BoxRec

1. (1.) Carl Froch
2. (2.) Amir Khan
3. (3.) Martin Murray
4. (4.) Carl Frampton
5. (5.) George Groves
6. (6.) Tyson Fury
7. (7.) Ola Afolabi
8. (9.) James DeGale
9. (10.) Kell Brook
10. (11.) Dereck Chisora

11. (12.) Jamie McDonnell
12. (13.) Scott Quigg
13. (14.) Lee Selby
14. (8.) Ricky Burns
15. (15.) Tony Bellew
16. (16.) Lee Haskins
17. (17.) Matthew Macklin
18. (18.) Frankie Gavin
19. (19.) Nathan Cleverly
20. (20.) Anthony Crolla

21. (RE.) Paul Butler
22. (21.) Stephen Smith
23. (22.) Gavin Rees
24. (23.) Kid Galahad
25. (24.) Stuart Hall
26. (NE.) Willie Limond
27. (25.) Brian Rose
28. (26.) Billy Joe Saunders
29. (NE.) Ovill McKenzie
30. (27.) Kevin Mitchell

Out - (28.) Josh Warrington
Out - (29.) Derry Mathews
Out - (30.) Enzo Maccarinelli

Any comments/criticisms of the British Top 30 P4P list are very welcome.

George Groves surely drops after two defeats?

If Burns drops 6 places after same two defeats?

Rest pretty spot on - some fighters have fights coming up so will move about depending on victory/loss

There is a significant difference between those defeats though. Froch is a P4P top 10 fighter globally and Groves was beating him clearly the first time and ahead on one card/very close on the other two when he was stopped the second time (I had Groves up 5-2).

Crawford is obviously good, perhaps as good as Froch if not as proven, but Burns wasn't as competitive with him as Groves was with Froch, and while DZ is solid and seems to be at least an EBU-level fighter, he hasn't shown himself to be anywhere near Froch's level and I think the ratings should reflect.

bigB wrote:George Groves surely drops after two defeats?

If Burns drops 6 places after same two defeats?

Rest pretty spot on - some fighters have fights coming up so will move about depending on victory/loss

Burns should have a 3 loss run on his record now. Only Crawford of the 3 can claim to have a standing as good as Carl Froch,

Though i will admit Ricky is still top 10.

Usually I'd complain that Murray is too high at 3, although I'm struggling to really see who has a great case to replace him there, so I'll let it slide this time...

I do feel Macklin should be a bit higher though, he has a few wins against world ranked opposition, whereas some of the guys ranked above him don't?

I see all your points, but I don't think "looking quite good until being poleaxed" should be a new measurement in the ranking.

In fairness to Burns, he's a 2-weight champion and unlike Gamboa, finished on his feet against a potentially great new fighter in Crawford.

Groves has never held any world titles, the boxrec poll was overwhelming in favour that he was certainly getting stopped in Froch 1 and then was completely pancaked in Froch 2.

George's lofty position is based solely on decking a sloppy Carl Froch (but couldn't get the job done) whereas Burns has won and defended his belts over tens of rounds repeatedly.

Sure, he was gifted in the Beltran fight and it's not a who's who of the best lightweights in the world on his record - but at least he's got a body of work there.

Domestically George beat Degale by a whisker, but Burns destroyed Mitchell who destroyed Murray. Otherwise George went life and death with Kenny Anderson and what else ?

If it's true p4p then fighting and winning titles in multiple weight classes should always place higher than winning nothing in one weight class, and being stopped (twice) in the process.

If we were going on 'gut feeling' then I could say Joe Costello is already top 20 after just 1 fight, because I think he's special - but until the wins and belts are there you can't do that.

murrary way to high for me but the rest are very much the same as what i would have

bigB wrote:George Groves surely drops after two defeats?

If Burns drops 6 places after same two defeats?

The situations are not the same. Froch is better than anyone Burns has fought.

bigB wrote:Rest pretty spot on - some fighters have fights coming up so will move about depending on victory/loss

crusader wrote:There is a significant difference between those defeats though. Froch is a P4P top 10 fighter globally and Groves was beating him clearly the first time and ahead on one card/very close on the other two when he was stopped the second time (I had Groves up 5-2).

Crawford is obviously good, perhaps as good as Froch if not as proven, but Burns wasn't as competitive with him as Groves was with Froch, and while DZ is solid and seems to be at least an EBU-level fighter, he hasn't shown himself to be anywhere near Froch's level and I think the ratings should reflect.

G0mez wrote:I see all your points, but I don't think "looking quite good until being poleaxed" should be a new measurement in the ranking.

In fairness to Burns, he's a 2-weight champion and unlike Gamboa, finished on his feet against a potentially great new fighter in Crawford.

Groves has never held any world titles, the boxrec poll was overwhelming in favour that he was certainly getting stopped in Froch 1 and then was completely pancaked in Froch 2.

George's lofty position is based solely on decking a sloppy Carl Froch (but couldn't get the job done) whereas Burns has won and defended his belts over tens of rounds repeatedly.

Sure, he was gifted in the Beltran fight and it's not a who's who of the best lightweights in the world on his record - but at least he's got a body of work there.

Domestically George beat Degale by a whisker, but Burns destroyed Mitchell who destroyed Murray. Otherwise George went life and death with Kenny Anderson and what else ?

If it's true p4p then fighting and winning titles in multiple weight classes should always place higher than winning nothing in one weight class, and being stopped (twice) in the process.

If we were going on 'gut feeling' then I could say Joe Costello is already top 20 after just 1 fight, because I think he's special - but until the wins and belts are there you can't do that.

Sure he was gifted the Beltran fight, sure he was dominated by Crawford, sure he lost to Zlaticanin, and sure he was down 6-3 against totally unproven Gonzalez when he pulled it out. To me recent performances should hold more weight in assessments of where fighters should currently be rated, and Burns has looked poor over several fights in a row, while Groves was highly competitive with an elite fighter and has generally looked good.

As for your first sentence, I find it ridiculous and you've phrased it in a way that reflects your bias. If we're concerned with how good fighters are and what they've shown in the ring, it makes no sense to ignore how they were doing in the process of a certain result being reached. If Froch is a top fighter, and I think he's shown that many times, then Groves being able to drop him and win numerous rounds in both fights suggests a high level of ability and that should be considered when placing him; in no way does this involve the speculation that giving a top placement to a 1-0 prospect would. Going by your suggestion fighters would also be given no more credit for being 'poleaxed' after dominating for 11 rounds than for being massacred in 11 seconds.

No real complaints here, though I would have liked to have seen young Josh Warrington keep a top 30 spot after his last few performances. Maybe at the expense of the now retired Gavin Rees?

Boxerbeetle123 wrote:Usually I'd complain that Murray is too high at 3, although I'm struggling to really see who has a great case to replace him there, so I'll let it slide this time...

I do feel Macklin should be a bit higher though, he has a few wins against world ranked opposition, whereas some of the guys ranked above him don't?

Macklin is not fighting enough.

G0mez wrote:I see all your points, but I don't think "looking quite good until being poleaxed" should be a new measurement in the ranking.

In fairness to Burns, he's a 2-weight champion and unlike Gamboa, finished on his feet against a potentially great new fighter in Crawford.

Groves has never held any world titles, the boxrec poll was overwhelming in favour that he was certainly getting stopped in Froch 1 and then was completely pancaked in Froch 2.

George's lofty position is based solely on decking a sloppy Carl Froch (but couldn't get the job done) whereas Burns has won and defended his belts over tens of rounds repeatedly.

Sure, he was gifted in the Beltran fight and it's not a who's who of the best lightweights in the world on his record - but at least he's got a body of work there.

Domestically George beat Degale by a whisker, but Burns destroyed Mitchell who destroyed Murray. Otherwise George went life and death with Kenny Anderson and what else ?

If it's true p4p then fighting and winning titles in multiple weight classes should always place higher than winning nothing in one weight class, and being stopped (twice) in the process.

If we were going on 'gut feeling' then I could say Joe Costello is already top 20 after just 1 fight, because I think he's special - but until the wins and belts are there you can't do that.

Anti-Groves ramble.

mullenman wrote:murrary way to high for me but the rest are very much the same as what i would have

Murray isn't way too high.

Horse wrote:

mullenman wrote:murrary way to high for me but the rest are very much the same as what i would have

Murray isn't way too high.

i dont think he has ever had a good win,,
I would have Murrary around 10

mullenman wrote:i dont think he has ever had a good win,,
I would have Murrary around 10

He beat Felix Sturm and Sergio Martinez on my scorecards. That's far more impressive than getting an official win against someone like Vyacheslav Senchenko or Brandon Gonzales.

Horse wrote:

mullenman wrote:i dont think he has ever had a good win,,
I would have Murrary around 10

He beat Felix Sturm and Sergio Martinez on my scorecards. That's far more impressive than getting an official win against someone like Vyacheslav Senchenko or Brandon Gonzales.

He didn't win those fights though did he?

I dunno what your obsession is with Murray are you a relative or do you have a sexual crush on him?

I am only joking of course, I mean no offence, but Murray is way too high on the list.

Chisora has beaten no one to deserve such a high rating.

tiny_acres wrote:Chisora has beaten no one to deserve such a high rating.

It doesn't matter what the officials say, if Horse thinks they won, that's what counts these days. I'm presuming he gave him the Helenius fight.

Ian1973 wrote:He didn't win those fights though did he?

A draw against Sturm is a better result than any win that Groves, Fury, DeGale, Brook, Chisora, McDonnell, Quigg etc. have on their records.

Ian1973 wrote:I dunno what your obsession is with Murray are you a relative or do you have a sexual crush on him?

I am only joking of course, I mean no offence, but Murray is way too high on the list.

Anyone who doesn't have Murray in their British P4P top 10 doesn't have a clue what they're doing.

mickey1975 wrote:It doesn't matter what the officials say, if Horse thinks they won, that's what counts these days. I'm presuming he gave him the Helenius fight.

Apart from the obvious sexual crush on Murray I think these rankings are ok.

Horse wrote:

mullenman wrote:i dont think he has ever had a good win,,
I would have Murrary around 10

He beat Felix Sturm and Sergio Martinez on my scorecards. That's far more impressive than getting an official win against someone like Vyacheslav Senchenko or Brandon Gonzales.

Horse your scorecards mean jack shit and you must be looking at Murrary through blinkers as he aint that good

johnswan1 wrote:Apart from the obvious sexual crush on Murray I think these rankings are ok.