BoxRec

James Moore might be worth a shout next time round

http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?hu ... &cat=boxer

Khan is closer to a title shot than Duddy, and Khan will probably win his.

Scott Harrison? (again!)

And for what reason do you have Arthur above Macarinelli?

Are you Scottish Horse?

What, like a Shetland Pony?

:)

He must be, makes no sense.

Captain Hook wrote:What, like a Shetland Pony?

Ha ha - had the feeling a joke was going to made from my post.

stujones wrote:Are you Scottish, Horse?

Fixed!

Horse wrote:

stujones wrote:Is Duddy closer to a world title shot. Khan is ranked in the top 15 with ALL of the governing bodies, and ranked 6 by fightviews and 6 on the Boxrec computer system (I don't agree with those lofty positions). He is also fighting Kristjansen in an eliminator.

There is surely a chance Khan will fight for a world title in the Summer... Duddy won't.

Duddy is ranked in the top 15 with all the governing bodies as well.

Perhaps Khan will fight for a title before Duddy, but I think that Duddy is more likely to fight for one first, as he was scheduled to fight Pavlik before he was cut. I don't think a late summer title fight is completely out of the question either.

But Khan is fighting for an eliminator next.... Duddy hasn't done that, so Khan will be a mandatory challenger.

And beating Kristjansen alone - a good fighter, but not exceptional, isn't enough to warrant Khan a rise mearly because of its status as an eliminator.

I think basing a ranking on what it more likely to occur, isn't really the right theory.

Was Howard Clarke in your P4P rating when he signed to fight Fernando Vargas?

sligobhoy67 wrote:With the inclusion of Dunne and Duddy it looks like a British and Irish P4P not just a British one I will put forward a case for Paul McCloskey, Oisin Fagan and Andy Lee

McCloskey and Lee will move close to a place on the list if they both win their fights this month, although I don't think either will get into the top 30 just yet.

Oisin Fagan has yet to have a big win, if he starts winning some of his close fights then maybe he can earn a place.

sligobhoy67 wrote:James Moore might be worth a shout next time round

If he beats Candelo he will move a lot closer to a place on the list, but I don't think he will enter the list next month either.

Thank you for mentioning these fighters, as after having a look at their records, I have realised that I have been underrating them.

JDC wrote:

Horse wrote:

JDC wrote:Scott Harrison?

Does the 12 month inactivity rule not apply to him? He hasnt fought for over 2 years

There is no 12 month inactivity rule in effect. If a fighter has not retired then I class them as active.

Dont understand the logic there. How can you compaire recent bouts if he hasn't had any?

I do not understand your point, so I am unable to answer your question.

stujones wrote:

Horse wrote:

stujones wrote:Still no Derry Matthews?

He hasn't beaten anyone of note recently. A win in his scheduled fight with stephen Foster should be enough to see him enter.

He's already done that though (Handily)

Well, he is going to have to do it again!

stujones wrote:Plus beaten Simpson and beaten the decent Matthew Marsh. Simspon lost to Foster.

Yes, perhaps I should have entered Matthews earlier, but I didn't. I will have the chance to enter him after his second fight with Foster, but I can't enter him before then.

jake the snake wrote:wouldn't have eastman in at all , Herbie Hide's been active and winning,Gary Lockett and Ryan Rhodes might sneak in aswell low down.

Eastman was high in my rankings until his close decision losses to Elcock and Duddy, so I didn't want to drop him out completely.

Hide has been active but against generally poor opposition, so I will wait to see how he does against better opponents before I consider him entering the top 30. Lockett also has to improve his opposition before he enters the list.

Rhodes is due to face Woolcombe for the British title in April, so he will have a chance to get into contention for a place in the list with a victory over him. Although, I am not sure even with a victory over Woolcombe that he would have done enough to qualify, I guess I will have to wait and see.

lsg wrote:Derry Mathews !!!!!!!

Undefeated, ranked in top 10 by two of the big 4 organisations. Beaten one man already on the list and took virtually every round from Foster.

Anti Mathews agenda based on one off night against Simpson is becoming nauseating

I am not against Matthews, I will consider his position after his next fight against Foster. I also don't think that there is a wide spread anti-Matthews agenda on these boards either, but perhaps I haven't been paying attention.

But the main criticism is why does he have to go through that backward step to move ahead of Simpson. Lets not forget, Simpson looked pretty ordinary in his last fight - and Matthews has looked good in his last two fights.

Foster Jnr should be ahead of Simpson based on him beating Simpson fairly and deservedly and him running Alex Arthur close.

Matthews beat the pair of them - one by virtual shut out, the other controvesially granted - but most people seem to think he won.

So really the man who beat both fighters and hasn't lost a fight - should be ranked ahead of the other two.... yet he would appear to be ranked 3rd. I do normally like your rankings, but this one has baffled me. Cause this is the only one in which you completely look for subjectivity. Because Objectively - wherever Simpson is ranked, Matthews should be ahead of him.

You keep saying that Matthews has beaten no one else - but who has Simpson really beaten if you look at his opponents records. Morris is a strong fighter, but his victories are not that great... Matthew Marsh was undefeated and considered a good prospect when Marsh dismantled him.

stujones wrote:But the main criticism is why does he have to go through that backward step to move ahead of Simpson. Lets not forget, Simpson looked pretty ordinary in his last fight - and Matthews has looked good in his last two fights.

Foster Jnr should be ahead of Simpson based on him beating Simpson fairly and deservedly and him running Alex Arthur close.

Matthews beat the pair of them - one by virtual shut out, the other controvesially granted - but most people seem to think he won.

So really the man who beat both fighters and hasn't lost a fight - should be ranked ahead of the other two.... yet he would appear to be ranked 3rd. I do normally like your rankings, but this one has baffled me. Cause this is the only one in which you completely look for subjectivity. Because Objectively - wherever Simpson is ranked, Matthews should be ahead of him.

You keep saying that Matthews has beaten no one else - but who has Simpson really beaten if you look at his opponents records. Morris is a strong fighter, but his victories are not that great... Matthew Marsh was undefeated and considered a good prospect when Marsh dismantled him.

some bloody good points here

i do like your rankings horse

but ive got to agree about matthews, and think everyone must surely agree and until you stick him........your rating are looking a shambles

Captain Hook wrote:Khan is closer to a title shot than Duddy, and Khan will probably win his.

It doesn't really matter who gets the title shot first, that is not why Duddy is above Khan.

Captain Hook wrote:Scott Harrison? (again!)

He could be getting his license back this month. I surely cannot take him out now.

Captain Hook wrote:And for what reason do you have Arthur above Macarinelli?

Is Maccarinelli's competition level or skill really any better than Arthur's? I decided that Arthur had a bit of a better resume than Maccarinelli, it was a close call.

stujones wrote:Are you Scottish Horse?

I would rather not say.

Captain Hook wrote:What, like a Shetland Pony?

:)

He must be, makes no sense.

Why would a regular horse make more sense than a Shetland pony?

Asterix wrote:Fixed!

Are you suggesting I am corrupt?

Horse wrote:

Asterix wrote:Fixed!

Are you suggesting I am corrupt?

I fixed the grammar. No idea what you're on about. :)

stujones wrote:But Khan is fighting for an eliminator next.... Duddy hasn't done that, so Khan will be a mandatory challenger.

Is it for the mandatory position?

stujones wrote:And beating Kristjansen alone - a good fighter, but not exceptional, isn't enough to warrant Khan a rise mearly because of its status as an eliminator.

I think Khan could move up the rankings for beating Kristjansen, eliminator or not.

stujones wrote:I think basing a ranking on what it more likely to occur, isn't really the right theory.

That is not really what I do, my Duddy being closer to a title shot comment was just a throw away line, which had very little to do with Duddy being ahead of Khan.

stujones wrote:Was Howard Clarke in your P4P rating when he signed to fight Fernando Vargas?

I didn't do P4P rankings back then, but based on the time that Gavin Rees got a title shot and was not entered on my list until after he had won, and also based on Howard Clarke's record, I would say that I would not have had Howard Clarke in my top 30 at any time.

Horse wrote:

Captain Hook wrote:Khan is closer to a title shot than Duddy, and Khan will probably win his.

It doesn't really matter who gets the title shot first, that is not why Duddy is above Khan.

Captain Hook wrote:Scott Harrison? (again!)

He could be getting his license back this month. I surely cannot take him out now.

Captain Hook wrote:And for what reason do you have Arthur above Macarinelli?

Is Maccarinelli's competition level or skill really any better than Arthur's? I decided that Arthur had a bit of a better resume than Maccarinelli, it was a close call.

Horse. Who the feck are you and why are you so precious?

And don't reply with: "I'd rather not say"

How has Arthur got a better resume than Macarinelli, in what universe? He is fighting Haye at the weekend, has beaten Braithwaite and is WBO champ.

Why when Kristjansen is not Khan's best opponent.

stujones wrote:But the main criticism is why does he have to go through that backward step to move ahead of Simpson. Lets not forget, Simpson looked pretty ordinary in his last fight - and Matthews has looked good in his last two fights.

Well, number one is that I only move people in to the rankings if they have won a fight in the previous month, so I can't move Matthews into the list next month even if I wanted to. Number two would be that it would show that he can be consistantly succesful against this level of compeition, and that his previous victory over Foster was not a fluke.

stujones wrote:Foster Jnr should be ahead of Simpson based on him beating Simpson fairly and deservedly and him running Alex Arthur close.

Matthews beat the pair of them - one by virtual shut out, the other controvesially granted - but most people seem to think he won.

Since Simpson's loss to Foster, he has gone on to beat Morris twice and do better against Matthews than Foster did. So, Simpson being ahead of Foster is not out of the question, although it may be on the fringe of common opinion.

stujones wrote:So really the man who beat both fighters and hasn't lost a fight - should be ranked ahead of the other two.... yet he would appear to be ranked 3rd. I do normally like your rankings, but this one has baffled me. Cause this is the only one in which you completely look for subjectivity. Because Objectively - wherever Simpson is ranked, Matthews should be ahead of him.

I am not sure why you feel that it appears that Matthews is in third place between the three of them. Matthews is closer to a place in the top 30 than Foster is.

stujones wrote:You keep saying that Matthews has beaten no one else - but who has Simpson really beaten if you look at his opponents records. Morris is a strong fighter, but his victories are not that great... Matthew Marsh was undefeated and considered a good prospect when Marsh dismantled him.

I am not sure that I do keep saying that Matthews has "beaten no one else"; as he has good wins over Foster, Simpson and Marsh.


Here is my general reasoning behind my decision not to include Matthews in the top 30 after his three biggest wins:

Foster - His decisive victory over Foster was impressive, but neither Foster or Matthews were particularly close to a place on the list before their fight so I did not feel that the win was enough to put him on the list, although it got him amongst the top contenders for a place in the list.

Simpson - Both fighters were fairly close to a place on the list before the fight, so I thought that the winner would earn a place on the list, but the fight was so close and Matthews fouling was so appalling that I decided that he should not enter based on that performance.

Marsh - Marsh is an unknown quantity as a pro, so it was difficult to determine how much stock should be put into a victory over him. So, I decided against putting Matthews into the list, again.

Perhaps, I was being harsh on Matthews with those decisions as he has built up a good record. But, I don't think his record is so good that it demands automatic inclusion in the top 30 either.

sweetscience wrote:i do like your rankings horse

but ive got to agree about matthews, and think everyone must surely agree and until you stick him........your rating are looking a shambles

I cannot include him until he wins another fight, so I guess my rankings are going to have to look a shambles for another two months.

Asterix wrote:

Horse wrote:

Asterix wrote:Fixed!

Are you suggesting I am corrupt?

I fixed the grammar. No idea what you're on about. :)

So you did.

Horse wrote:

sweetscience wrote:i do like your rankings horse

but ive got to agree about matthews, and think everyone must surely agree and until you stick him........your rating are looking a shambles

I cannot include him until he wins another fight, so I guess my rankings are going to have to look a shambles for another two months.

Yes, but he won last month.... even if it was now a slight oversight/mis judgment on your behave (which you now seem to be hinting towards) - couldn't have said "well he can move up cause he won last month).... the Marsh fight was fairly recent too.

Marsh has surely proven himself as a fringe British level with his wins over Rocky Dean.

why cant you admit you just forgot about matthews and add him

because it is a british top 30 - and he is 100% within that top thirty

sweetscience wrote:why cant you admit you just forgot about matthews and add him

because it is a british top 30 - and he is 100% within that top thirty

Bit hard for him to say that, I've been reminding him practically every month since I saw John Simpson's name there.

I think a case, although not a particularly strong one, could be made not to have Matthews there - for example, he could eliminate Simpson and a few others for the likes of Danny Williams, Sprott, Lockett, Macklin, Eastman, maybe even David Barnes, Lenny Daws (the later two for wins over McIntyre and Colin Lynes). Being a different weight to Matthews a case could be made - not one I would agree with.

But to have Simpson ahead of a guy he lost too albeit controvesially, who has also beaten another guy who has beaten Simpson - well its a bit silly and just shows subjectivity.

It has to be said three of the four fighters who gets the most attentions from this list are - Harrison, Arthur (for being ahead of Enzo Mac), and Simpson (for being ahead of Matthews) - hence my question on Horse's nationality. The other one is Wayne McCullough.