's inactive and shouldn't be ranked. So fix it.

I don't agree with you.

Horse wrote: ↑15 Feb 2018, 15:20

gilgamesh wrote: ↑15 Feb 2018, 15:19Apparently you don't got it. He's inactive and shouldn't be ranked. So fix it.

I don't agree with you.

Because you're stupid

This list is f*cking brilliant.

If you add up how long it is since Fury, Khan, Brook & Burns got a win you could travel back to around 2009