BoxRec

DavidPayne wrote:Jennings has dropped two places?

Yes, Pryce and Appleby overtook him. If Jennings got more active then he wouldn't be so near the bottom.

DavidPayne wrote:And how was Pryce not in the top 20 months ago.

Because, he has been inactive recently and his opposition has not been that special.

jake the snake wrote:Still think Ryan Rhodes deserves a place in the top 30.

Fair enough, but I would like to see him prove that he can perform consistently at British level before I place him in the top 30.

jake the snake wrote:Find it a bit harsh oakey's out after one loss when johanneson lost 2 out of his last 3 by stoppage.

Yes, it does seem a bit harsh but since he lost I had to make way for Francis, and I also entered Appleby and Pryce into the list, so since he could not go up in the rankings following a loss, then he had to fall out of the list.

As for Johanneson, perhaps he should not be in the list any more following his two recent losses, but he lost to two good fighters in Kirokosyan and Mitchell, and as the fight with Mitchell was competetive I didn't want to punish him to much for the loss, so I only dropped him 5 places or so following that loss.

jake the snake wrote:Paul Appleby might be in a bit early,if Appleby in why no Paul Truscott .

Yes, perhaps I should have waited before entering Appleby into the list, but Simpson was on a good run of results and Appleby seems to be the top featherweight in Britain now with Cook moving up, Mathews getting smashed and Harrison not fighting; so I gave him the benefit of the doubt and put him in the list.

Captain Hook wrote:How the hell are Witter and Woods so high given their ages and poor (losing) performances in their last two fights?

Because, they are former world champions and are still considered as top class fighters in their divisions, which is enough to be considered above the fighters below them, and I do not see what their ages have got to do with it.

Emerson Poncey Name Ghent wrote:More importantly how did Elcock go up 4 places for a stoppage on cuts against a fighter that wasn't even listed.

Mostly to overtake Harrison.

Will you please stop talking like this is some sort of official list, you are not a busy man, i get it.......

ManchesterMexican wrote:Ricky Hatton

stujones wrote:I think Colin Lynes being at 21 is a bit harsh.

He lost so I moved him down a couple of places, perhaps that was harsh due to the nature of his loss, but a loss is a loss.

Max Molyneux wrote:Would put Haye above Hatton at the moment.

Haye could be a flop at heavyweight and he has not fought the same calibre of opposition as Hatton, so I disagree.

Max Molyneux wrote:Dunne's Irish so I wouldn't count him In that list.

So is Duddy. I decided to include Irish fighters last september so it is more of a British Isles list now, rather than just a British list.

To be honest I like this thread and read it when ever Horse puts it up.

Now that isn’t to say I agree with his rankings, some of them are a little odd, like some have already pointed out, but fair play to the fella. It gets loads of debate going on which makes interesting reading.

I’m Irish and have no problem with Irish fighters being placed in with the Brits, I actually quite like it as I can get an overall view of how the British view some of the Irish fighters, although only 2 or 3 are in the rankings. One thing I will say is that John Duddy is certainly Irish, he considers himself very much Irish. I think everyone on Box Rec knows that and we can put it to bed good and early please. More importantly I don’t know how people don’t rate him higher. He’ll soon be in the top 10, when he gets his hands on a title, when he fights Verno Phillips.

Cheers horse will look out for next months rankings! (Like I say I more than likely wouldn’t agree with you but hey it’s funny seeing people reactions to certain fighters)

Dioufy wrote:Good list mate, although like everyone says, Scott Harrison stands out.

Thank you, Dioufy. Yes, Harrison has got to go, I am finally starting to come around to that idea.

josh fg wrote:I aggree Haye above Hatton, Haye has cleaned up a devision in a much more styalish manner.

Style over substance?

josh fg wrote:I also think that Khan is artificially high I don't see what he has done to be rated higher than Elcock for eg who beat eastman or Rees even particularly baring the gomez fight in mind.

Khan has beaten: Limond, Lawton, Earl, St. Clair, Kristjansen and Gomez in his last six fights which compares favourably with any other fighter outside of the top 10. Perhaps none of these wins are as big as a win over the likes of Eastman or M'Baye, but he has shown that he can perform consistently at this level, which many below him have not.

twenty six wrote:Bradley Pryce rises to 24 by beating Portman.
Rhodes beats Woolcombe, who beat Portman to become British Champ and there's no place for him.
I give up.

Pryce has proven more than Rhodes recently, that is why he is in the list and Rhodes isn't.

twenty six wrote:McCullough should be back in - he says he fights on.
If you want to be a comedian over an unlicensed boxer in your rankings then so can I.

If you say so.

twenty six wrote:In last month's list you justified Rhodes failure to make it because you did not regard Woolcombe as a scalp worth having.
So go on then, why is Portman's scalp more deserving than Woolcombe's ?

I didn't say that Woolcombe's scalp was not worth having. I just didn't think that a win over him was enough to earn Rhodes a place on the list, since he didn't have much else on his recent record.

Portman's scalp is not more deserving than Woolcombe's. Pryce has been the Commonwealth champion for a couple of years now and his re-entering the list following his win over Portman was far more to do with his Commonwealth reign than his win over Portman.

03mcgs0 wrote:To be honest I like this thread and read it when ever Horse puts it up.

Now that isn’t to say I agree with his rankings, some of them are a little odd, like some have already pointed out, but fair play to the fella. It gets loads of debate going on which makes interesting reading.

I’m Irish and have no problem with Irish fighters being placed in with the Brits, I actually quite like it as I can get an overall view of how the British view some of the Irish fighters, although only 2 or 3 are in the rankings. One thing I will say is that John Duddy is certainly Irish, he considers himself very much Irish. I think everyone on Box Rec knows that and we can put it to bed good and early please. More importantly I don’t know how people don’t rate him higher. He’ll soon be in the top 10, when he gets his hands on a title, when he fights Verno Phillips.

Cheers horse will look out for next months rankings! (Like I say I more than likely wouldn’t agree with you but hey it’s funny seeing people reactions to certain fighters)

[Emphasis mine] - Is Duddy moving down to Light Middleweight?

Captain Hook wrote:How can Witter be in the same position when he had his arse handed to him? The same goes for Woods. He is pretty much finished now.

We will see if they are finished or not in their coming matches. Witter and Woods have been beating world class fighters during their title reigns which cannot really be said for Arthur and Froch.

Captain Hook wrote:Jennings? And I agree Rhodes should at least be in the twenties....

Jennings has been in some low quality matches recently, as well as being inactive, so I don't see why it is a suprise to see him so low in the list.

Captain Hook wrote:I can guarantee Harrison will still be in this list in a year's time, even if he hasn't fought. He'll be at number 24 or something.

No, he won't.

Captain Hook wrote:On the subject of Pryce he should be way higher than that looking at his performances in the last 12 months.

In the last 12 months he has wins over Small, Concepcion and Portman. The win over Small is the best of those wins and it is a good win, but the other two are not very impressive wins and don't really show me that he should be way higher than he currently is.

Captain Hook wrote:What the hell has Bernard Dunne achieved, he should be way behind some of the guys behind him?

Dunne is a former European champion who made two defences of his title and has beaten some decent European fighters including Pickering and Voronin. He may not have done anything special but I don't think any of the guys below him should be way ahead of him.

Captain Hook wrote:Jennings at 30 is ludicrous.

How so? What is so great about Jennings?

Horse,
Compare these records.

Boxer A
3 fights in last 10 months.
All wins, opponents records as follows
5-11-2
6-3-1
23-2-0 (British title).

Boxer B
4 fights in last 10 months
All wins opponents records as follows
8-1-1
3-1-0
4-4-2
25-1-0 (British title)


Each record includes a British title win.
Do you think using these basic facts that each either deserve to be in your rankings or both should be out of your rankings ? (you will note the similarities).
One is David Barnes, the other Ryan Rhodes.
Please justify.

What so special about Jennings.

Well he has a win over the #2 Light Middleweight (and someone in your rankings).

Takaloo was ranked #1 Welter by boxing Monthly when Jennings fought him (after Tak beat Magee).

Ross Minter was clearly in the top ten and everybit as good a Portman.

His sole defeat was very controvesial - most thought he won.

He is clearly the #1 Welter in the UK.

metropol wrote:Dunne was euro champ and he is Irish so shouldnt be on the list as is duddy.

Irish fighters are allowed on the list.

rhino222 wrote:personally i would have haye above hatton, harrison off the list, and alex arthur a bit lower, i think arthur is a poor so called 'world champion'. junior witter could drop a couple of places too, froch definastely should be above arthur.

Hatton is ranked higher than Haye in the Current Scene's World P4P rankings, and I agree with their opinion on this issue. Arthur is a good fighter and based on achievement he should be above Froch for now.

Witter has beaten very good opposition recently and was ranked as the No.1 contender in the light welterweight division before the Bradley loss. Witter was poor against Bradley, but I don't think that all of his recent work should be discounted because of one poor performance.

rhino222 wrote:have you based your list on titles the fighters currently hold, or do you think the likes of arthur are actually better boxers than froch and jamie moore etc?

I think that Arthur is on a similar level to Froch and Moore talent wise and I am not sure who is the most talented of the three, so the decider is Arthur's better opposition and achievements (European and WBO champion). I do take titles into consideration, but opposition level is more important.

Captain Hook wrote:Even if Duddy and Dunne were from Woking, they still shouldn't be that high up.

Both decent fighters, but not that deserving. This list baffles me.......every month.

What is so baffling about Duddy and Dunne's positions? Duddy has beaten decent opposition such as Eastman and Campas and Dunne is a former European champion.

Captain Hook wrote:Duddy is a crowd pleaser and he counts himself as Irish, but this list is so mental I'm surprised Alexis Arguello isn't on it.

Don't be silly.

stujones wrote:Jennings should be above Pryce.

Jennings did beat Pryce a while ago, but Jennings recent opposition and activity level has been poor for a fighter of his calibre and that has hurt his position.

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:Me too, in many ways

1) That he bothers to do it every month (Shall we all now post our own top 30's each month?)

If you want to post your own top 30 list then that is up to you, but I will not apologise for being tenacious.

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:2) The seemingly arbitrary placing of fighters outside the top 10

There is reason behind my placings, obviously people are going to disagree about what the exact placings should be, but I don't think the rankings below the top 10 are as random and illogical as you are making out.

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:and 3) That anyone bothers to talk about what is, in essence, a list of 1 "man's" favorite fighters..

I don't think my list is especially biased towards my favourite fighters, I try to be as fair as possible.

And what is with the quotation marks?

metropol wrote:No hes from derry and geographically he may be from the uk but he is most definatley Irish he can choose to be Irish.

Even still Northern Ireland is in the UK but not Britain and hence people from Northern Ireland are not British unless they take up their right to be should they choose(Duddy does not) .

Now Horse has since said that he's including Irish fighters, which is fine(and being Irish I kind of like it) but could you at least say something like British& Irish Top 30 you don't end up with this same discussion every second month .

Harrison simply has to be removed, he has fought for over 2 1/2 years and as far as I'm aware can't even apply for a license again till 2009 .
If Harrison does ever end up in the ring again it will have been at least 4 years since his last bout, by which time can you really rank him anywhere in a p4p list ?

As I said Tak was the #1 Welterweight when they fought. Pryce's best win has recently has come against Anthony Small who was ranked in the lower reaches of the top ten. Marcus Portman and Ross Minter are around the same ranking in their resepected devision.

You may not show bias towards a fighter, I'll disagree hence why I asked your nationality a few months ago - but I think with the Mathews incident and now Jennings - you do hold the WBU belt against people, rather than the opposition they beat.

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:Will you please stop talking like this is some sort of official list, you are not a busy man, i get it.......

People take the time to comment on my list, so I feel it is only right that I take the time to respond to them. You don't seem to like that, but I shall continue to do so regardless.

03mcgs0 wrote:To be honest I like this thread and read it when ever Horse puts it up.

Now that isn’t to say I agree with his rankings, some of them are a little odd, like some have already pointed out, but fair play to the fella. It gets loads of debate going on which makes interesting reading.

I’m Irish and have no problem with Irish fighters being placed in with the Brits, I actually quite like it as I can get an overall view of how the British view some of the Irish fighters, although only 2 or 3 are in the rankings. One thing I will say is that John Duddy is certainly Irish, he considers himself very much Irish. I think everyone on Box Rec knows that and we can put it to bed good and early please. More importantly I don’t know how people don’t rate him higher. He’ll soon be in the top 10, when he gets his hands on a title, when he fights Verno Phillips.

Cheers horse will look out for next months rankings! (Like I say I more than likely wouldn’t agree with you but hey it’s funny seeing people reactions to certain fighters)

Thank you very much 03mcgs0 for your kind words.

twenty six wrote:Horse,
Compare these records.

Boxer A
3 fights in last 10 months.
All wins, opponents records as follows
5-11-2
6-3-1
23-2-0 (British title).

Boxer B
4 fights in last 10 months
All wins opponents records as follows
8-1-1
3-1-0
4-4-2
25-1-0 (British title)


Each record includes a British title win.
Do you think using these basic facts that each either deserve to be in your rankings or both should be out of your rankings ? (you will note the similarities).
One is David Barnes, the other Ryan Rhodes.
Please justify.

The statistics alone do not give me enough information to decide whether either of these fighters should be in the list or not.

Bami was in my list when Barnes beat him and Woolcombe was not in my list when Rhodes beats him, that is the big difference.

stujones wrote:What so special about Jennings.

Well he has a win over the #2 Light Middleweight (and someone in your rankings).

Yes, that is a good win but it was over two and a half years ago.

stujones wrote:Takaloo was ranked #1 Welter by boxing Monthly when Jennings fought him (after Tak beat Magee).

Takaloo looked rubbish against Jennings and although some may have ranked Takaloo as the number one fighter before their fight, I didn't.

stujones wrote:Ross Minter was clearly in the top ten and everybit as good a Portman.

His sole defeat was very controvesial - most thought he won.

He is clearly the #1 Welter in the UK.

Yes, Minter is at about the same level as Portman, pehaps a little higher even. His loss to Mutley was an unlucky loss but I don't think that it was that controversial.

I am not sure that he is clearly the number one in the UK, McIntyre has a good claim to that crown with his recent wins over Doherty and two wins over Anderson.

stujones wrote:As I said Tak was the #1 Welterweight when they fought. Pryce's best win has recently has come against Anthony Small who was ranked in the lower reaches of the top ten. Marcus Portman and Ross Minter are around the same ranking in their resepected devision.

Pryce was below Jennings before his recent win over Portman, if Jennings got a similar standard of win then he would likely overtake Pryce, but I can't move him up if he doesn't fight.

stujones wrote:You may not show bias towards a fighter, I'll disagree hence why I asked your nationality a few months ago - but I think with the Mathews incident and now Jennings - you do hold the WBU belt against people, rather than the opposition they beat.

I do not rate the WBU title that is true, but that is mostly because those fighters with a WBU title fight sub-standard opposition.

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

Looking at the standard of Jennings's opposition, I can honestly say that he shouldn't be much higher than he is (if he should be any higher at all). I feel Jennings has a lot of talent and could be beating better fighters than he has been recently, but the standard of fighters he has been fighting recently is not at all impressive.

Hold on... you admit Minter would be higher than Portman which I agree.

Then you say Jennings standard of recent opposition has been worst than Pryce's - hang on... that was only last february.

So a man who lost to Jennings, moves above him cause he beat a guy who was not as a good as the guy Jennings fought in February..... Makes perfect sense to me.

Fair enough if you want to criticise Unigadze - but his losses have come against VERY solid opposition for the most part. Senchenko could be world class.

BigEars wrote:Now Horse has since said that he's including Irish fighters, which is fine(and being Irish I kind of like it) but could you at least say something like British& Irish Top 30 you don't end up with this same discussion every second month .

I have called this list by the same name for over two years now and I am not very fond of change. I think this is the first month which has had any sort of an argument about the Irish fighters being Irish etc. If this issue is brought up in the future I may consider posting a note in my second post of each month stating that Irish fighters are included for selection onto the list.

BigEars wrote:Harrison simply has to be removed, he has fought for over 2 1/2 years and as far as I'm aware can't even apply for a license again till 2009 .
If Harrison does ever end up in the ring again it will have been at least 4 years since his last bout, by which time can you really rank him anywhere in a p4p list ?

He could well fight again before the 4 years of inactivity mark, as his ban ends at the end of January 2009. Either way he will have been inactive for a very long time.

stujones wrote:Hold on... you admit Minter would be higher than Portman which I agree.

I said "perhaps a little higher" but I guess that is roughly the same thing.

stujones wrote:Then you say Jennings standard of recent opposition has been worst than Pryce's - hang on... that was only last february.

Yes, Pryce's record since his loss to Jennings has been better than Jennings' record in my opinion. Minter might be better than Portman, but neither of those victories were big wins and just because Jennings beat Minter it doesn't mean that he cannot be overtaken by someone who beats a lesser fighter than Minter.

stujones wrote:So a man who lost to Jennings, moves above him cause he beat a guy who was not as a good as the guy Jennings fought in February..... Makes perfect sense to me.

Pryce's win over Portman was only one of many, Jennings moved up a few places after his win over Minter and even after his win over Unigadze, but he has since fallen a few places. So, I don't see why it is suprising that Pryce moves above Jennings even though his latest victory is not one of his better ones.

stujones wrote:Fair enough if you want to criticise Unigadze - but his losses have come against VERY solid opposition for the most part. Senchenko could be world class.

Unigadze has lost against good fighters, but that doesn't make him good himself though does it?

With wins over Takaloo and Minter in the last two years being his best results, Jennings has a decent enough record to make it into the top 30, but to suggest that his recent record merits him a place in the top 20 or there about is very questionable in my opinion.

But wasn't Jennings ABOVE Pryce before he fought Portman.

Portman adds nothing to the Pryce resume, so why has he moved above a fighter he lost to. Okay, not saying Unigadze does add anything to the Jennings resume. But as both fighters have beaten fighters who doesn't add to their resume - then why isn't the status quo maintained?

Not saying you wouldn't have a point if Jennings hadn't beaten someone of a similar standing to Portman recently, but he has.

Would Kevin Anderson move above Kevin McIntyre is he beat say David Walker? Nope.

stujones wrote:But wasn't Jennings ABOVE Pryce before he fought Portman.

Portman adds nothing to the Pryce resume, so why has he moved above a fighter he lost to. Okay, not saying Unigadze does add anything to the Jennings resume. But as both fighters have beaten fighters who doesn't add to their resume - then why isn't the status quo maintained?

Portman does add something to Pryce's resume, it shows that he can keep on beating fighters at this level and not slip up and lose (same with Jennings' win over Minter). Pryce lost to Jennings over two and a half years ago in a close fight, Pryce has been more active than Jennings in that time and is unbeaten since, unlike Jennings who lost to Mutley.

stujones wrote:Not saying you wouldn't have a point if Jennings hadn't beaten someone of a similar standing to Portman recently, but he has.

Would Kevin Anderson move above Kevin McIntyre is he beat say David Walker? Nope.

Walker is a lot lower in the rankings than Portman and Minter are. A win over Walker at this stage would not be enough to get anyone on the list.

I don't know why you didn't just use Minter as Anderson's hypothetical opponent as that would make more sense. If Anderson beat Minter tomorrow then I would probably not include him in the top 30 off the back of that one result. If on the other hand he made a string of similar wins and then beat Minter, then I might move him onto the list in that scenario. And if McIntyre had fallen towards the bottom of the list by that stage then Anderson could well overtake him by beating Minter.

Luckily Stujones was around at the weekend to save me having to reply to all of Horse's posts.

Cheers Stu

No logic behind this list at all. What is so special about Jennings? He's beating good opposition, as opposed to losing and still being in the top 10 or 20.

And you're keeping Witter and Woods in the top 6 to see what they do in their next fights?

Basically it's one man with an opinion, which is fair enough, but perhaps we should all give our egos a good massage and post a list every month?

And why won't Harrison be in if he has still not retired? Have you got a time limit on taking him out?