BoxRec

1. (1.) James DeGale
2. (2.) Carl Frampton
3. (18.) Anthony Joshua
4. (3.) Tyson Fury
5. (4.) Kell Brook
6. (5.) Tony Bellew
7. (6.) Jamie McDonnell
8. (7.) Lee Selby
9. (10.) Terry Flanagan
10. (11.) Scott Quigg

11. (8.) Amir Khan
12. (9.) George Groves
13. (12.) Billy Joe Saunders
14. (14.) Anthony Crolla
15. (15.) Khalid Yafai
16. (19.) Luke Campbell
17. (22.) Martin Murray
18. (16.) Callum Smith
19. (17.) Nathan Cleverly
20. (20.) Chris Eubank Jr.

21. (13.) Ricky Burns
22. (21.) Sam Eggington
23. (23.) Lee Haskins
24. (24.) Andy Lee (Irish)
25. (25.) Dillian Whyte
26. (26.) Dereck Chisora
27. (27.) Andrew Selby
28. (28.) Stuart Hall
29. (29.) Stephen Smith
30. (30.) Bradley Skeete

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

Fair play Horse. I didn't think I'd ever see the day where you'd recognise Joshua for his achievements, but today you have proved me wrong.

cant see how you can keep Fury ranked and have him below AJ.
Either Fury is ranked and is above AJ or he isn't ranked and is totally out of the equation. IMO...

wesshaw1985 wrote:cant see how you can keep Fury ranked and have him below AJ.
Either Fury is ranked and is above AJ or he isn't ranked and is totally out of the equation. IMO...

I don't think Fury should be ranked given his inactivity/lack of licence, (even if he was ready to fight this afternoon he couldn't), but the question regarding how good Wlad was for both fights comes into play.

If you think the Wlad v Joshua was better than the Wlad v Fury then the answer is obvious and you would rank Joshua higher.

wesshaw1985 wrote:cant see how you can keep Fury ranked and have him below AJ.
Either Fury is ranked and is above AJ or he isn't ranked and is totally out of the equation. IMO...

I don't see why that would be the case at all.

wesshaw1985 wrote:cant see how you can keep Fury ranked and have him below AJ.
Either Fury is ranked and is above AJ or he isn't ranked and is totally out of the equation. IMO...

I think there is a massive question here, and one which most people are divided on. And that question is

Who's win was better? Fury's win over Wlad, or Joshua's?

wesshaw1985 wrote:cant see how you can keep Fury ranked and have him below AJ.
Either Fury is ranked and is above AJ or he isn't ranked and is totally out of the equation. IMO...

Why is he above AJ specifically?
He's inactive
He's 28st
He holds no titles
He would very possibly lose to AJ
And even though he beat a 17 month younger Wlad, IMO he beat a weaker version, as Wlad looked rejuvenated on Saturday
Aj stopped him and Fury beat him by decision in a stinker of a fight

I have give Fury all the credit for his win over Wlad.
But it's time people give Joshua the same

As I've commented in another thread, Fury outboxed an active 39 year old, Joshua went life and death with an inactive 41 year old.
Fury beat the man, he is number 1. AJ beat the number 2 in the division, thus making him number 2.
To be the man AJ has to beat Fury.

Now if you consider Fury inactive, remove him from the rankings.
If you consider Fury active, then he has to be ranked above Joshua. IMO...

wesshaw1985 wrote:As I've commented in another thread, Fury outboxed an active 39 year old, Joshua went life and death with an inactive 41 year old.
Fury beat the man, he is number 1. AJ beat the number 2 in the division, thus making him number 2.
To be the man AJ has to beat Fury.

Now if you consider Fury inactive, remove him from the rankings.
If you consider Fury active, then he has to be ranked above Joshua. IMO...

You think Fury was more impressive than Joshua, and that's fine. I think most don't agree though.

dirk2686 wrote:

wesshaw1985 wrote:As I've commented in another thread, Fury outboxed an active 39 year old, Joshua went life and death with an inactive 41 year old.
Fury beat the man, he is number 1. AJ beat the number 2 in the division, thus making him number 2.
To be the man AJ has to beat Fury.

Now if you consider Fury inactive, remove him from the rankings.
If you consider Fury active, then he has to be ranked above Joshua. IMO...

You think Fury was more impressive than Joshua, and that's fine. I think most don't agree though.

An active 39 year old Wlad never once had Fury in any trouble. An inactive 41 year old Wlad had AJ in plenty of trouble.
In my humble opinion...

Rob3_142 wrote: Fair play Horse. I didn't think I'd ever see the day where you'd recognise Joshua for his achievements, but today you have proved me wrong.

Cheers.

wesshaw1985 wrote:

dirk2686 wrote:

wesshaw1985 wrote:As I've commented in another thread, Fury outboxed an active 39 year old, Joshua went life and death with an inactive 41 year old.
Fury beat the man, he is number 1. AJ beat the number 2 in the division, thus making him number 2.
To be the man AJ has to beat Fury.

Now if you consider Fury inactive, remove him from the rankings.
If you consider Fury active, then he has to be ranked above Joshua. IMO...

You think Fury was more impressive than Joshua, and that's fine. I think most don't agree though.

An active 39 year old Wlad never once had Fury in any trouble. An inactive 41 year old Wlad had AJ in plenty of trouble.
In my humble opinion...

To quote myself, styles make fights. Canelo was destroyed by Mayweather, whilst Mayweather had massive bother with Maidana first time round. I don't think anyone would seriously suggest Maidana was better than Canelo.

You can say Fury was never looking in any trouble against Wlad. You could also say Wlad never looked in any trouble against Fury but was dropped three times and stopped by Joshua. If you think Joshua beats Fury, which I do, then if you're ranking Fury at all he comes in behind him.

dirk2686 wrote:

wesshaw1985 wrote:As I've commented in another thread, Fury outboxed an active 39 year old, Joshua went life and death with an inactive 41 year old.
Fury beat the man, he is number 1. AJ beat the number 2 in the division, thus making him number 2.
To be the man AJ has to beat Fury.

Now if you consider Fury inactive, remove him from the rankings.
If you consider Fury active, then he has to be ranked above Joshua. IMO...

You think Fury was more impressive than Joshua, and that's fine. I think most don't agree though.

I think 'most' have the bias of not rating or liking Fury.

wesshaw1985 wrote:cant see how you can keep Fury ranked and have him below AJ.
Either Fury is ranked and is above AJ or he isn't ranked and is totally out of the equation. IMO...

I don't see why it has to be one or the other.

I don't see what is wrong with dropping inactive fighters down the rankings gradually, rather than taking them out as soon as they haven't fought for x amount of months.

dirk2686 wrote:

wesshaw1985 wrote:

dirk2686 wrote:
You think Fury was more impressive than Joshua, and that's fine. I think most don't agree though.

An active 39 year old Wlad never once had Fury in any trouble. An inactive 41 year old Wlad had AJ in plenty of trouble.
In my humble opinion...

To quote myself, styles make fights. Canelo was destroyed by Mayweather, whilst Mayweather had massive bother with Maidana first time round. I don't think anyone would seriously suggest Maidana was better than Canelo.

You can say Fury was never looking in any trouble against Wlad. You could also say Wlad never looked in any trouble against Fury but was dropped three times and stopped by Joshua. If you think Joshua beats Fury, which I do, then if you're ranking Fury at all he comes in behind him.

there you go thinking again...

wesshaw1985 wrote:

dirk2686 wrote:

wesshaw1985 wrote:As I've commented in another thread, Fury outboxed an active 39 year old, Joshua went life and death with an inactive 41 year old.
Fury beat the man, he is number 1. AJ beat the number 2 in the division, thus making him number 2.
To be the man AJ has to beat Fury.

Now if you consider Fury inactive, remove him from the rankings.
If you consider Fury active, then he has to be ranked above Joshua. IMO...

You think Fury was more impressive than Joshua, and that's fine. I think most don't agree though.

An active 39 year old Wlad never once had Fury in any trouble. An inactive 41 year old Wlad had AJ in plenty of trouble.
In my humble opinion...

Yeah and Fury never had Wlad in any trouble either, yet Joshua dropped him 3 times. As has been already alluded to, styles make fights. This is boxing, a knockout has always held more weight than a decision.

Rob3_142 wrote:Yeah and Fury never had Wlad in any trouble either, yet Joshua dropped him 3 times. As has been already alluded to, styles make fights. This is boxing, a knockout has always held more weight than a decision.

Fury and Wlad were both in some trouble in the 12th round.

Rob3_142 wrote:

wesshaw1985 wrote:

dirk2686 wrote:
You think Fury was more impressive than Joshua, and that's fine. I think most don't agree though.

An active 39 year old Wlad never once had Fury in any trouble. An inactive 41 year old Wlad had AJ in plenty of trouble.
In my humble opinion...

Yeah and Fury never had Wlad in any trouble either, yet Joshua dropped him 3 times. As has been already alluded to, styles make fights. This is boxing, a knockout has always held more weight than a decision.

Held more weight with who?

TheGingerBomber wrote:

dirk2686 wrote:

wesshaw1985 wrote:As I've commented in another thread, Fury outboxed an active 39 year old, Joshua went life and death with an inactive 41 year old.
Fury beat the man, he is number 1. AJ beat the number 2 in the division, thus making him number 2.
To be the man AJ has to beat Fury.

Now if you consider Fury inactive, remove him from the rankings.
If you consider Fury active, then he has to be ranked above Joshua. IMO...

You think Fury was more impressive than Joshua, and that's fine. I think most don't agree though.

I think 'most' have the bias of not rating or liking Fury.

They may love or hate him but the fact remains that there are serious cases of wanting to have your cake and eat it here. Fury even alluded to it; 'I toyed with him, you went life or death.'

This completely misses the point of fights having different styles of course, but also you can easily reverse it by saying Wlad was never remotely bothered by Fury and Joshua dropped him several times and stopped him.

Horse wrote:

Rob3_142 wrote:Yeah and Fury never had Wlad in any trouble either, yet Joshua dropped him 3 times. As has been already alluded to, styles make fights. This is boxing, a knockout has always held more weight than a decision.

Fury and Wlad were both in some trouble in the 12th round.

We're they really in trouble? Did it seem likely that either would hit the canvas?

wesshaw1985 wrote:

Rob3_142 wrote:

wesshaw1985 wrote: An active 39 year old Wlad never once had Fury in any trouble. An inactive 41 year old Wlad had AJ in plenty of trouble.
In my humble opinion...

Yeah and Fury never had Wlad in any trouble either, yet Joshua dropped him 3 times. As has been already alluded to, styles make fights. This is boxing, a knockout has always held more weight than a decision.

Held more weight with who?

Well everyone. Either it be BoxRec rankings, or to the boxing fraternity. The ethos of boxing, since its inception, is that you fight to knock the other guy out. That's why fights hundreds of years ago there was no limit to rounds, cause you just kept going until you got your guy out of there. Now obviously in the view of safety and time, limits were brought into affect, which relies on judges scorecards.

It's very much like a penalty shootout at the end of a football match. A team that win's 4-3 in the last 5 minutes will be held a lot higher in esteem than a team that wins in a penalty shootout after a 0-0 stalemate. Both are still worth the win, but in a sporting context, one is more valuable than the other.

Rob3_142 wrote:We're they really in trouble? Did it seem likely that either would hit the canvas?

At the time I thought so.

Rob3_142 wrote:Well everyone. Either it be BoxRec rankings, or to the boxing fraternity. The ethos of boxing, since its inception, is that you fight to knock the other guy out. That's why fights hundreds of years ago there was no limit to rounds, cause you just kept going until you got your guy out of there. Now obviously in the view of safety and time, limits were brought into affect, which relies on judges scorecards.

It's very much like a penalty shootout at the end of a football match. A team that win's 4-3 in the last 5 minutes will be held a lot higher in esteem than a team that wins in a penalty shootout after a 0-0 stalemate. Both are still worth the win, but in a sporting context, one is more valuable than the other.

These things are judged on a case by case basis.

A stoppage win is most certainly not always better than a points win.

I thought Fury's win was significantly more convincing than Joshua's.

Rob3_142 wrote:

wesshaw1985 wrote:

Rob3_142 wrote:
Yeah and Fury never had Wlad in any trouble either, yet Joshua dropped him 3 times. As has been already alluded to, styles make fights. This is boxing, a knockout has always held more weight than a decision.

Held more weight with who?

Well everyone. Either it be BoxRec rankings, or to the boxing fraternity. The ethos of boxing, since its inception, is that you fight to knock the other guy out. That's why fights hundreds of years ago there was no limit to rounds, cause you just kept going until you got your guy out of there. Now obviously in the view of safety and time, limits were brought into affect, which relies on judges scorecards.

It's very much like a penalty shootout at the end of a football match. A team that win's 4-3 in the last 5 minutes will be held a lot higher in esteem than a team that wins in a penalty shootout after a 0-0 stalemate. Both are still worth the win, but in a sporting context, one is more valuable than the other.

Boxer vs. Puncher?
Which does the "boxing fraternity" tend to side with?