BoxRec

MIKEE wrote:

Wayne McCullough wrote:

MIKEE wrote: I think its for us to argue over (mission accomplished lol)

I dont think its bad per se, Horse has his reasons, its a certainly better list than the p4p shit on current scene.

Thank you.

dont mention it Scott

:P

Horse wrote:

stujones wrote:I think your view is a tad harsh there Horse, Matthews beat Foster DECISIVELY, Foster beat Simpson decisively. What is too say that Andy Morris hasn't just been completely overated. Who has Andy Morris beaten to earn such a massive respect... oh yeah - Jon Simpson.

Whether Morris was overrated or not, Simpson beat him twice as well as Barrett in British title fights, he is also only one voluntary defence away from winning the belt outright, these are good achievements and a few losses a while ago shouldn't negate these achievements.

stujones wrote:As controvesial as Simpson's loss to Matthews was, couldn't a similar line of thought be said about Simpson vs Morris 2.

Simpson destroyed Morris in the 3rd fight, so that makes up for that.

stujones wrote:Think both have GOT to be ranked above Simpson.

Surely not. What has Foster done recently?

stujones wrote: As you have said before you don't really have activity or class of opponent in your criteria, e.g. when we debated between Froch and Eastman last month you said as long as Howard keeps winning, it doesn't matter who he beats he'll remain ahead (unless Froch does something spectacular)... shouldn't you remain consistent..

I can't remember saying that in any Month, and I am certain that I didn't write that last Month. So, I am unsure of the inconsistency of which you speak.

stujones wrote:Why should Morris be considered better than Foster/Matthews.

I don't consider him better than those two, but knocking him out is quite impressive.

stujones wrote:Best way to get out of this one, is not include any of them and bring in Thaxton/Pryce etc.

It is too late to get out of it, but anyway I think Simpson deserves his place and it is up to Matthews and Foster to join him.

Sorry, I'll explain myself a little better - I questioned the manner of Eastman's win over Ashira as a reason for him to be ranked BELOW Carl Froch. I'm sure we'd both agree it wasn't a great display. But then your arguement was "a win is a win" and that why Eastman moved up - cause Ashira was a decent scalp and he won. You also said in May that inactivity is punished very little.

Now my question is - why is Morris such a decent scalp? Okay, Foster hasn't fought great opposition since Simpson, but Matthews' aside he has still won - and won by a KO. He beat Simpson decisively, and would probably start a close betting favourite to repeat it in a rematch. Foster has been ticking over and IMO, Simpson hasn't beaten an opponent who should be ranked over Morris. If Morris beat Foster then obviously yes, but he hasn't.

As for the Derry Matthews decision - well I just don't understand it. He's beaten Foster (decisively) and Simpson (albeit controvesially). He's been keeping active and hasn't lost. Why is Simpson above him. You condemed Dean Francis for not beating good enough opposition (even though he has been impressive)... but then who has Simpson beaten? Yes, Morris is better than Fosters other wins - but not enough IMO to put Simpson ahead of a guy he lost two.

To me, it is a bit like putting Tony Dodson ahead of Carl Froch should he KO Glenn Catley.

Why Is Matthews out for Inativity but Harrison Isn't?

This Is double standards.

stujones wrote:Sorry, I'll explain myself a little better - I questioned the manner of Eastman's win over Ashira as a reason for him to be ranked BELOW Carl Froch. I'm sure we'd both agree it wasn't a great display. But then your arguement was "a win is a win" and that why Eastman moved up - cause Ashira was a decent scalp and he won.

I can recall a conversation along those lines, yes.

stujones wrote:You also said in May that inactivity is punished very little.

As a bad thing, yes.

stujones wrote:Now my question is - why is Morris such a decent scalp?

Morris had British title wins over Simpson and Munroe, this might not make a victory over him an incredible achievement, but it does make him a "decent scalp", and Simpson has two victories over him and one was an impressive KO victory.

stujones wrote:Okay, Foster hasn't fought great opposition since Simpson, but Matthews' aside he has still won - and won by a KO.

Since the Foster fight, Simpson has been winning by TKO/KO apart from the Matthews fight, just like Foster, except that Simpson has been beating better opposition.

stujones wrote:He beat Simpson decisively, and would probably start a close betting favourite to repeat it in a rematch. Foster has been ticking over and IMO, Simpson hasn't beaten an opponent who should be ranked over Morris. If Morris beat Foster then obviously yes, but he hasn't.

Matthews beat Foster decisively but could only beat Simpson contoversially, surely that allows me to down play Foster's victory over Simpson somewhat? Also, wasn't Morris ranked above Foster before he lost to Simpson the first time?

I didn't see the Foster vs Simpson fight, did you? Boxrec has Foster winning by one point on one card and three points on the other two cards, that doesn't seem that decisive to me.

stujones wrote:As for the Derry Matthews decision - well I just don't understand it. He's beaten Foster (decisively) and Simpson (albeit controvesially). He's been keeping active and hasn't lost. Why is Simpson above him.

After the Matthews vs Simpson fight, I considered them to be about even with a slight edge to Matthews. Since the fight Simpson has gone on to destroy Barrett and Morris, whilst Matthews has done nothing, which puts Simpson above Matthews in my consideration, and won Simpson a place on my list.

Why do you consider the Foster win to be better than the Morris win?

stujones wrote:You condemed Dean Francis for not beating good enough opposition (even though he has been impressive)... but then who has Simpson beaten? Yes, Morris is better than Fosters other wins - but not enough IMO to put Simpson ahead of a guy he lost two.

I consider beating Morris twice to be better than beating Mckenzie and Eastwood. Is that wrong?

stujones wrote:To me, it is a bit like putting Tony Dodson ahead of Carl Froch should he KO Glenn Catley.

Well, if Froch losses a wide points decision to Reid, then Dodson beats Barney, losses a close fight with Reid and then KOs Catley then he has a chance, but probably not.

Why do I consider Foster a bigger scalp/better fighter than Morris?.... Cause Foster has beaten Simpson. No disrespect to Rendell Munroe - he is hardly proven as top level domestic class at Featherweight at least.

Was Morris ranked above Foster before the first Simpson fight (for Morris)? Open to debate, but the debate closes (IMO) when Morris loses to Simpson - cause Simpson lost to Foster DECISIVELY.... Yes, I did see the fight it was on ITV. Rediculous cards - I think McGuigan said he had it for Foster by 8 - which was around my card.

I'm not denying that Simpson has beaten better fighters that what Foster has done since the their meeting - but not good enough to leap frog ABOVE him. Had he got the nod vs Matthews then fair cop, but he didn't. I'm not saying there is a million miles between Foster and Simpson - but I think had you seen their fight then maybe you'd agree with me.

Matthews shouldn't be level with Simpson - cause he beat him (albeit close) and beat Foster clearly. It could be argued that he BEAT Simpson on a bad nigt. Matthews' win over Foster is better than Simpson's over Morris - cause Foster BEAT Simpson. Now if Simpson had beaten Nicky Cook you'd have a different arguement.

I think personally it is a little bordlerline between McKenzie (for Dean Francis) and Morris (for Simpson) as Scalps. Both were domestic level champions, neither had any major scalps to justify that they were going to be champs for a long time (yes, I was and am a fan of Morris don't get me wrong - but he wasn't a longstanding champion) - Although between Dean Francis and Simpson - Dean Francis hasn't lost to a domestic level rival at Light Heavyweight. Simpson has.

Max Molyneux wrote:Why Is Matthews out for Inativity but Harrison Isn't?

This Is double standards.

Matthews is not out for inactivity, he has not done enough to qualify for the list yet.

Horse wrote:

Max Molyneux wrote:Why Is Matthews out for Inativity but Harrison Isn't?

This Is double standards.

Matthews is not out for inactivity, he has not done enough to qualify for the list yet.

He beat Simpson and he's In the list.

stujones wrote:Why do I consider Foster a bigger scalp/better fighter than Morris?.... Cause Foster has beaten Simpson. No disrespect to Rendell Munroe - he is hardly proven as top level domestic class at Featherweight at least.

Morris beat Simpson as well, so surely that can't make Foster a better scalp than Morris. Munroe is arguably better than anyone else on Fosters' record, so beating him means something.

stujones wrote:Was Morris ranked above Foster before the first Simpson fight (for Morris)? Open to debate, but the debate closes (IMO) when Morris loses to Simpson - cause Simpson lost to Foster DECISIVELY.... Yes, I did see the fight it was on ITV. Rediculous cards - I think McGuigan said he had it for Foster by 8 - which was around my card.

I'm not denying that Simpson has beaten better fighters that what Foster has done since the their meeting - but not good enough to leap frog ABOVE him. Had he got the nod vs Matthews then fair cop, but he didn't. I'm not saying there is a million miles between Foster and Simpson - but I think had you seen their fight then maybe you'd agree with me.

If I had watched the fight, then I might have done things differently, I agree.

Was the fight more one sided than Matthews vs Foster? or Morris vs Simpson I?

stujones wrote:Matthews shouldn't be level with Simpson - cause he beat him (albeit close) and beat Foster clearly. It could be argued that he BEAT Simpson on a bad nigt.

I said Simpson was about level with Matthews, with Matthews being slightly ahead because he beat Simpson.

stujones wrote:Matthews' win over Foster is better than Simpson's over Morris - cause Foster BEAT Simpson. Now if Simpson had beaten Nicky Cook you'd have a different arguement.

Again, Foster and Morris both beat Simpson so surely they both get credit for beating him. I think that both wins should be considered at about the same level.

stujones wrote:I think personally it is a little bordlerline between McKenzie (for Dean Francis) and Morris (for Simpson) as Scalps. Both were domestic level champions, neither had any major scalps to justify that they were going to be champs for a long time (yes, I was and am a fan of Morris don't get me wrong - but he wasn't a longstanding champion) - Although between Dean Francis and Simpson - Dean Francis hasn't lost to a domestic level rival at Light Heavyweight. Simpson has.

Well, maybe if Francis' fights were on TV I might have a different take on the matter, but they aren't.

Max Molyneux wrote:

Horse wrote:

Max Molyneux wrote:Why Is Matthews out for Inativity but Harrison Isn't?

This Is double standards.

Matthews is not out for inactivity, he has not done enough to qualify for the list yet.

He beat Simpson and he's In the list.

Simpson has entered the list since the Matthews loss, if Matthews had kept busy and earned similar results to Simpson then he would probably be on the list too.

So It's down to activity then?

Max Molyneux wrote:So It's down to activity then?

No, Matthews didn't do enough to qualify for the list by beating Simpson in a close fight. If he had gone on to get another few good results, or just one more, then he would most likely have entered the list by now.

Obviously activity comes into the equation somewhere, but it is more about picking up good wins.

Don't think Matthews vs Foster or Simpson vs Morris 1 were shown in their entirety. It was a clear cut win and I'm sure everyone here will agree with me on that one.

There is a website in which you can view Dean Francis' recent fight for Free - with a good picture, sorry I have forgotton the name of the fight.

Horse wrote:

Max Molyneux wrote:So It's down to activity then?

No, Matthews didn't do enough to qualify for the list by beating Simpson in a close fight. If he had gone on to get another few good results, or just one more, then he would most likely have entered the list by now.

Obviously activity comes into the equation somewhere, but it is more about picking up good wins.

Okay fair enough, you have them close - but what I don't get is how the Morris scalp raises him above Matthews. So if you beat a mid ranking top ten fighter/s on a number of occasions, then you move ahead of a guy ranked ahead of you, whose beaten you himself and beat a fighter who beat you?

As I said, if Carl Froch (Matthews) just ticked over and Dodson (Simpson) beat Catley (Morris) and say Barney (Barrett) - he would move ahead of Froch then. Cause Froch hasn't done nothing wrong - he has kept ticking over - he's even beaten Robin Reid (Foster).

stujones wrote:Don't think Matthews vs Foster or Simpson vs Morris 1 were shown in their entirety. It was a clear cut win and I'm sure everyone here will agree with me on that one.

There is a website in which you can view Dean Francis' recent fight for Free - with a good picture, sorry I have forgotton the name of the fight.

Is that the win over Ayitey powers?

stujones wrote:Okay fair enough, you have them close - but what I don't get is how the Morris scalp raises him above Matthews. So if you beat a mid ranking top ten fighter/s on a number of occasions, then you move ahead of a guy ranked ahead of you, whose beaten you himself and beat a fighter who beat you?

Simpson beat Morris very convincingly by knocking him out, which is a significant accomplishment. As Matthews and Simpson were close in consideration for a place on the list before that win, it pushed Simpson ahead and onto the list.

If I was doing a British Featherweight ranking, Matthews might very well be ahead of Simpson, but it is a P4P ranking and it works differently, I think you will agree.

stujones wrote:As I said, if Carl Froch (Matthews) just ticked over and Dodson (Simpson) beat Catley (Morris) and say Barney (Barrett) - he would move ahead of Froch then. Cause Froch hasn't done nothing wrong - he has kept ticking over - he's even beaten Robin Reid (Foster).

Froch destroyed Dodson, Matthews narrowly beat Simpson, they are different cases, comparing them is somewhat difficult.

Simpson only beat a journymen called Barrett who was sparked by Khan before the Morris fight though as well.

Matthews clearly beat Simpson It was just the KD and point deductions that made the fight close. The only contriversy was the wide score cards. They should of scored the fight to Derry by a point.

Max Molyneux wrote:Simpson only beat a journymen called Barrett who was sparked by Khan before the Morris fight though as well.

Matthews clearly beat Simpson It was just the KD and point deductions that made the fight close. The only contriversy was the wide score cards. They should of scored the fight to Derry by a point.

Whether the Matthews fight was controversial or not, it was still a close fight.

Barrett might not be that good, but it was still a defence of Simpson's title.

Horse wrote:

stujones wrote:Don't think Matthews vs Foster or Simpson vs Morris 1 were shown in their entirety. It was a clear cut win and I'm sure everyone here will agree with me on that one.

There is a website in which you can view Dean Francis' recent fight for Free - with a good picture, sorry I have forgotton the name of the fight.

Is that the win over Ayitey powers?

It has the Eastwood and McKenzie wins - also shows Glenn Catley's fight. Appologies in that I cannot remember the name of the site.

The list is just horse shite, I don't think even he knows what he's talking about....

Been given far too much time and energy...

Sorrey Horse but I don't get it and neither does anybody else...

Captain Hook wrote:The list is just horse shite, I don't think even he knows what he's talking about....

Been given far too much time and energy...

You have already said it was rubbish a few posts ago.

Why have you brought it up again?

Captain Hook wrote:Sorrey Horse but I don't get it and neither does anybody else...

Have you been private messaging all other posters to discuss my list? If not, then how do you know what everyone thinks?

I am starting to get the impression you don't like my lists, hopefully my next one will change your mind.

I've got short term memory loss.

Have I mentioned that your list is shit?

Rob Reid is 25, Thaxton drops out!?

Captain Hook wrote:I've got short term memory loss.

Have I mentioned that your list is shit?

Yes.

DavidPayne wrote:Rob Reid is 25, Thaxton drops out!?

Robin Reid is at 27, he was at 25 last Month. Yes, Thaxton did drop out this Month.

Why has Thaxton dropped out and why is Reid even above Thaxton? What has he done in the last couple of years to deserve it more than Thaxton?