BoxRec

Just looked at the BBC top 10, wondering if the guy who wrote them has ever seen a boxing match or has just been on the line to allegedly

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/boxing/4184227.stm

What dose everyone think, how does your list stack up.

umm Maccrinelli and Haye mentioned but not Hobson.

Pound 4 Pound.
1. (1.) Joe Calzaghe – Keeps winning, but its disappointing that he will not be fighting Johnson.
2. (2.) Scott Harrison – Impressive in his last outing, must consolidate this.
3. (4.) Ricky Hatton – Still in need for the big fights.
4. (5.) Johnny Nelson – Needs to get active.
5. (3). Michael Brodie – Inactivity means the Manchester Featherweight slips down two places.
6. (6.) Clinton Woods – Has a chance to close the gap on the top 5 vs Hoye.
7. (7.) Carl Thompson – His win over Haye doesn’t move him any higher, but closes things up with Woods.
8. (8.) Damean Kelly – As he consolidates his position as the #1 Flyweight, he consolidates his positioning here.
9. (9.) Howard Eastman – Disappointed last time, failed to argue his case that he can win a genuine world title.
10. (10.) Robin Reid – Moves into the list following a victory against Brian Magee which consolidates a place in the worlds top ten.

I'll probably be posting my British rankings back up here from next month.

I would swap brodie and woods, woods did better in his two title attempts, brodie was annihilated in the rematch, and Johnson is a better fighter than Chi.

They seem to be making Hatton #1 because he's got a shot at Tszyu, Harrison and calzaghe have both beaten better opposition overall.

i am no fan of p4p-lists, but for me Nelson and Hatton are by far the two best british boxers regarding the potential. what has Calzaghe done last year to be no.1? even Veit or Boom Boom Beyer have done a better job........

I would move eastman up because he has held onto the EBU belt which is a difficult one to keep for a sustained period and probably move hatton down a bit because he has picked too many of his opponents Woods is clearly a world top 10 fighter but how much of that is due to the derth of class in his devision.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I would swap brodie and woods, woods did better in his two title attempts, brodie was annihilated in the rematch, and Johnson is a better fighter than Chi.

Possibly, but lets not forget the Willie Jorrin fight.

josh fg wrote:I would move eastman up because he has held onto the EBU belt which is a difficult one to keep for a sustained period and probably move hatton down a bit because he has picked too many of his opponents Woods is clearly a world top 10 fighter but how much of that is due to the derth of class in his devision.

ALL above Eastman, except Calzaghe, Hatton and Harrison have held (and didn't lose) the EBU title.

Brodie should have been a World champion.

Woods scored a draw in a world title fight and has beaten some world class names in the past.

Hatton has beaten some good names and looked very good doing it. I would rate Tackie and Magee better than McCraken and Soliman.

Harrison is clearly above Eastman

Kelly, in his win over Muhatmov has scored a better win than Eastman has.

Carl Thompson - Has beaten better names and never lost the European Belt.

Stu, how far do you think you should go back when doing a p4p list? Brodie against Jorrin and Kelly against Muhatmov were both back in 2000. I also think potential should have more of an effect. For example if given the chance I think Witter would perform better against the best light welterweights in the world than Brodie would do against the best featherweights, or Kelly against the best flyweights.

Just had a look, how exactly is David Haye on the fringes? Ha ha!

i think i would have to find a place for david barnes after his perforrmance against Hare. which for me was one of the best of the year, he really showed some class and great potential in that fight.

Lenny Albert wrote:Stu, how far do you think you should go back when doing a p4p list? Brodie against Jorrin and Kelly against Muhatmov were both back in 2000. I also think potential should have more of an effect. For example if given the chance I think Witter would perform better against the best light welterweights in the world than Brodie would do against the best featherweights, or Kelly against the best flyweights.

No potential should not be a factor. Unless a fighter is in obvious decline, theire past achievements should of course come into, if they are in obvious decline, then not, an obvious example of this is Roy Jones, great career, but not listed in the top 10 p4p any more becuase of his last performances.

I would say Brodie is in something of a decline, but his performance against Jorrin should still be taken into account as an indicator of his level of ability.

brodie doesnt make my top ten any more im afriad
id go with
1. Harrison
2. Hatton
3. Calzaghe
4. Nelson
5. Eastman
6. Woods
7.Witter
8. Nicky Cook
9. Pickering
10 Barnes

honourable mentions Thompson / Reid / Kelly

I couldn't myself rank Nicky Cook or Barnes ahead of Brodie, Brodie had two title challenges in recent times, acquitting himself very well in the first one against a genuine world class fighter, Cook and Barnes have yet to beat anyone above European level. The Hare fight looks good on Barnes' resume, but It will be interesting to see Hare's next fights, it may be that he was already damaged goods, maybe not, but we'll see.

i dunno ive had this discussion with many people and much as i like mike brodie i dont think theres much left in the tank.

I know what you mean, but you have to give him the benefit of the doubt, otherwise you're making a guess based on the fact that he 'might' be shot.

I mean ok, he got hammered badly by Chi, but that's just one fight, and that can happen to any fighter on any given night, and Chi is a tough mutherfucker, and who knows what the circumstances might have been.

If Brodie looks poor or loses in his next fight, then he's definetly off the list. I still think he doesn't look right at featherweight, and I wonder whether he could make Super Bantamweight.


Brodie v McCulloch anyone?

Yeah if Brodie could make super bantamweight then I would rank him higher and I think his fight with Jorrin would be more relevant. Although I felt he performed excellent in the 1st Chi fight, he was beat badly the 2nd time and looks a way off the top fighters at featherweight. But i'd still like to see if he could trouble Harrison with his body shots.

Apart from Nicky Cook I agree with J's list. Put Thompson in there. Maybe Brodie still makes 9 or 10 at the expence of Pickering

Thompson has beaten a top 10 fighter in Rothmann, and blasted a prospect out of the water, he definetly deserves to be in there.

Here's mine.

Scott Harrison (beaten the best opposition so far IMO)
Ricky Hatton (solid wins over the last two years)
Joe Calzaghe (mixed level of opponents, but still champ, recent form poor)
Johnny Nelson (crap opponents but long reign)
Woods (two fights with Johnson suddenly look good)
Eastman (long EBU reign, indifferent level of opponent)
Carl Thompson (beat a top 10 guy)
Witter (long run of KO's against poor opponents)
Pickering
Barnes

i dunno carl cant box tho by his own admission. if others had his heart and bravery or he had a few more skills he would have been a legend.
hmm maybe he should be in there. Bit surprised no one likes Cook for a place other than me.
I think he is pretty sharp, shame bout the hand trouble.

Thompson's skills are not what I'm rating, he has done something which Pickering, Barnes and Cook (who you could easily interchange with Pickering or Barnes) haven't, and that's beat a top 10 fighter in his division.

true and fair point, its just something I tend to eerr towards younger up and comers when I do these lists.

Rightly or wrongly.

Mostly wrongly.

For example I had Carl Johanssen in that top 20 i did, over brodie, look pretty fornicating silly now dont I.

That's always the danger with rating fighters on potential. Up until the Cosme Riveira loss, Hare looked to me like he was going to be proper world class, or at least a contender. However, now he looks like he has found his level. Had I rated him in my top 10 British fighters, I would have looked as much of a pillock as you do.

I think you have to favour established fighters who've gone to the well and proven themselves over fighters who look the business but are only just starting to put themselves in difficult fights. Barnes looked good against Hare, but who knows how much of that was to do with Hare's punch resistance, which looked wobbly of late?

When Barnes faced a fringe or former contender, then we'll know whether the Vicent fight was an abberation or not.

boxrec:

1. Hatton
2. Calzaghe
3. S.Harrison
4. Eastman
5. Nelson
6. Witter
7. Reid
8. Khaliq
9. A.Harrison
10. D.Williams

1. Hatton
2. Eastman
3. S.Harrison
4. Calzaghe
5. Nelson
6. Witter
7. Reid
8. Khaliq
9. Gomez
10. D.Williams

Mine.

Ricky Hatton
Scott Harrison
Joe Calzaghe
Johnny Nelson
Howard Eastman
Carl Thompson
Clinton Woods
Junior Witter
Daeman Kelly
Michael Gomez.