BoxRec

brian13 wrote:

Yes We Can wrote:

brian13 wrote:1. Carl Froch
2. Amir Khan
3. Jamie McDonnell
4. Scott Quigg
5. Carl Frampton
6. George Groves
7. Tyson Fury
8. Kell Brook
9. Dereck Chisora
10. James DeGale
11. Lee Selby
12. Matthew Macklin
13. Martin Murray
14. Ola Afolabi
15. Ricky Burns

If Jamie Mcdonnell is the 3rd best fighter in this country then we got problems. and i quite like the guy.

The thing is that if Frampton beats Kiko, then he will go 3rd with Quigg 4th and Mc Donnell 5th.

I just did not want to have Quigg two places higher at the top than Frampton because Frampton has been more impressive recently and I feel Frampton is the better fighter.

Frampton has already beaten Kiko. Why would beating him again be any more significant?

MarkMcBurney wrote:Can't really see how you can logically have Murray above Groves personally...

I don't see what's illogical about it.

Ian1973 wrote:Horse has something about Murray. The rest of the world can bang on all they like. Horse is stubborn, he digs his heels in and tries to justify the ridiculous status he awards his special friend. You won't budge him.

It's a shame really because a blinkered view is never going to gain respect.

I have nothing against you Horse, my friend, but you really, seriously, need to smell the coffee regarding Murray.

Murray deserves a high ranking. Anyone that disagrees is wrong.

forcefraser wrote:As far as I can see he has not beaten anyone of note ever.

brian13 wrote:They have beaten better opponents than Murray has.

palooka wrote:Macklin and Murray are about level in ability and achievement, that one is ranked so much higher than the other ought to be explained really. Murray is a very solid boxer but won't win a world title, if he boxed Golovkin he'd get the same as Macklin. Murray v Macklin would be a really good bout.

I think Murray is a better fighter, he has a better recent record than Macklin and he's more active.

Murray's had three fights since Macklin last fought and Khomitsky and Bursak are better wins than Macklin has had since he beat Alcine about 2 years ago or Asikainen almost 5 years ago.

Macklin also got destroyed by Golovkin about a year ago which, although it shouldn't be held against him too much, is not a good thing for maintaining a high ranking.

Horse wrote:

palooka wrote:Macklin and Murray are about level in ability and achievement, that one is ranked so much higher than the other ought to be explained really. Murray is a very solid boxer but won't win a world title, if he boxed Golovkin he'd get the same as Macklin. Murray v Macklin would be a really good bout.

I think Murray is a better fighter, he has a better recent record than Macklin and he's more active.

Murray's had three fights since Macklin last fought and Khomitsky and Bursak are better wins than Macklin has had since he beat Alcine about 2 years ago or Asikainen almost 5 years ago.

Macklin also got destroyed by Golovkin about a year ago which, although it shouldn't be held against him too much, is not a good thing for maintaining a high ranking.

Murray puts me to sleep, he's so dull to watch. I'd leave him out of my Top 10 just for that.

Boxerbeetle123 wrote:Murray puts me to sleep, he's so dull to watch. I'd leave him out of my Top 10 just for that.

He's got a very conservative style.

His style not being the most entertaining is not a good reason to leave him out of the top 10.

Horse wrote:

Boxerbeetle123 wrote:Murray puts me to sleep, he's so dull to watch. I'd leave him out of my Top 10 just for that.

He's got a very conservative style.

His style not being the most entertaining is not a good reason to leave him out of the top 10.

Maybe not, but it'd be my top 10 so I could do what I wanted with it. The fact that Murray's beaten no-one of note doesn't stop you ranking him number 3, so I don't see why I couldn't rank him lower due to his style.

Horse wrote:

palooka wrote:Macklin and Murray are about level in ability and achievement, that one is ranked so much higher than the other ought to be explained really. Murray is a very solid boxer but won't win a world title, if he boxed Golovkin he'd get the same as Macklin. Murray v Macklin would be a really good bout.

I think Murray is a better fighter, he has a better recent record than Macklin and he's more active.

Murray's had three fights since Macklin last fought and Khomitsky and Bursak are better wins than Macklin has had since he beat Alcine about 2 years ago or Asikainen almost 5 years ago.

Macklin also got destroyed by Golovkin about a year ago which, although it shouldn't be held against him too much, is not a good thing for maintaining a high ranking.

Thanks for explaining I thought Murray lost to Khomitsky though Murray seemed distracted.

Boxerbeetle123 wrote:The fact that Murray's beaten no-one of note doesn't stop you ranking him number 3,

Boxerbeetle123 wrote:so I don't see why I couldn't rank him lower due to his style.

Because your rankings would be wrong.

Horse wrote:

Boxerbeetle123 wrote:The fact that Murray's beaten no-one of note doesn't stop you ranking him number 3,

Boxerbeetle123 wrote:so I don't see why I couldn't rank him lower due to his style.

Because your rankings would be wrong.

Your rankings are wrong every month with Murray being ranked number 3. I don't see how anyone outside of Murray's camp could think he deserves such a high place. I'm starting to think you just enjoy the arguments it causes each month, there's doesn't seem to be any other reason for it.

palooka wrote:Thanks for explaining I thought Murray lost to Khomitsky though Murray seemed distracted.

Murray had difficulty with Khomitski, but Khomitski is a good fighter. Khomitski was doing well against Stieglitz in his last fight before the unusual stoppage.

Boxerbeetle123 wrote:I don't see how anyone outside of Murray's camp could think he deserves such a high place.

Then you don't know much about boxing. This conversation is pointless.

Horse wrote:

Boxerbeetle123 wrote:I don't see how anyone outside of Murray's camp could think he deserves such a high place.

Then you don't know much about boxing. This conversation is pointless.

So you're the only person on this board who knows anything about boxing? That's laughable.

Boxerbeetle123 wrote:So you're the only person on this board who knows anything about boxing? That's laughable.

That's not what I said.

Now the Murray ranking has been argued and thrashed out, why still rank Gavin Rees? Do you think he will box again?

palooka wrote:Now the Murray ranking has been argued and thrashed out, why still rank Gavin Rees? Do you think he will box again?

He should box again.

Rees vs Burns, Mitchell, Flanagan, Coyle, Marsili, Beltran etc. would all be good fights.

He's been inactive for less than 3 months. I don't see the need to take him out of the rankings ASAP.

Horse wrote:

palooka wrote:Now the Murray ranking has been argued and thrashed out, why still rank Gavin Rees? Do you think he will box again?

He should box again.

Rees vs Burns, Mitchell, Flanagan, Coyle, Marsili, Beltran etc. would all be good fights.

He's been inactive for less than 3 months. I don't see the need to take him out of the rankings ASAP.

Fair enough.

Horse wrote:

Boxerbeetle123 wrote:So you're the only person on this board who knows anything about boxing? That's laughable.

That's not what I said.

You said anyone who doesn't see how Murray deserves such a high ranking doesn't know much about boxing. Given that every month you are criticised for having Murray ranked number 3 by a variety of posters, the implication is that you think you know more about boxing than anyone else on here. Which you clearly don't.

palooka wrote:

Horse wrote:

palooka wrote:Now the Murray ranking has been argued and thrashed out, why still rank Gavin Rees? Do you think he will box again?

He should box again.

Rees vs Burns, Mitchell, Flanagan, Coyle, Marsili, Beltran etc. would all be good fights.

He's been inactive for less than 3 months. I don't see the need to take him out of the rankings ASAP.

Fair enough.

So u keep a guy ranked because U THINK HE SHOULD FIGHT AGAIN. The guy retired. THAT NOT OPINION ITS FACT.

Boxerbeetle123 wrote:You said anyone who doesn't see how Murray deserves such a high ranking doesn't know much about boxing.

No, I didn't.

Boxerbeetle123 wrote:Given that every month you are criticised for having Murray ranked number 3 by a variety of posters, the implication is that you think you know more about boxing than anyone else on here. Which you clearly don't.

I know more than most.

world ranked wrote:So u keep a guy ranked because U THINK HE SHOULD FIGHT AGAIN. The guy retired. THAT NOT OPINION ITS FACT.

He's retired and still ranked.

Why don't we boycott the monthly p4p thread? He is one poster who clearly enjoys winding people up. There are infinitely more knowledgeable people on this forum who don't feel the need to put up a list.

mickey1975 wrote:Why don't we boycott the monthly p4p thread? He is one poster who clearly enjoys winding people up. There are infinitely more knowledgeable people on this forum who don't feel the need to put up a list.

because it actually gets people talking & posting?

Horse gets a lot of stick, but he's a good guy who's willing to throw his opinions out there for all to agree with or laugh at. People hammer him far to much for little things on these, he has his reasons for his rankings rightly or wrongly.... its his list not gospel.