BoxRec

1. (1.) Floyd Mayweather Jr.
2. (2.) Andre Ward
3. (3.) Manny Pacquiao
4. (4.) Juan Manuel Marquez
5. (15.) Roman Gonzalez
6. (5.) Guillermo Rigondeaux
7. (7.) Carl Froch
8. (6.) Timothy Bradley
9. (8.) Bernard Hopkins
10. (9.) Saul Alvarez

11. (16.) Juan Francisco Estrada
12. (10.) Wladimir Klitschko
13. (11.) Gennady Golovkin
14. (12.) Adonis Stevenson
15. (13.) Mikey Garcia
16. (14.) Nonito Donaire
17. (17.) Miguel Cotto
18. (18.) Shinsuke Yamanaka
19. (19.) Sergey Kovalev
20. (21.) Terence Crawford

21. (20.) Danny Garcia
22. (23.) Leo Santa Cruz
23. (24.) Mauricio Herrera
24. (26.) Erislandy Lara
25. (27.) Kell Brook
26. (NE.) Carl Frampton
27. (22.) Marcos Maidana
28. (25.) Akira Yaegashi
29. (30.) Marco Huck
30. (28.) Jhonny Gonzalez

Out - (29.) Takashi Uchiyama

Ward isn't scheduled to fight why is he still on this list?

ttornado wrote:Ward isn't scheduled to fight why is he still on this list?

Why wouldn't he be?

Horse wrote:

ttornado wrote:Ward isn't scheduled to fight why is he still on this list?

Why wouldn't he be?

Cause he doesnt have a quality win since 2011

Purse Bid Shakedown wrote:

Horse wrote:

ttornado wrote:Ward isn't scheduled to fight why is he still on this list?

Why wouldn't he be?

Cause he doesnt have a quality win since 2011

And there's no way that he'll fight before a year's inactivity.

It has been less than a year of Ward's inactivity, and I doubt he became any worse.

ikorolev wrote:It has been less than a year of Ward's inactivity, and I doubt he became any worse.

How long a period would need to pass before Ward becomes worse?
Or should we not try to guess and say that a fighter needs to fight every year to be considered 'active'?

Purse Bid Shakedown wrote:Cause he doesnt have a quality win since 2011

Dawson and Rodriguez are both world level wins.

JCS wrote:And there's no way that he'll fight before a year's inactivity.

I don't have a 12 month inactivity rule.

Horse wrote:I don't have a 12 month inactivity rule.

Why not?

fergusg wrote:@Horse - I’m curious to know why you’re still listing Andre Ward as the number two pound-for-pound fighter when he will almost certainly fail to have competed against any top-tier world-class super-middleweight for at least three years.

If you don’t believe that there should be a correlation between a fighters’ inactivity and your pound-for-pound rankings, then why haven’t you included the unbeaten Joe Calzaghe in your list? Should we include Vitali Klitschko too?

There has to come a point in time where you say "enough is enough - this guy ain't fighting anymore, so he doesn't deserve to be ranked"?

Calzaghe hasn't fought for 5 years and 11 months and he's retired. It's hardly the same thing.

ttornado wrote:Why not?

I don't want one.

Horse wrote:Calzaghe hasn't for 5 years and 11 months and he's retired. It's hardly the same thing.

What about Vitali?

ttornado wrote:What about Vitali?

This is petty.

Horse wrote:

ttornado wrote:Why not?

I don't want one.

So for how long does a fighter not have to fight before being removed from your list?

Horse wrote:

ttornado wrote:What about Vitali?

This is petty.

Why?

ttornado wrote:So for how long does a fighter not have to fight before being removed from your list?

As long as I see fit.

ttornado wrote:Why?

Tiresome.

ttornado wrote:

ikorolev wrote:It has been less than a year of Ward's inactivity, and I doubt he became any worse.

How long a period would need to pass before Ward becomes worse?
Or should we not try to guess and say that a fighter needs to fight every year to be considered 'active'?

As I understand, Horse's list doesn't have any strict rules, so it would be up to Horse to make such decisions. None of these lists are good, and this is not the worst one by far.

Horse wrote:As long as I see fit.

So no criteria for inactivity, even in your head?

ikorolev wrote: As I understand, Horse's list doesn't have any strict rules, so it would be up to Horse to make such decisions. None of these lists are good, and this is not the worst one by far.

That question was to you, not Horse. What do you consider 'inactive'?

ttornado wrote:So no criteria for inactivity, even in your head?

It doesn't matter. I'll figure it out when I need to.

Horse wrote:It doesn't matter. I'll figure it out when I need to.

But 2 years is inactive? As V. Klitschko is off your list.
Will Haye be making a reappearance if he fights soon?

Horse wrote:1. (1.) Floyd Mayweather Jr.
2. (2.) Andre Ward
3. (3.) Manny Pacquiao
4. (4.) Juan Manuel Marquez
5. (15.) Roman Gonzalez
6. (5.) Guillermo Rigondeaux
7. (7.) Carl Froch
8. (6.) Timothy Bradley
9. (8.) Bernard Hopkins
10. (9.) Saul Alvarez

11. (16.) Juan Francisco Estrada
12. (10.) Wladimir Klitschko
13. (11.) Gennady Golovkin
14. (12.) Adonis Stevenson
15. (13.) Mikey Garcia
16. (14.) Nonito Donaire
17. (17.) Miguel Cotto
18. (18.) Shinsuke Yamanaka
19. (19.) Sergey Kovalev
20. (21.) Terence Crawford

21. (20.) Danny Garcia
22. (23.) Leo Santa Cruz
23. (24.) Mauricio Herrera
24. (26.) Erislandy Lara
25. (27.) Kell Brook
26. (NE.) Carl Frampton
27. (22.) Marcos Maidana
28. (25.) Akira Yaegashi
29. (30.) Marco Huck
30. (28.) Jhonny Gonzalez

Out - (29.) Takashi Uchiyama

Nice list.IMO, Alvarez too high, might move up Yamanaka and Kovalev a spot or two, wouldn't include Herrera although I understand why you did, wouldn't include Frampton yet based on two wins over Kiko (although I think he will earn it soon enough) would probably substitute Uchiyama, Narvaes or Nietes, but don't feel super strongly about it

ttornado wrote:

ikorolev wrote: As I understand, Horse's list doesn't have any strict rules, so it would be up to Horse to make such decisions. None of these lists are good, and this is not the worst one by far.

That question was to you, not Horse. What do you consider 'inactive'?

I would probably use 18 months, as 12 months of inactivity is not so unusual