BoxRec

Off the BBC:

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

Pugilist-specialist wrote:Off the BBC:

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

George fought a hell of a fight against Froch, but bearing in mind he lost, I think he's too high in the list. How the hell they can have Barker bellow is madness.

why is frampton above Quigg ... however it happened Quigg holds the IBF belt

ajwesty13 wrote:why is frampton above Quigg ... however it happened Quigg holds the IBF belt

Quigg has the joke WBA belt - Rigo is the real WBA champ! Also for me frampton is better and a KO of kiko > anything quigg has achieved

ajwesty13 wrote:why is frampton above Quigg ... however it happened Quigg holds the IBF belt

Probably the win over Kiko, who is a belt holder and far more proven than the two guys Quigg fought in his 'World' Title fights.

if it is based on recent results then barker should be above murray and groves.
I agree that frampton's victory over martinez is enough see him ranked above quigg, that may change next year if they manage to get them two in the same ring

Then i can understand why quigg is above him then... how come there is 2 bloody world WBA belts then ?? I dont understand is it interim or something? crazy

ajwesty13 wrote:Then i can understand why quigg is above him then... how come there is 2 bloody world WBA belts then ?? I dont understand is it interim or something? crazy

if somebody holds the wba belt as well as another world strap then the wba upgrades that belt to 'super' status and comission a new 'regular' strap that they the bestow onto the interim champ.
it is needlessly complicated at the best of times but sometimes it gets beyond a joke, just look at the super-middleweight division.

2. Kell Brook

Awful list.

I think this list is pretty Decent. I'm not a brook fan by a long way but he is undefeated

Horse wrote:

2. Kell Brook

Awful list.

You moved Groves up on your list for losing a fight.

keithmoonhangover wrote:You moved Groves up on your list for losing a fight.

So what?

Horse wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:You moved Groves up on your list for losing a fight.

So what?

Fighters move up rankings because they win, not when they lose. Otherwise journeymen would rule the world.

keithmoonhangover wrote:Fighters move up rankings because they win, not when they lose. Otherwise journeymen would rule the world.

Groves was robbed.

Horse wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:Fighters move up rankings because they win, not when they lose. Otherwise journeymen would rule the world.

Groves was robbed.

Do you want your ratings to be unbiased Horse? Do you want them to be credible?

After the Groves fight I would be having Groves as the number 1 p4p boxer so how is his rankings not credible. Groves is the best boxer in the uk.. P4P means that. I guarantee in 15 years no one remembers Froch and Groves and Degale will surpass his legacy as he calls it

daviddee wrote:After the Groves fight I would be having Groves as the number 1 p4p boxer so how is his rankings not credible. Groves is the best boxer in the uk.. P4P means that. I guarantee in 15 years no one remembers Froch and Groves and Degale will surpass his legacy as he calls it

Are you drinking mate? Like it or not, Groves lost.

keithmoonhangover wrote:Are you drinking mate? Like it or not, Groves lost.

Groves was cheated, not defeated.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

daviddee wrote:After the Groves fight I would be having Groves as the number 1 p4p boxer so how is his rankings not credible. Groves is the best boxer in the uk.. P4P means that. I guarantee in 15 years no one remembers Froch and Groves and Degale will surpass his legacy as he calls it

Are you drinking mate? Like it or not, Groves lost.

Groves was Robbed.. Groves was hated now 90% of the people believe he was robbed!! He SCHOOLED.. The P4P number 1. See most on these forums are blinded by who they support. I don't particularly like either fighter. When the fight was announced I wanted Froch to win(although I thought Groves would).. After the build up I swayed to Groves to win. The fact is he was robbed. Groves has the moral victory and people who are not too far up Froch's rear end know who the real champion is. And deep down Froch knows that too

Horse wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:Are you drinking mate? Like it or not, Groves lost.

Groves was cheated, not defeated.

Horse,

Do you want your ratings to be unbiased? Do you want them to be credible?

keithmoonhangover wrote:Horse,

Do you want your ratings to be unbiased? Do you want them to be credible?

They are unbiased and credible.

Horse wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:Horse,

Do you want your ratings to be unbiased? Do you want them to be credible?

They are unbiased and credible.

They are not unbiased or credible if you don't accept the result of a fight.

keithmoonhangover wrote:They are not unbiased or credible if you don't accept the result of a fight.

I disagree.

Horse wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:They are not unbiased or credible if you don't accept the result of a fight.

I disagree.

If they are unbiased, then they are based on actual results, not what ifs. BoxRec's ratings are unbiased, that's why Groves moved down.

keithmoonhangover wrote:If they are unbiased, then they are based on actual results, not what ifs. BoxRec's ratings are unbiased, that's why Groves moved down.

Rankings should be based on what really happened in a fight.