BoxRec

mullenman wrote:Froch is retired.

no fights in a year your retired

I still hope he comes out of retirement

38 today - not boxed in over 13 months

Pugilist-specialist wrote:38 today - not boxed in over 13 months

What's your point?

Horse wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:If he doesn't announce his retirement, how long will you keep him in the rankings? Indefinitely?

Indefinitely.

What will you do if Froch doesn't fight again, but never announces his retirement? Will he still be at the top in 10 years time.

keithmoonhangover wrote:What will you do if Froch doesn't fight again, but never announces his retirement? Will he still be at the top in 10 years time.

No.

Horse wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:What will you do if Froch doesn't fight again, but never announces his retirement? Will he still be at the top in 10 years time.

No.

You said indefinitely, now you're saying no. Why?

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Horse wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:What will you do if Froch doesn't fight again, but never announces his retirement? Will he still be at the top in 10 years time.

No.

You said indefinitely, now you're saying no. Why?

Consistently inconsistent horse

keithmoonhangover wrote:You said indefinitely, now you're saying no. Why?

He won't still be in the rankings in 10 years time, that's why.

freddydoesdallas wrote:Consistently inconsistent horse

Horse wrote:

freddydoesdallas wrote:Consistently inconsistent horse

Wrong

freddydoesdallas wrote:Wrong

You have been ridiculously wrong in this thread.

You should be apologising, not making things worse for yourself.

Horse wrote:

freddydoesdallas wrote:Wrong

You have been ridiculously wrong in this thread.

You should be apologising, not making things worse for yourself.

I've only quoted what you've said

freddydoesdallas wrote:I've only quoted what you've said

And not understood it.

Horse wrote:

freddydoesdallas wrote:I've only quoted what you've said

And not understood it.

Neigh chance

What about when someone is outboxed for 6 rounds, is winning round 7 clearly and then ko's the opponent later in the round. He was losing the fight at the halfway stage but we have no way of knowing how the latter rounds would have panned out.

Danny Garcia was happy to ship the rounds to Khan as his gameplan was to time Khan and lay him out. Does losing those first 3 rounds make his win less valid?

It depends on what you're comparing it to.

I would say that Garcia's performance would've been more impressive, even if not by much, had he been the one outboxing Khan for the first few rounds before laying him out, while I think that someone probably gave a better performance if they outboxed their opponent for 6 rounds then stopped them in the 7th, rather than struggling and being down prior to the stoppage. Generally I'd say that the fewer moments of trouble the winner has (e.g. losing the first 2 rounds 10-9 then scoring a stoppage in the 3rd vs losing the first 7 rounds, being dropped 3 times, then scoring a stoppage in the 8th) the better, though there isn't a precise formula and if, for example, it's clear to me that someone was just feeling out their opponent in the rounds they lost I don't see dropping those rounds as a big deal.

A winner should still get credit for coming through in the end, and the result plays a bigger role in my rankings than my opinion about how impressively that result was reached. Nonetheless, I believe that quality of performance should be a factor in ranking fighters as it provides ring-based evidence of a someone's ability, can help us gauge where they stand relative to others, and in the case of standout performances represents an accomplishment in my view.

Nah has not retired either horse box

he is surely in the top 30

mullenman wrote:Nah has not retired either horse box

he is surely in the top 30

Who?

Horse wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:You said indefinitely, now you're saying no. Why?

He won't still be in the rankings in 10 years time, that's why.

So you lied when you said indefinitely?

keithmoonhangover wrote:So you lied when you said indefinitely?

Please bugger off, keithmoonhangover.

Horse wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:So you lied when you said indefinitely?

Please bugger off, keithmoonhangover.

Consistently inconsistent

freddydoesdallas wrote:Consistently inconsistent

Stop digging, Mr. Wrong.

Horse wrote:

freddydoesdallas wrote:Consistently inconsistent

Stop digging, Mr. Wrong.

If you exposed yourself repeatedly like this in public you'd end up being nicked

Fat boy naz

Horse wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:So you lied when you said indefinitely?

Please bugger off, keithmoonhangover.

Bugger off indefinitely?

freddydoesdallas wrote:If you exposed yourself repeatedly like this in public you'd end up being nicked

I just couldn't be bothered to logically dissect ill-thought-out, petty arguments this month.

I thought if I simply said that people were wrong, then they might investigate themselves and come back and say sorry. Unfortunately that wasn't the case.

In my opinion you've performed worse than keithmoonhangover in this thread, which you should take as a considerable insult.

keithmoonhangover wrote:Bugger off indefinitely?

Do you know what "indefinitely" means?