Last Night Once Again Proves My Theory About Euro Fighters!

I forgot to count because I was too distracted by the fact that they have Israel Vazquez at 7 despite his only win in the last two years being against a guy with six straight losses beforehand.

Completely off topic, but interesting - numbers three through seven on that list (Hopkins, Mosley, JMM, Cotto, Vazquez) have one win over a legitimate opponent in the last 12 months between them, Cotto v Clottey, and that was ten months ago.

Hopkins - beat Ornelas, journeyman middleweight.
Mosley - no fights in last year
JMM - no wins in past year
Cotto - beat Clottey
Vazquez - one fight against serial loser.

 

What is your p4p top 10?

 

Mostly due to Froch's tactics. Rabbit punching, body slams ect

In the 10th, 11th and 12th when Dirrell realized he was about to get jobbed he landed a **** load of punches on Froch.

As rangy? Bute has a 70 inch reach. Dirrell has a 75 inch reach.

 

If the Ring magazine list is biased, then show me a non biased one. What is your p4p top 10?

On to Bute. Bute is a very good fighter, but he would probably lose a wide decision to Dirrell. This has nothing to do with nationality. It's a bad matchup for Bute. He would be facing a guy who is longer, faster, and more athletic than him. Bute would have very little shot at outboxing Dirrell. He would have to make it an infight. However, Bute is not an infighter and I haven't seen many people force Dirrell to fight on the inside.

 

In general you just have a bigger population to draw from as it's really only mainly britain that is in to boxing.

Bigger population = more people doing = more competition= more better cream rises to the top

It's like us claiming were better than america at cricket well of course we bloody are hardly anyone in america plays cricket

Or the soccer/football argument yes europe is much better because not many people in america are in to soccer

 

what the **** do BBC know about boxing, my mothers top 10 is more credible than there top 10, they dont even show boxing!

 

Americans always moaning, they moan about Dirrell losing even though thier very own Ring had him losing yet dont bat an eye-lid when Lewis doesnt get victory over evander or sturm is plain robbed v ODLH

 

Then why don't you provide us with an acceptable p4p list?

 

does this mean all american boxers count for Britain? as well as Australia, NZ, south africa, India, Pakistan etc etc etc etc etc

 

I honestly couldn't tell you right now and I think the above is an indication why. A lot of the guys who would previously have been considered P4P worthy are reaching the end of their careers/not doing too much at the moment and the guys coming through have not accumulated the kind of body of work that would make one confident including them.

At one time I had a P4P list that I updated fairly regularly and diligently, but I haven't bothered in the last year or so for that exact reason.

When I did do it, I applied a twelve month activity criteria to it, so would certainly not rank Mosley or Vazquez at the moment and probably not Hopkins (Ornelas really doesn't cut it for ranking purposes). Who does that leave? Mayweather and Pacquiao, of course. I would consider Wlad Klitschko top ten worthy and have argued that consistently - his domination of his division over a long period has to play here. At the current time that would translate to top five, maybe even top three. Marquez would have to be considered for his resume at LW and below, but that's getting less current all the time. Beyond that, we're kind of plumping in the dark. People talk about Williams, but what are we ranking him on? Beating a Wright who hadn't won in three years? Drawing with a decent light middleweight in Martinez? This is the problem, I like to base my rankings on accomplishments as well as what potential I see. Right now the people with the accomplishments aren't doing anything and the 'hyped' contenders are short of accomplishments that match their potential at this stage.

 

Michael Rosenthal on the tourney;

MOST SURPRISING

American success in Super Six: The experts predicted that Mikkel Kessler or Arthur Abraham would win the Super Six 168-pound tournament, with the young Americans Andre Ward and Andre Dirrell long shots because of their relative lack of experience. Sometimes talent is more important than experience, though. First, Ward schooled Kessler en route to an easy decision and then Dirrell was in the process of doing the same thing to Abraham until the 11th-round disqualification. We should’ve seen it coming. Plodding, stand-up Europeans have often had trouble with Americans who are particularly quick and athletic, especially when the Europeans have limited experience against such fighters. Ward and Dirrell have very unusual talent.

 

All I'm saying is this, you dissmissed the Ring rankings because you claim they are biased. Well if that's the case, show me a better list. You have no real complaint if you can't show me a better list. And Williams beat Martinez, it wasn't a draw.

 

an american backing the americans, who would have thought

 

Should have seen this coming? I saw it coming muther****er.

Had Dirrell winning and Ward finishing 2nd.