168 rankings; who is #1

I think your list is better than "The Ring's". They had Froch at 6 and Taylor at 5, and after Froch beat him at the very last moment, after being behind on the cards throughout, they overreacted and put Froch at 3 and Taylor only as high as 9!atsch

That's crazy!

When Bute went life and death in the final round and barely, barely survived the KO against Andrade, they left things as they were...they didn't put Andrade 4 places lower...

In my view, according to their own logic, the Ring ranking should have been something like:

Kessler
Bute
Andrade
Froch
Taylor

...or

Kessler
Froch
Taylor
Bute
Andrade

....or even...

Kessler
Bute
Froch
Taylor
Andrade

....or...

Kessler
Froch
Bute
Taylor
Andrade

...or something on those lines

...but certainly not the crazy nonsense they've come up with...

...but then Ring Rankings were always a bit crazy and internally inconsistent...:-(...how can you go down 4 places to number 9 when you lose to the now third best guy in the division in a very close fight, when you were rated just above him initially? Absolutely crazy stuff.

 

Kessler is a clear number one, Froch and Bute are fighting for number 2.

 

This seems like a pretty fair ranking. Kessler has done **** all since since LOSING to Calzaghe and hasn't really reestablished himself atop the division. Carl Froch has established himself atop the division with his KO of Jermain Taylor.

Head to head - I would bet on Kessler to beat Froch - but until they get in the ring - they have to be ranked according to their achievements.

 

Explain to me, like I was a 2-year old, why Froch belongs in the Top 10 at SMW at all.

He beat Taylor, a middleweight who was KOed to another MW who was then taken to school by a 43 year-old guy, a middleweight who then beat Lacy, who was not a Top 10 fighter at SMW when he beat him. And this Taylor guy almost beat Froch. So...why is Froch a Top 10 fighter at SMW again? Because he almost got beat by a MW who got KOed and beaten in his last two fights and who didn't beat anyone at SMW?

See...now this is how trolling is done, troll.

If you cannot see why Froch doesn't belong anywhere close to the No.1 spot, you'are either very thick or a massive nuthugger...so in any case...what's the point of people trying to reason with you?

:hi:

 

like to say kessler but its becoming more difficult to do so simply due to inactivity.

 

edit

 

Oh, dear...Bodysnatcher's little brother again...:-(

...ask Bodysnatcher whether beating a top MW who didn't beat anyone at SMW in a really close fight counts for as much as dominating top, proven SMWs at SMW and performing really well against one of the best SMWs ever, with the best SMW's best ever performance...and then come back to us under your own username...:nono

 

if you cant see that froch is a top SMW regardless of the "he beat him so he cant beat him **** etc etc" then your clearly stupid,its not about nuthuggery(which is ironic, you label someone else with the term yet post nothing other than froch based diatribe and thread after thread on the nottingham lad yourself) if thats not nuthuggery then what is,i dont underastand your logic nor your inability to just appreciate a good throwback fighter,no ones saying hes floyd mayweather!

now if you cannot hack it around here please turn left ' go Round the firewall, Out the modem, Past the server, Through the router, Down the wire, AND OUT THROUGH YOUR OWN ARSE!

 

Is this supposed to be funny in a sarcastic kind of a way, socrates?:think

It must be, for I'd be very disappointed to think you totally missed the point and that I overestimated you so much so far... :conf

 

I agree that Kesslers inactivity is starting to hurt him, but let us not forget that he utterly DESTROYED Andrade, a man that the current no. 2-3 was having a very rough ride against.

 

Yes, Froch is p4p No.1. He beat Taylor who beat Hopkins...and since Hopkins is considered by many to be a Top 3 p4p fighter, Froch must be p4p No.1, since he just beat the guy who must be p4p No.2.

Faultless, that.

 

edit

 

edit