BoxRec

Stuarty30 wrote:Fury has had one world class win. As good and enjoyable as it was it shouldn't rank him above Frampton. You are wrong.

Crease wrote:Offence taken.

And your grievance is with the literal translation of the term "undisputed".

And when a member begins to use insults in his argument, then i know he is too childish to have a sensible discussion with.

I do applaud your concept with rankings as a bit of fun between boxing enthusiasts, but surely you must realise that people are going to disagree with you somewhere along the line?

Perhaps if you ceased being soo defensive about your views, you might stop for a moment & consider the possibilty that maybe others are right.

Crease wrote:When the fight was first announced, you could get Carl as high as a 5/1 underdog with American betting companies.

They thought that this was our routine win for Santa Cruz and that the Dangerous fight (against Mares) was out of the way.

Stuarty30 wrote:Groves is too high also. There's EIGHT world champions below him! Groves is a good operator but he's a serial failure at world level.

Stuarty30 wrote: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!

Crease wrote: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.

Stuarty30 wrote: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:

Stuarty30 wrote: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.

Smith has never proven himself above domestic level.

Horse wrote:

Stuarty30 wrote:Fury has had one world class win. As good and enjoyable as it was it shouldn't rank him above Frampton. You are wrong.

The Cunningham and two Chisora wins were also world class.

Horse wrote:

Stuarty30 wrote:Groves is too high also. There's EIGHT world champions below him! Groves is a good operator but he's a serial failure at world level.

Groves is better and more proven than a lot of our world champions.

Simply holding a world title should not give a fighter a high ranking.

littlepug wrote:3rd or 4th place for me

Horse wrote:

Stuarty30 wrote: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.

Smith has never proven himself above domestic level.

Horse wrote:

littlepug wrote:3rd or 4th place for me

I didn't rate Kameda as highly as some people did, so I don't think that McDonnell beating him puts him that high up the rankings.

If McDonnell beats Warren before Brook or DeGale do anything decent again then he might enter the top 4.

Horse wrote:

Stuarty30 wrote: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!

If Khan hasn't won a meaningful fight in ages, then Smith and Walsh have never won a meaningful fight.

forcefraser wrote: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.

Horse wrote:

forcefraser wrote: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.

No.

Naandrew wrote:Ola out he has retired bring Liam Walsh in.

Naandrew wrote:IMO Quigg down 2 and Joshua down 2.

crusader wrote: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.

chris123 wrote: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.

Stuarty30 wrote:

Horse wrote:

Stuarty30 wrote:Fury has had one world class win. As good and enjoyable as it was it shouldn't rank him above Frampton. You are wrong.

The Cunningham and two Chisora wins were also world class.

ok Horse

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

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

BigDoofus wrote:He's not boxed anyone in the top 10 in boxrec's UK super-welters.

Stuarty30 wrote:Groves is too high. You're giving him a higher ranking because he's beaten your hero Murray who was also too high.