British P4P rankings

Self Explanatory...................

My top 10

1. Carl Froch
2. David Haye
3. Amir Khan
4. Nathan Cleverly
5. Ricky Burns
6. Kell Brook
7. Rendall Munroe
8. Darren Barker
9. Matthew Macklin
10. Kevin Mitchell (controversial?)

Ignoring positioning I think the top 10 can't be disputed too much with the exception of Mitchell, but for me the alternative is Murray and although Mitchell fell short when he stepped up, Murray has never taken the leap.

Anyone care to argue the finer points with me?

Do you understand what P4P means ?

Not a bad list, personally I'd have mine a little different but that's what pound for pound rankings are all about.

1. Carl Froch
2. David Haye
3. Amir Khan
4. Nathan Cleverly
5. Kel Brook
6. Ricky Burns
7. John Murray
8. Matthew Macklin
9. Rendall Munroe
10. Darren Barker

I wouldnt have Carl Froch at the top of a P4P list containg Khan and Haye mainly due to the fact he is a very crude technician.

That's an understandable point, Jamson, but at the end of the day boxing is a results-based business. Froch's list of victims over the last couple of years or so means that he has a very real claim to the top spot. Junior Witter was, very possibly, a better 'technician' than the come-forward Hatton, but he sure as hell didn't warrant being above him in a pound for pound list during their respective best years.

88Chris05 wrote:That's an understandable point, Jamson, but at the end of the day boxing is a results-based business. Froch's list of victims over the last couple of years or so means that he has a very real claim to the top spot. Junior Witter was, very possibly, a better 'technician' than the come-forward Hatton, but he sure as hell didn't warrant being above him in a pound for pound list during their respective best years.

Then please post your Bitish top 10 "results based Business" fighters.

As pound for pound has a different meaning. Are you saying a 168 pound version of khan would lose to Froch ?

think there is an argument for Khan to be above Haye, appreciate Haye did decent things at cruiser but that was a while ago and in his recent heavyweight fights am not sure the likes of Valuev, Ruiz and Audley stand comparison with Maidina, Kotelnik and Paulie, who whatever their merits were all top ten guys in the division at the time they were faced.

Think of Haye's recent victims only Valuev could make such a claim.

Pound for pound, I'm sorry to tell you, does take in to account achievements and results as well as all-round ability, otherwise Pacquiao wouldn't have any business ranking above Mayweather, would he?

Haye went to France and KO'ed Mormeck. Haye is the only undisputed champion and multi weight champ in that list.

Froch lost to kessler... could have easily lost to Dirrell.. fought well against a poor Abraham and the Taylor win while impressive being in his backyard can be diluted a little as it seems the mans will and chin have been gone since Pavlik KO'ed him. Froch will also lose to Ward

I cant him have him top of anything... apart from the Nottingham based fighters top 10.

In all fairness the argument Froch will lose to Ward has no place in the debate, it is speculation and nothing more. Truth is it is easy to pick apart any opponent or record for any fighter but the truth is Abraham, Dirrell, Taylor and Pascal were all well rated guys in the division and mean Froch has had a five fight run with no chaff in which in truth stands favourable comparison with any British fighters five fight run through history and he has gone 4-1 in that run.

For me he is a deserved and clear number 1 currently. Ability does not come in it for me. Anyone who thinks otherwise would do well to ask themselves whether they would have Kirklaind Laing above Ricky Hatton or Clinton Wodds in their all time Brits list because he had more talent than either but acheived infinitely less than both.

well said rowley, its acheivement that counts not technique. Froch has fought well against strong opposition and has a good record because of it.

Im not sure why Jamson would be so confident that a 168 pound khan would beat froch so easily. Froch can take a punch for a start and despite being able to throw lots of shots khan still has a leaky defense and little head movement. Not saying froch would win that one as it would just be speculation but not as clear cut as is being made out i dont think.

P4P isn't just about who you think has more talent than someone else regardless of weight. You could be the most talented boxer in the world - like mayweather - but not fight as often as another highly talented fighter - like pacquiao and therefore not accrue as impressive a list of wins. It's on that basis that manny is ahead of floyd.

Likewise on the Brit list, who has haye fought to rival pascal, Taylor, dirrell, Kessler and Abraham? His heavyweight career is a joke, and although he did well at cruiser his best wins were mormeck and enzo - decent but nothing to get excited about. Khan fought easy opposition before getting starched in two rounds. He's reinvented himself well but is still behind froch IMO. My top 5 would be Froch, Khan, Haye, Cleverly, Burns.

1. Carl Froch. For what he has done 2 time WBC champ and the oppnents he faced
2. David Haye for his CW straps and WBA HW strap although he needsto do more soon
3. Amir Khan
4.Ricky Burns on the Martinez win basically
5. Kell Brook on talent
6.Rendall Munroe
7.Nathan cleverley although far from finished article as last fight proved
8. Derek Chisora - altho he is a ****
9. John Murray euro level only fight mitchell for goodness sake
10. Kevin Mitchell euro level only fight murray for goodness sake

Barker has no snap in his punches and is euro level only. Macklin not enough craft and i expect Winky to beat him

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:P4P isn't just about who you think has more talent than someone else regardless of weight. You could be the most talented boxer in the world - like mayweather - but not fight as often as another highly talented fighter - like pacquiao and therefore not accrue as impressive a list of wins. It's on that basis that manny is ahead of floyd.

Likewise on the Brit list, who has haye fought to rival pascal, Taylor, dirrell, Kessler and Abraham? His heavyweight career is a joke, and although he did well at cruiser his best wins were mormeck and enzo - decent but nothing to get excited about. Khan fought easy opposition before getting starched in two rounds. He's reinvented himself well but is still behind froch IMO. My top 5 would be Froch, Khan, Haye, Cleverly, Burns.

I have floyd above manny in a P4P list because I cant see Manny beating him... therefore how can i have manny above floyd in a p4p list when they are both currently operating at the same weight.

As I said earlier.. opponents faced are important to gauge a fighters abilities when pitched in with good opposition.. however that doesn't always mean their achievements in winning pointless alphabet titles need to be taken into account at all. If froch is not the P4P best fighter in the UK as he spends a good deal of time in his fights looking like someone who is having a scrap outside a kebab van at 2am in the morning.. A 168 lbs version of Khan or Haye with their skills and disciplines could and more likely WOULD take Froch to pieces so long as neither of them got caught with a massive shot (froch has a punchers chance).

Your understanding of P4P is wrong.. you are counting up titles instead of weighing up abilities.

Got to say I don't agree if we use your rationale Haye could spend the next two years fighting the likes of Dallas, Fury and Mcdermott and Froch could spend the next two years fighting Johnson, Ward, Pascal, Hopkins etc and Haye would still be above him because he is more gifted.

Talent is important but for me will give more kudos to a guy testing himself against the best he can than a more talented guy resting on his laurels and staying in his comfort zone

Jamson wrote:Your understanding of P4P is wrong.. you are counting up titles instead of weighing up abilities.

Have you ever bought a copy of Ring Magazine? They explain every change to their P4P list. Do they ever write 'Donaire has learnt to more efficiently counter the straight right this month, so moves up two places' or are they more likely to write 'Donaire beat highly rated Montiel and so moves up in our list'?

Either way Froch is far better technically than most give him credit for.

(Chris, Jeff - Thanks for your words, v2 was blocked last time I tried, so didn't think I could get on)

You may not like his style but Froch has proven his ability by beating the best in his division and continues to do so, I think a 168lb of Haye or Khan actually gets beaten by froch because while they have speed neither has the chin to outlast him

Jamson I think your a bit off the mark with your p4p perspective. It encompasses alot of things and there isnt really a set in stone definition. Who you have beaten is a big indicator of ability. Froch has clearly beaten the highest level of competition in the last 2/3 years in comparison to other British fighters. Pascal, Taylor, Dirrell, Abraham are better than anything Haye or Khan has managed for me. Not only that but he is consistently facing top contenders. You may not think he has the raw talents of Khan or Haye but he has tangible evidence on his record. Brook and De Gale may well have more skills than Froch and more natural talent but they havent proved it yet.

My list would be:

1. Carl Froch
2=. David Haye
2=. Amir Khan
4. Ricky Burns
5. Kell Brook
6. Nathan Cleverly
7. John Murray
8. Matthew Macklin
9. Rendall Munroe
10. Darren Barker

Got carried away so did a top 15:
1. Froch 2. Khan 3. Haye 4. Burns 5. Cleverly
6. Munroe 7. Hatton 8. Macklin 9. Rhodes 10. Murray
11. Barker 12. DeGale 13. Brook 14. Simpson 15. Chisora

I think people have Brook too high when you consider the level of his opposition.

mitchell? Brook? cleverley over burns? strange old list pal. Brook has been feeding off bin men and road sweepers all his career.

Completely disagree.

Haye and Khan are ahead of froch. And brook may eventually be as well.

Froch's superior opposition means he should be in first place.

samevans1 wrote:Froch's superior opposition means he should be in first place.

Ko'ing Mormeck in Paris is better than anything Froch has done.

Jamson wrote:

samevans1 wrote:Froch's superior opposition means he should be in first place.

Ko'ing Mormeck in Paris is better than anything Froch has done.

In 2007.

Abraham, Kessler, Dirrell, Taylor, Pascal.

Harrison, Ruiz, Valuev, Barrett, Maccarinelli.

Totally agree Scott even if we accept the Mormeck win is better than anything Froch has got, which I'm not sure I would would have to say with Haye it is very much a case of "what have you done for me lately"

Barrera has wins over Manny, Naz and two over Morales, would guess most don't have him in their P4P top tens for the simple reason his results recently don't justify it, the same is the case with Haye over Froch.

Would have to ask what would Froch have to do to ever be considered over Haye because if his results recently don't justify it to me it is akin to saying he will never be above him which is patently nonsense.

Not a bad list there, most of the right names, mine would be slightly different:
1. Froch
2. Khan
3. Haye
4. Burns
5. Cleverly
6. Brook
7. DeGale
8. Macklin
9. Rhodes
10. Munroe