Ya no Murray should have been the Lineal champ and Geale was a former champ who beat 4 former champions. Macklin is also a better win than those guys. I will agree 3 is too high though, I think 7 or 8 is good. A lot of his ranking comes from the way he's disposed of his opponents.
Not really, it was closer than you think it was, I've watched it 3 times and it gets closer every time I see it, they landed close to the same amount of punches. I thought it was close to a draw.
I watched it like a year ago, need to watch it again. From what I remember Lara landed that straight left hand over and over and Williams landed nothing effective.
It depends what you want to judge people's records by. If you want the quality opponents then he's a little weak. If you want sensational performances he is strong since he's got a ton of knockouts and other guys coast to close points decisions. If you want to base p4p consideration on his win streak, some of the other guys have losses, and he is undefeated. If you want to consider title fights he has about 14. Belts he has 3, which is more than some of the other top guys.
Boxrec rankings use an automated computer system deriving from a point system they use. Not even worth looking into.
I wouldn´t rate Porter, Brooks, Khan, Peterson, Garcia or Broner wins any higher than Murray, Geale, Macklin, Stevens, Rosado or Ouma even though many of those american fighters are hypped a lot. 147 might have commercial names and hype but its not close to being golden era by any means. And what about Canelo? He hardly won against Lara. Who else has he beat? Lara is a good fighter but goes to same category as GGG opponents (Murray, Geale etc.).
Sometimes I wonder. Lately, I've seen signs of human tampering, controversial fights where the official loser was given the points he would have if he'd won and the official winner was deducted points. And they are real inconsistent with when they do that too. Some robberies they correct. Other's they leave the way they are. There's probably some other hijinx involved in the ratings I haven't even caught onto yet. I also have to shake my head at a system that doesn't take into account the quality of a win, making no distinction between a dominant performance and a one point victory. Or how old fighters on the slide are worth more than when they were prime, encouraging cherry picks, and gaming the ratings. There's all kinds of little things that contribute to inaccurate assessments of fighters' careers and abilities.
One could easily make the argument that Kell Brook is only as good as you rate Porter. Of those listed, he clearly has the worst list of opponents faced with no close second-worst (perhaps Porter or Frampton would be up next?).
I'm a huge Williams fan. I've got T-shirts of his foundation, for Gods' sake... And that fight was as clear a victory for Lara as there pretty much could have been.
