BoxRec

From the BBC on Nov 18 - before Froch-Groves :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/boxing/17691531

Pugilist-specialist wrote:From the BBC on Nov 18 - before Froch-Groves :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/boxing/17691531

I think you would have to stick him in at #2

Shows the BBC's boxing knowledge when they have Kell Brook above Burns, Khan, Murray and Barker. Frampton above Murray and Barker and McDonnell at 9.

Still better than the Horse manure we get served every month.....

expe wrote:Shows the BBC's boxing knowledge when they have Kell Brook above Burns, Khan, Murray and Barker. Frampton above Murray and Barker and McDonnell at 9.

Boxrec also have Brook at no.2 in their p4p ratings.

Pugilist-specialist wrote:

expe wrote:Shows the BBC's boxing knowledge when they have Kell Brook above Burns, Khan, Murray and Barker. Frampton above Murray and Barker and McDonnell at 9.

Boxrec also have Brook at no.2 in their p4p ratings.

Boxrec's are computerised though, winning all 31 is likely to move you high up the rankings because the points will keep adding up. They also have him at 19 P4P, one below Rigondeaux, above Quillin, Broner, Donaire and Guerrero.

expe wrote: Boxrec's are computerised though, winning all 31 is likely to move you high up the rankings because the points will keep adding up. They also have him at 19 P4P, one below Rigondeaux, above Quillin, Broner, Donaire and Guerrero.

Ring magazine have Brook at no.4 in the welterweights - above Guerrero and Broner.

Pugilist-specialist wrote:

expe wrote: Boxrec's are computerised though, winning all 31 is likely to move you high up the rankings because the points will keep adding up. They also have him at 19 P4P, one below Rigondeaux, above Quillin, Broner, Donaire and Guerrero.

Ring magazine have Brook at no.4 in the welterweights - above Guerrero and Broner.

That's also shocking.

Cleverly at 10 Haha. ..

squared circle wrote:Still better than the Horse manure we get served every month.....

Sure it is.

Pugilist-specialist wrote:

expe wrote: Boxrec's are computerised though, winning all 31 is likely to move you high up the rankings because the points will keep adding up. They also have him at 19 P4P, one below Rigondeaux, above Quillin, Broner, Donaire and Guerrero.

Ring magazine have Brook at no.4 in the welterweights - above Guerrero and Broner.

Those aren't P4P rankings and the latter two have fought largely outside 147.

expe wrote:

Pugilist-specialist wrote:

expe wrote: Boxrec's are computerised though, winning all 31 is likely to move you high up the rankings because the points will keep adding up. They also have him at 19 P4P, one below Rigondeaux, above Quillin, Broner, Donaire and Guerrero.

Ring magazine have Brook at no.4 in the welterweights - above Guerrero and Broner.

That's also shocking.

The Ring magazine is well respected worldwide.

Ricky Hatton described Brook's last performance as one of the best by a British boxer in years.

Some people only see what they want to see. You seem to make a lot of anti-Brook posts as does the person on here who does his own rankings list.

Pugilist-specialist wrote:

expe wrote:

Pugilist-specialist wrote:
Ring magazine have Brook at no.4 in the welterweights - above Guerrero and Broner.

That's also shocking.

The Ring magazine is well respected worldwide.

Ricky Hatton described Brook's last performance as one of the best by a British boxer in years.

Some people only see what they want to see. You seem to make a lot of anti-Brook posts as does the person on here who does his own rankings list.

I have no issue with Kell Brook, just the way he is hyped up by certain people. He beat Senchenko, a man who was being beaten by a shadow of Ricky Hatton and was stopped by Paulie Malignaggi. He's also above Alexander, Malignaggi and Maidana, which is debatable when you consider he's never beaten a top 10 fighter and was taken life and death by Carson Jones.