BoxRec

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

11. (10.) Dereck Chisora
12. (11.) Jamie McDonnell
13. (13.) Lee Selby
14. (14.) Tony Bellew
15. (15.) Ricky Burns
16. (17.) Matthew Macklin
17. (16.) Lee Haskins
18. (18.) Nathan Cleverly
19. (19.) Billy Joe Saunders
20. (NE.) Paul Smith

21. (20.) Frankie Gavin
22. (21.) Anthony Crolla
23. (22.) Paul Butler
24. (25.) Kid Galahad
25. (23.) Stephen Smith
26. (24.) Gavin Rees
27. (26.) Stuart Hall
28. (27.) Willie Limond
29. (28.) Brian Rose
30. (29.) Ovill McKenzie

Out - (30.) Kevin Mitchell

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

Now Smigga is in, maybe he'll return to the forum... It used to kill him when Horse left him out! It has took a good few years like!

George Grovel is too high.

I don't see any merit for him to actually go up a place after his last performance, that was definitely not a P4P performance.

And I don't want to hear 'EBU trinket' as the reason when world title holders languish underneath.

Your fascination for him is clearly clouding your judgement.

G0mez wrote:George Grovel is too high.

I don't see any merit for him to actually go up a place after his last performance, that was definitely not a P4P performance.

And I don't want to hear 'EBU trinket' as the reason when world title holders languish underneath.

Your fascination for him is clearly clouding your judgement.

It was a very solid level win and a OK performance. Groves is maybe to high but not by much.

How longs does a fighter have to stay inactive to be dropped from this list?

mickey1975 wrote:Now Smigga is in, maybe he'll return to the forum... It used to kill him when Horse left him out! It has took a good few years like!

Maybe.

Very good rankings, I'd say the top 10 is now pretty much spot on.

Not convinced Smith deserves to jump in so high considering the performance AA put in, but I suppose it could be argued either way.

G0mez wrote:George Grovel is too high.

I don't see any merit for him to actually go up a place after his last performance, that was definitely not a P4P performance.

And I don't want to hear 'EBU trinket' as the reason when world title holders languish underneath.

Your fascination for him is clearly clouding your judgement.

You're a Groves hater.

Horse wrote:
You're a Groves hater.

He annoys me, but I don't 'hate' him - Froch stopped him twice, done / dusted.

But there are others on your list whom have challenged or won world titles , that are far below George.

I don't see you offer any merit as to why that is.

You need a rational list, not an emotional one.

Yes We Can wrote:It was a very solid level win and a OK performance. Groves is maybe to high but not by much.

Yep, Groves is roughly where he should be.

How comes Khan is below Brook and Frampton? I dont even like Khan but surely the accumalation of wins that Khan has surpasses Brook and Framptons wins upto now?

cocobongo wrote:How longs does a fighter have to stay inactive to be dropped from this list?

If they have plans to continue boxing then they have 18 months or so. Most fighters would drop out of the rankings, due to more active fighters overtaking them, in that time though.

Boxerbeetle wrote:Very good rankings, I'd say the top 10 is now pretty much spot on.

Boxerbeetle wrote:Not convinced Smith deserves to jump in so high considering the performance AA put in, but I suppose it could be argued either way.

I had Smith nicking it, so I thought he deserved to enter the rankings reasonably highly.

Horse wrote:I had Smith nicking it, so I thought he deserved to enter the rankings reasonably highly.

Have you now scored the fight? What's your card?

Horse wrote:

Boxerbeetle wrote:Very good rankings, I'd say the top 10 is now pretty much spot on.

:TU:

Boxerbeetle wrote:Not convinced Smith deserves to jump in so high considering the performance AA put in, but I suppose it could be argued either way.

I had Smith nicking it, so I thought he deserved to enter the rankings reasonably highly.

Is Smith the new Martin Murray?

on the Khan point, he isn't active enough to be above Kell or Frampton, especially cosidering all 3's most recent wins. If amir was to beat Guerrero as he is rumoured to be fighting him id have him solidly at number 2.

G0mez wrote:He annoys me, but I don't 'hate' him - Froch stopped him twice, done / dusted.

But there are others on your list whom have challenged or won world titles , that are far below George.

I don't see you offer any merit as to why that is.

You need a rational list, not an emotional one.

You slag Groves off any chance you get. You are a Groves hater.

lefty wrote:How comes Khan is below Brook and Frampton? I dont even like Khan but surely the accumalation of wins that Khan has surpasses Brook and Framptons wins upto now?

Khan hasn't beaten anyone as good as Porter or Martinez in over 3 years.

He doesn't deserve to be above Brook or Frampton right now.

Horse wrote:

lefty wrote:How comes Khan is below Brook and Frampton? I dont even like Khan but surely the accumalation of wins that Khan has surpasses Brook and Framptons wins upto now?

Khan hasn't beaten anyone as good as Porter or Martinez in over 3 years.

He doesn't deserve to be above Brook or Frampton right now.

Fair point .... solid list by the way.

ttornado wrote:Have you now scored the fight? What's your card?

Why do you ask?

Yes We Can wrote:Is Smith the new Martin Murray?

Not yet.

Yes We Can wrote:on the Khan point, he isn't active enough to be above Kell or Frampton, especially cosidering all 3's most recent wins. If amir was to beat Guerrero as he is rumoured to be fighting him id have him solidly at number 2.

I think he'd have to beat him very convincingly to claim the No. 2 spot.

Horse wrote:Why do you ask?

Because you've placed Paul Smith #20 on the basis of a fight most people thought he lost and you yourself didn't score.

lefty wrote:Fair point .... solid list by the way.

ttornado wrote:Because you've placed Paul Smith #20 on the basis of a fight most people thought he lost and you yourself didn't score.

Enough people thought Smith won or drew to make his ranking fair, regardless of how I scored it.

Horse wrote:Enough people thought Smith won or drew to make his ranking fair, regardless of how I scored it.

It appears a ranking based on emotion rather than objectivity.
It's not like Abraham is highly ranked in World P4P lists, where would you rank AA?