How does Boxrec put Dirrel above Froch?

They make sense some of the time, and none most of the time

 

Becoz dey iz boxrec, innit?

 

More Boxrec madness:

In the British p4p rankings
Ian Napa is 95th
Lee Haskins is 75th
Gary Sykes is 74th
Jamie McDonnell is 45th

all of whom are behind

Tyson Fury who is 44th
Adnan Amar who is 40th
Howard Eastman who is 35th
Nigel Wright who is 33rd

 

lat time i chedkedn johnny nlson was the ATG no 1 :rofl

 

It's all maths. Similar to the ELO rankings for football (although the system works better for football than boxing).

It's good for a guide, but you can't read too much into it.

 

According to Boxrec all time rankings (Brit P4P). If Froch was to retire today, he would be ranked #8 with Calzaghe being #12

Get in there Cobra :deal

 

Maybe they used their common sense and watched Froch Vs Direll. LOL

 

So Dirrell arguably winning a close fight and winning a DQ over Abraham is better than Frochy having a close fight with Dirrell, stopping Taylor, and outpointing Pascal?

Even Froch's win over Reid trumps Dirrells win over Oganov.

 

deal:deal

 

Some people are far too easy to real in.

 

According to Boxrec, Brian London is 52nd in the Brit P4P all-time list. He is ahead of Nigel Benn (61st), Chris Eubank (66th) and Tommy Farr (72nd) among others.

A very solid list.

 

:rofl

 

London KO1 Benn

 

A nice little interview with Brian London here...definite p4p #1 ugly ****, but a thoroughly nice bloke

This content is protected

 

Who cares, Dirrell is obviously the better fighter.

He fought an overly cautious fight vs Froch and gave him way to much respect. But then it was a big step up in class and the guy has had about 20 fights. Despite all that I still thought he won.

Would anyone seriously pick Froch to win in a rematch?