BoxRec

Horse wrote:Who ranked Santa Cruz as the No. 1?

BoxRec. (And The Ring Magazine - or so i'm told, i don't buy it.)

Horse wrote:

Stuarty30 wrote:You're being extremely disrespectful to both Smith and Walsh. Both are undefeated former British champions and far beyond domestic level never mind English title level FFS! They are far more accomplished than the likes of Skeete (no disrespect).

Neither are far beyond domestic level whatsoever.

Stuarty30 wrote:Murray and Khan do deserve respect but they're not as good as you like to make out.

Yes, they are.

Have you actually watched them fight? To say neither are beyond English title level is just silly and disrespectful. Both are above British title level.

Murray is more famous for his losses and Khan hasn't won a meaningful fight in frickin ages!

Horse wrote:

Boxerbeetle wrote:Who has Murray beaten to justify such a high ranking?

Martinez, Sturm and Abraham.

Lost, drew, lost.....

Horse wrote:None of the champions have any serious claim to being the No.1.

They have to fight each other to find out who is the best.

But with that logic, applying it to all the weight classes - that means that there isn't a Number One fighter of any of them.

Because there just is not a fighter out there who has beaten every other Champion in his weight class.

Just going by your logic, Mr Horse.

forcefraser wrote:We have been through this a million times but to no avail. Murray has not got ONE high level victory on his record, et not long ago he was about 5th on that list.

great guy, tough man, but always lost when he stepped up. He put up a great showing against Martinez and Sturm, but lost.

15th for Murray must be his lowest for years. Horse loves the guy, only slightly less than Khan.

Murray is a British ATG.

Unfortunately most people are too dense to understand Murray's greatness.

Stuarty30 wrote:Hypothetically speaking though if he were to beat Canelo he would go from not being in your top 30 to what top 3/4/5?

He's better than you give him credit for. You have the British light middle champ above a world champ in the same division. Strange logic.

What's strange about the logic?

Liam Smith is an absolute joke of a world champion.

forcefraser wrote:Correction he drew with Sturm (should have lost)

He deserved the win in my opinion.

Horse wrote:

Stuarty30 wrote:Hypothetically speaking though if he were to beat Canelo he would go from not being in your top 30 to what top 3/4/5?

He's better than you give him credit for. You have the British light middle champ above a world champ in the same division. Strange logic.

What's strange about the logic?

Liam Smith is an absolute joke of a world champion.

I agree. He shouldn't be world champion but has a chance to prove himself next month. He's still a good fighter and above domestic level.

Horse wrote:

forcefraser wrote:Correction he drew with Sturm (should have lost)

He deserved the win in my opinion.

I had Sturm winning. I thought Murray knicked it against Martinez and was unlucky. I thought AA beat him though.

littlepug wrote:Mcdonnell is WAY too low on that list

Way too low?

How many places too low?

forcefraser wrote:Liam Williams in but no room for Paul Butler or Kal Yafai?

Butler beat Hall and was a "World Champion"

Williams beat Cocoran

What have you done for me lately?

forcefraser wrote:Surely P4P is about how they rate right now? Not what their record "was" like.

Lower Khan by at least 4 places immediately.

No.

Class lasts.

Horse wrote:

forcefraser wrote:Surely P4P is about how they rate right now? Not what their record "was" like.

Lower Khan by at least 4 places immediately.

No.

Class lasts.

Horse wrote:

littlepug wrote:Mcdonnell is WAY too low on that list

Way too low?

How many places too low?

3rd or 4th place for me

Khan was 24 when he last won a world title fight. He turns 30 soon.

Horse wrote:

forcefraser wrote:Surely P4P is about how they rate right now? Not what their record "was" like.

Lower Khan by at least 4 places immediately.

No.

Class lasts.

Horse, could you please post a photo of yourself.

My thoughts are that you are holed up in a silence of the lamb style room, covered in magazine clippings of Khan and Matthew Murray. Please put an end to these vile thoughts by posting a photo. I need to know that you are in fact just a regular bloke who enjoys trolling on a boxing forum.

I need closure on this, I need it badly. The thought that I am exchanging views with a potential MurrayKhan clad monster, sporting a front man fanny and red lipstick whilst he throws out incoherent one liners, disturbs me deeply.

Ola out he has retired bring Liam Walsh in.

IMO Quigg down 2 and Joshua down 2.

Crease wrote:

Horse wrote:Out - (29.) Liam Smith

How is Beefy out? I'm surprised at that, he's been fighting fairly regularly, is a reigning World Champion and has been knocking his challengers out convincingly.

Think there's definitely a lack of respect there, Mr Horse.

I think Smith has a very strong argument for being on the list, but I don't see why his case is strengthened by his goldbrick title. He beat a soft opponent for it and has made defenses against two worse opponents, with Kelly being unproven beyond area level , and Radosevic being totally out of his depth the one time other time he faced a notable opponent.

I often see people arguing that a fighter deserves a higher ranking due to their possession of some title, but being a title holder says little about a fighter's quality if we don't examine who the fighter has actually fought, and in Smith's case the best opponent on his record is arguably John fricking Thompson.

By Horse's Khan logic, Haye should be above Brook as he has a far better record

forcefraser wrote:

Horse wrote:

forcefraser wrote:Surely P4P is about how they rate right now? Not what their record "was" like.

Lower Khan by at least 4 places immediately.

No.

Class lasts.

Horse, could you please post a photo of yourself.

My thoughts are that you are holed up in a silence of the lamb style room, covered in magazine clippings of Khan and Matthew Murray. Please put an end to these vile thoughts by posting a photo. I need to know that you are in fact just a regular bloke who enjoys trolling on a boxing forum.

I need closure on this, I need it badly. The thought that I am exchanging views with a potential MurrayKhan clad monster, sporting a front man fanny and red lipstick whilst he throws out incoherent one liners, disturbs me deeply.

forcefraser wrote:By Horse's Khan logic, Haye should be above Brook as he has a far better record

Good point. But for whatever reason Haye doesn't have the appeal of Khan/Murray to Horse.

BigDoofus wrote:

forcefraser wrote:By Horse's Khan logic, Haye should be above Brook as he has a far better record

Good point. But for whatever reason Haye doesn't have the appeal of Khan/Murray to Horse.

Taking issue with Khan's recent resume is entirely fair enough, but a run of Collazo, Alexander and Algieri is in no way comparable to Mark de Mori and Arnold Gjergjaj.

I'm also very surprised at the devaluing of Fury's win here. I am a Frampton fan boy, and he definitely has the deeper resume but Fury's is a win for the ages, and I genuinely can't envisage a British fighter right now who could potentially register a better win.

Crease wrote:

Horse wrote:Why should I respect him?

His opposition wouldn't even be good for a British or Commonwealth champion.

Well that is subjective & maybe another conversation entirely.

The fact remains however, that he is still a World Champion at Light Middleweight.

On paper. In the real world he hasn't beaten one fighter in the top 80.

brian13 wrote:Klitschko win is hands down the biggest win by anyone on the list. Fury deserves the number 1 spot. Frampton has done great things but beating Klitschko warrants the number 1 spot for Fury.

We also need to take into account in this when comparing, Fury cannot move up in divisions.

chris123 wrote:

BigDoofus wrote:

forcefraser wrote:By Horse's Khan logic, Haye should be above Brook as he has a far better record

Good point. But for whatever reason Haye doesn't have the appeal of Khan/Murray to Horse.

Taking issue with Khan's recent resume is entirely fair enough, but a run of Collazo, Alexander and Algieri is in no way comparable to Mark de Mori and Arnold Gjergjaj.

I'm also very surprised at the devaluing of Fury's win here. I am a Frampton fan boy, and he definitely has the deeper resume but Fury's is a win for the ages, and I genuinely can't envisage a British fighter right now who could potentially register a better win.

I think that's mainly down to the fight itself - it was frankly awful and barely a punch was landed by either fighter.