BoxRec

mickey1975 wrote:None were close. He was lucky to get a draw against Sturm.

You are wrong.

Boxerbeetle wrote:But why isn't he included in the list?

Because he's been inactive for 34 years and 8.25 months and has retired.

davie wrote:I believe you're wrong.
I knew I should have taken over your top 30.

Try to clear your mind.

Now have a look at Bellew's achievements.

Now agree with me.

Horse wrote:

Stuarty30 wrote:Who would you say Murrays best win is against? He's more known for his losses IMO.

Murray's high ranking is clearly not based on his wins.

Stuarty30 wrote:In terms on ability there are better guys bellow him.

In terms of proven ability: No.

So you're giving him his ranking based on his defeats? And there are far more talented boxers in your list below Murray!

Horse wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:None were close. He was lucky to get a draw against Sturm.

You are wrong.

I thought he was fortunate to get the draw with Sturm. On the other hand he was unfortunate against Martinez.

cocobongo wrote:Yeah I can see the point of that like , after his back to back stoppages of Brough and Stalker I appreciate they aren't the highest level but were still domestic opponents and unbeaten at the time looked like he maybe was going to go through domestic opponents! I would expect him to stop every domestic 10 stoner I'm confident he will crack your list soon enough!

The foreign route is the slowest way to crack the list.

If he beat Tyrone Nurse for the British title then he would probably enter.

magnus wrote:Generally a fair list.

Only thing I don't really see is Gavin Mc moving a couple of places up following Saturday's fight - thought the opponent was very "WBO Intercontinental" standard.

It was only two places.

crusader wrote:What do you think of Gav McDonnell's foreigners? You just moved him up two spots for beating yet another one with a padded record.

They are of a higher standard than Catterall's and McDonnell has claimed the British and European titles rather than just some Inter-Continental title.

Stuarty30 wrote:There are plenty fighters who can compete at world level but aren't quite good enough and I would put Murray in that bracket.

Who has proved that they can compete?

Murray has, most haven't.

Horse wrote:

Stuarty30 wrote:There are plenty fighters who can compete at world level but aren't quite good enough and I would put Murray in that bracket.

Who has proved that they can compete?

Murray has, most haven't.

Well he has four current world champions and five or six former world champions below him.

Would have Khan above Brook.
Would have Murray between 10-15.
Think Burns is a bit too high. Hasn't had a decent win in about 4 years.
McKenzie a bit too high for me. Did well against Ramirez but hasn't really got a win above British level. Then again I'm not sure who I'd put there instead.

Stuarty30 wrote:So you're giving him his ranking based on his defeats? And there are far more talented boxers in your list below Murray!

That is arguable.

Stuarty30 wrote:I thought he was fortunate to get the draw with Sturm. On the other hand he was unfortunate against Martinez.

They were close fights. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong. There is nothing to debate.

Stuarty30 wrote:Well he has four current world champions and five or six former world champions below him.

Do you consider Liam Smith to be a more proven world level fighter than Martin Murray?

ElJefe wrote:Would have Khan above Brook.

I have Khan much higher in the all time rankings, but Brook's win over Porter gives him the advantage in the current rankings.

ElJefe wrote:Would have Murray between 10-15.

That's not too disrespectful.

When it comes to Murray I think people should take a step back and think about the long view. How will his record be looked at in the future?

Murray is a British ATG. Fact!

ElJefe wrote:Think Burns is a bit too high. Hasn't had a decent win in about 4 years.
McKenzie a bit too high for me. Did well against Ramirez but hasn't really got a win above British level. Then again I'm not sure who I'd put there instead.

Ramirez is a good fighter, I've got to give McKenzie credit for that draw.

He'll drop in time if he doesn't follow up on that performance.

Horse wrote:

Stuarty30 wrote:Well he has four current world champions and five or six former world champions below him.

Do you consider Liam Smith to be a more proven world level fighter than Martin Murray?

Of course not. Not as things stand.

Horse wrote:

Stuarty30 wrote:So you're giving him his ranking based on his defeats? And there are far more talented boxers in your list below Murray!

That is arguable.

Most things are arguable where you're concerned.

Stuarty30 wrote:Of course not. Not as things stand.

Yes, it is a repugnant thought.

Stuarty30 wrote:Most things are arguable where you're concerned.

Is anyone below Murray clearly more talented than him?

Horse wrote:

Stuarty30 wrote:I thought he was fortunate to get the draw with Sturm. On the other hand he was unfortunate against Martinez.

They were close fights. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong. There is nothing to debate.

I didn't say they weren't close, quite the opposite. I do think he was fortunate to get the draw against Sturm. Maybe you're wrong. Have you ever considered that as an option?

Horse wrote:

Stuarty30 wrote:Most things are arguable where you're concerned.

Is anyone below Murray clearly more talented than him?

Yes. A few actually.

Stuarty30 wrote:I didn't say they weren't close, quite the opposite. I do think he was fortunate to get the draw against Sturm. Maybe you're wrong. Have you ever considered that as an option?

No, it's not an option.

They were close fights. Fact!

Stuarty30 wrote:Yes. A few actually.

Such as?

Horse wrote:

Stuarty30 wrote:I didn't say they weren't close, quite the opposite. I do think he was fortunate to get the draw against Sturm. Maybe you're wrong. Have you ever considered that as an option?

No, it's not an option.

They were close fights. Fact!

oh dear

Stuarty30 wrote: oh dear

Do you honestly disagree with me?