BoxRec

1. Roman Gonzalez
2. Sergey Kovalev
3. Manny Pacquiao
4. Gennady Golovkin
5. Andre Ward
6. Terence Crawford
7. Saul Alvarez
8. Vasyl Lomachenko
9. Carl Frampton
10. Shinsuke Yamanaka

11. Keith Thurman
12. Timothy Bradley
13. Naoya Inoue
14. Danny Garcia
15. Donnie Nietes
16. Guillermo Rigondeaux
17. Juan Francisco Estrada
18. Carlos Cuadras
19. Adonis Stevenson
20. Tyson Fury (Inactive)

21. Wladimir Klitschko (Inactive)
22. Erislandy Lara
23. Oleksandr Usyk
24. Leo Santa Cruz
25. Jorge Linares
26. James DeGale
27. Kazuto Ioka
28. Jezreel Corrales
29. Abner Mares
30. Murat Gassiev

Pacquiao being so high, and Rigondeaux being so low seems wrong. Fury and Wlad being ranked at all seems wrong given their over 1 year of inactivity.

Other than that the list seems reasonable enough.

Murray and Groves are too high. Why is Andy Lee even there?

Having had a look I think it's alright. I'd have Rigo higher but can see why he's been dropped.

gilgamesh wrote:Pacquiao being so high, and Rigondeaux being so low seems wrong. Fury and Wlad being ranked at all seems wrong given their over 1 year of inactivity.

Other than that the list seems reasonable enough.

I was never going to please everyone.

I'll give Pacquiao the benefit of the doubt because of his great record and he's still beating world ranked fighters pretty easily.

Rigondeaux hasn't even beaten a top 15 world ranked fighter in over 3 years now.

Horse wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:Pacquiao being so high, and Rigondeaux being so low seems wrong. Fury and Wlad being ranked at all seems wrong given their over 1 year of inactivity.

Other than that the list seems reasonable enough.

I was never going to please everyone.

I'll give Pacquiao the benefit of the doubt because of his great record and he's still beating world ranked fighters pretty easily.

Rigondeaux hasn't even beaten a top 15 world ranked fighter in over 3 years now.

Pac's certainly still performing at a very high level I just don't think he's still P4P #3 good considering some of the guys we got around, but it's certainly a case you can make given the wonderful career he's had, and how well he still seems able to handle himself.

Not bad at all, I wouldn't have Fury or Wlad in it but you've always rated Wlad highly.

Why is Fury lower than Frampton here, but above him for British?

ElJefe wrote:Murray and Groves are too high. Why is Andy Lee even there?

ElJefe wrote:Having had a look I think it's alright. I'd have Rigo higher but can see why he's been dropped.

He might be washed up at world level for all we know.

His win over Donaire was almost 4 years ago now and that win is overrated anyway.

ElJefe wrote:Murray and Groves are too high. Why is Andy Lee even there?

Having had a look I think it's alright. I'd have Rigo higher but can see why he's been dropped.

good list

Jip wrote:good list

Chep how can you agree with Rigo at 16?

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Not bad at all, I wouldn't have Fury or Wlad in it but you've always rated Wlad highly.

I rate heavyweights more highly than you do. It's not really about Wlad specifically.

BitPlayer wrote:Why is Fury lower than Frampton here, but above him for British?

Different rules.

Jip wrote:good list

Horse wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Not bad at all, I wouldn't have Fury or Wlad in it but you've always rated Wlad highly.

I rate heavyweights more highly than you do. It's not really about Wlad specifically.

He's been the heavyweight barometer for a long time and I don't rate him in a p4p sense at all, ever. Not that I'm opposed to heavyweights being on lists, I just consider wlad and fury's greatest skill to be their size. Goes against the whole premise.

Decent

That list is all over the place

Horse wrote:

BitPlayer wrote:Why is Fury lower than Frampton here, but above him for British?

Different rules.

Horse wrote:

BitPlayer wrote:Why is Fury lower than Frampton here, but above him for British?

Different rules.

Such as?

Impractical Poster wrote:Decent

In the know 85 wrote:That list is all over the place

In what way?

Boxerbeetle wrote:Such as?

I move fighters down the rankings for being inactive in this one.

Horse wrote:

In the know 85 wrote:That list is all over the place

In what way?

Kovalev above ward even though lost??
Pacquiao above GGG? Really??
Rigondeaux as low as 16th?? If fury is on the list at all then he has to be top three? There are a few more blatant mistakes but these are the most obvious imo.

In the know 85 wrote:Kovalev above ward even though lost??

Most people thought that Kovalev deserved the decision.

In the know 85 wrote:Pacquiao above GGG? Really??

Who has Golovkin beaten that is better than Bradley?

Even in a boring year for Pacquiao he still beat a better opponent than Golovkin has ever beaten.

In the know 85 wrote:Rigondeaux as low as 16th??

What fighter in my top 30 has got a worse record in the last 3 years than Rigondeaux?

In the know 85 wrote:If fury is on the list at all then he has to be top three? There are a few more blatant mistakes but these are the most obvious imo.

Fury in the top 3?

Very few people will agree with you on that.

Horse wrote:

In the know 85 wrote:Kovalev above ward even though lost??

Most people thought that Kovalev deserved the decision.

In the know 85 wrote:Pacquiao above GGG? Really??

Who has Golovkin beaten that is better than Bradley?

Even in a boring year for Pacquiao he still beat a better opponent than Golovkin has ever beaten.

In the know 85 wrote:Rigondeaux as low as 16th??

What fighter in my top 30 has got a worse record in the last 3 years than Rigondeaux?

In the know 85 wrote:If fury is on the list at all then he has to be top three? There are a few more blatant mistakes but these are the most obvious imo.

Fury in the top 3?

Very few people will agree with you on that.

If he's on the list at all.. Then how can the lineal heavyweight champ of the world who is unbeaten with a healthy ko ratio not be in the top three??? You do the math