606V2 BRITISH POUND FOR POUND Top 10 rankings (please submit your current top 10)

Interesting debate hotting up recently over the British Top 10 P4P'ers. Therefore, I think it's time for the 606v2 community to decide:

It's time to vote for the 606V2 BRITISH POUND FOR POUND Top 10 rankings.

Rules:
-Only 1 post per 606 member.
-Only active fighters allowed (must of fought in the last 18 months unless officially retired eg Ricky Hatton cannot be included)
-Outlandish listings will be DQ.
-A fighter needs two individual votes to have his points included.

Principles:
Your Top 10 should be based as at the current point in time.

Point Scoring System:
Quite simple, #1 scores 10 points, #2 scores 9 points etc… I will tally up the totals by the deadline date and will present the results.

NOTE: PLEASE TRY AND USE FULL NAMES & LIST NAMES!


I'll aim to do the results by either Friday evening or Wednesday evening pending on the number of submissions.

Thanks, as always.

ATG, I'm assuming that when you say British, you mean fighters boxing with a British licence. I can include Macklin and Frampton, in other words? I hope so.

1) Froch 2) Burns 3) Khan 4) Haye 5) Cleverly 6) Brook 7) Macklin 8) Frampton 9) Rees 10) Saunders

1) Carl Froch
2) Ricky Burns
3) David Haye
4) Amir Khan
5) Kell Brook
6) Nathan Cleverly
7) Matthew Macklin
8) Carl Frampton
9) Rendall Munroe
10) Tony Bellew

Mine as follows:

Carl Froch
Amir Khan
Ricky Burns
David Haye
Kell Brook
Nathan Cleverly
David Price
Tony Bellew
George Groves
Carl Frampton


I think the only obvious position set in stone is P1 in Carl Froch. Beyond this it comes down to a bit of subjectivity and personal preference to some extent.

I believe Amir Khan has the stronger CV than any of the current top 10 (with the exception of Froch), and he's been a unified champion. Albeit, he has had a blemish in his last two fights but for me Ricky Burns is still by a reasonable margin behind Khan until he fights a credible lightweight contender. Having said that, I've been impressed with Burns skills which in my eyes have somewhat improved.

David Haye in P4 purely because his cruiserweight exploits are now long behind him. I would like to see him defeat a Povetkin for him to challenge the top 3 spots once again.

On talent alone (not his CV), Kell Brook makes up the remainder of my top 5. Nathan Cleverly by default at P6 because he's an alphabet world champion. But I'm yet to see how good/ bad he really is until he fights someone of note.

At P7 I have David Price who I believe will be on the road to big things in the heavyweight division. I wouldn't be surprised to see him in the top 5 in 2-3 years time.

At P8, Tony Bellew gets this by default to some degree due to his record and recent close decision loss to Nathan Cleverly. He also looks a game fighter so another crack at a world title belt could be on the cards for him in the future.

At P9 and P10, with little separating them I have Groves and Frampton. Both who are in reasonably hot divisions at the moment but the world could be their oyster if they're able to live up to their potential. However, this still remains to be seen.

1. Carl Froch
2. David Haye
3. Amir Khan
4. Ricky Burns
5. Kell Brook
6. Matthew Macklin
7. Nathan Cleverly
8. George Groves
9. Martin Murray
10. Billy Joe Saunders

I've ranked mine in terms of my opinion on there ability, levels of opposition and how well they've performed.

Froch is nailed on at number one which is the easiest in the list but after that I found it very difficult with calculating Burns' win over Mitchell and how to rate that alongside Haye and Khans level of opposition recently, but losing his bouts albeit one dubious. Gah, its exhausting.

captain carrantuohil wrote:ATG, I'm assuming that when you say British, you mean fighters boxing with a British licence. I can include Macklin and Frampton, in other words? I hope so.

1) Froch 2) Burns 3) Khan 4) Haye 5) Cleverly 6) Brook 7) Macklin 8) Frampton 9) Rees 10) Saunders

Agreed. I'd also allow Haye and Chisora for arguments sake. Unless the Luxembourg boxing federation have a legal issue with that.

1. Froch
2. Burns
3. Haye
4. Khan
5. Brook
6. Macklin
7. Cleverly
8. Murray
9. Groves
10. Frampton

Left out Frampton, drats.

The middleweight divisions could really serve up some great domestic matches in the next while. Macklin, Murray, Barker, Lee, Saunders, Groves and DeGale are all within striking distance and not seperated by a great deal. It would be great to really see some of those go ahead.

manos de piedra wrote:The middleweight divisions could really serve up some great domestic matches in the next while. Macklin, Murray, Barker, Lee, Saunders, Groves and DeGale are all within striking distance and not seperated by a great deal. It would be great to really see some of those go ahead.

I do feel a fit Groves, an active Saunders and a matured Degale are a class above the aforementioned fighters. I find it unlikely these guys will ever get it on domestically unless it's for a world title bout. There's too much to lose financially from a promoters perspective if their man gets outclassed by a domestic rival.

All Time Great wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:The middleweight divisions could really serve up some great domestic matches in the next while. Macklin, Murray, Barker, Lee, Saunders, Groves and DeGale are all within striking distance and not seperated by a great deal. It would be great to really see some of those go ahead.

I do feel a fit Groves, an active Saunders and a matured Degale are a class above the aforementioned fighters. I find it unlikely these guys will ever get it on domestically unless it's for a world title bout. There's too much to lose financially from a promoters perspective if their man gets outclassed by a domestic rival.

I think those guys you mention being younger may have the potential to be a class above in the future, but given the stage they are in their careers now and their relative lack of experience I think the margins seperating them all are quite close at this moment. But I would agree its unlikely now any of those fights will occur at anything other than european title or world level. I just meant domestically in the sense of geography rather than titles.

Carl Froch
Ricky Burns
Nathan Cleverly
Amir Khan
David Haye
Kell Brook
Tony Bellew
George Groves
David Price
Carl Frampton

Froch
Burns
Khan
Haye
Brook
Cleverley
Bellew
Frampton
Price
De Gale

Froch
Burns
Haye
Khan
Cleverley
Macklin
Groves
Brook
Rees
Frampton

Can't rank young Billy Joe just yet but I think he'll be our best bet to be number 1 on evidence I've seen.

Cheers

Rodders

Froch
Burns
Khan
Brook
Cleverly
Macklin
Groves
Rees
Frampton
Bellew

Froch
Burns
Khan
Haye
Brook
Cleverly
Groves
Macklin
Frampton
Bellew


Very similar to Jeff's, with a slight variance in the order.

No Haye for me fists have stuck to fighters that hold a British licence

I was curious about his omission, Jeff. Where would you place him if he held a British license, out of interest?

Probably fourth mate, would be tricky to know where to put in in relation to Khan, not sure he deserves to be below a guy who has lost his last two, but am not sure beating the ordinary Chisora and getting your arse handed to you by Wlad puts you head and shoulders above Khan, just think Khan's run prior to those two losses is a little more impressive than Haye's during the same period, tight as hell though.

Froch
Khan
Haye
Burns
Brook
Cleverley
Frampton
Macklin
Groves
Price

Bellew misses by a whisker.

Carl Froch
Ricky Burns
Amir Khan
David Haye
Kell Brook
Matthew Macklin
Nathan Cleverly
Martin Murray
Carl Frampton
George Groves

1) Froch
2) Burns
3) Khan
4) Haye
5) Cleverley
6) Frampton
7) Brook
8) Macklin
9) Groves
10) Fury

alma wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Froch
Khan
Haye
Burns
Brook
Cleverley
Frampton
Macklin
Groves
Price

Bellew misses by a whisker.

Surprised by your final comment there TopHat. Bellew at least has the odd name on his record, which Price hasn't. Price has the potential to be in that top 5, but his choice of opponents needs to be improved

I did say by a whisker....

I'd say there records are pretty equal with Bellew having the best 'name' in Cleverly and probably the best #2 in Miranda however Price has the '0' intact and has looked much more convincing than Bellew in his performances. For all the quality of his losing performance to Clev, Bellew was poor against McKenzie first time out to a degree Price has never looked close to coming against similar level fighters he's fought (Sexton, MaccyD, Dallas).

froch
burns
khan
haye
cleverly
rees
murray
quigg
macklin
brook

Froch
Burns
Haye
Khan (purely because the rest of the top ten fight complete dross)
Cleverly
Brook
Frampton
Groves
Macklin
Bellew

monty junior wrote:Froch
Burns
Haye
Khan (purely because the rest of the top ten fight complete dross)
Cleverly
Brook
Frampton
Groves
Macklin
Bellew

Macklin has been in with Sturm and Martinez recently. Both pretty credible performances also.

1.) Carl Froch (easy choice)
2.) Amir Khan (want to put him down the list for being a tool but in terms of performance and quality of opposition and I felt he beat Peterson I have to let him pip my new fav ricky burns)
3.) Ricky Burns
4.) Nathan Cleverly (beats Haye because of Bellew win, most people have Bellew just edging or threatening top 10, no mention of Chisora)
5.) David Haye
6.) Matthew Macklin
7.) Carl Frampton
8.) Kell Brook
9.) George Groves
10.) David Price

crispears1 wrote:1.) Carl Froch (easy choice)
2.) Amir Khan (want to put him down the list for being a tool but in terms of performance and quality of opposition and I felt he beat Peterson I have to let him pip my new fav ricky burns)
3.) Ricky Burns
4.) Nathan Cleverly (beats Haye because of Bellew win, most people have Bellew just edging or threatening top 10, no mention of Chisora)
5.) David Haye
6.) Matthew Macklin
7.) Carl Frampton
8.) Kell Brook
9.) George Groves
10.) Ricky Hatton?????

You mention Bellew as a good win but can't even get him to #10 and have to look to a long-retired Ricky Hatton??

Id rate Hayes win over Chisora as better than Clev over Bellew I think. Cleverly barely won whereas Haye was decisive. I dont think Chisora is any great shakes but he at leat performed credible on world level against Vitali. In terms of ability I would have Haye well ahead of Cleverly also.

For me Froch, Burns, Khan and Haye have a bit of daylight between themselves and the rest as things stand now. They have just been fighting at a different level, aside from Macklin maybe who lost his two world fights (although performed well).

Froch
Khan
Haye
Burns
Brook
Murray (Martin)
Groves
Quigg
DeGale
Macklin

I do rate Bellew highly and higher than Chisora, tbh Hatton is there as a bit of a giggle, I tried to be unbiased but Haye annoys the heck out of me, as far as I'm concerned his pro career was cruiser his business career is heavy. Chisora was coming off three losses when he fought Haye. Bellew has since proven to be a quite worthy opponent. The fact that Clev has a world title also edges it for me, opposition has been far from great but I don't completely buy into the wrap Clev in cotton wool jibe. People forget that he was challenging a very good Juergen Braehmer for the title in the first place, not his fault for what happened. Haye's best win in recent times has been Ruiz. Who I think was far from washed up and actually put on the best performance I'd seen him do in a while.

I thought Bellew looked good against McIntosh but pretty ordinary against Miranda.

That's because mcIntosh is very ordinary.

I agree

crispears1 wrote:1.) Carl Froch (easy choice)
2.) Amir Khan (want to put him down the list for being a tool but in terms of performance and quality of opposition and I felt he beat Peterson I have to let him pip my new fav ricky burns)
3.) Ricky Burns
4.) Nathan Cleverly (beats Haye because of Bellew win, most people have Bellew just edging or threatening top 10, no mention of Chisora)
5.) David Haye
6.) Matthew Macklin
7.) Carl Frampton
8.) Kell Brook
9.) George Groves
10.) Ricky Hatton?????

For arguements sake, Hatton has been rendered inactive for this vote. Therefore, if you would like me to use Bellew or someone else instead please do edit your post. Thanks

Current rankings, based on the last twleve months / two fights and taking into account standard of opposition, result and performance.

1 Froch
2 Burns
3 Frampton
4 Groves
5 Brook
6 Cleverly
7 Bellew
8 Afolabi
9 Murray
10 Barker

[quote="rowley"]Probably fourth mate, would be tricky to know where to put in in relation to Khan, not sure he deserves to be below a guy who has lost his last two, but am not sure beating the ordinary Chisora and getting your arse handed to you by Wlad puts you head and shoulders above Khan, just think Khan's run prior to those two losses is a little more impressive than Haye's during the same period, tight as hell though. [/quote

Rowley, for arguements sake, do you mind if I manually edit your post to allow Haye in at no.4? I appreciate your arguement re: British license holder but not including him will cause a variance in his overall result. Thanks

Do what you want ATG, but I warn you I will edit everyone elses to remove him and I am both childish and bored enough to do it.

Union Cane wrote:Current rankings, based on the last twleve months / two fights and taking into account standard of opposition, result and performance.

1 Froch
2 Burns
3 Frampton
4 Groves
5 Brook
6 Cleverly
7 Bellew
8 Afolabi
9 Murray
10 Barker

No David Haye or Amir Khan?

rowley wrote:Do what you want ATG, but I warn you I will edit everyone elses to remove him and I am both childish and bored enough to do it.

I'll save you the hassel and will do a seperate result for you without Luxemburg's finest, David Haye, included.

All Time Great wrote:No David Haye or Amir Khan?

I have Haye 13th and Khan 15th (sandwiching Fury).

As I said it's a very current list, and the Wlad debacle counts heavily against Haye.

1 carl froch
2 ricky burns
3 amir khan
4 david haye
5 carl frampton
6 matthew macklin
7 kell brook
8 ola afolabi
9 george groves
10 tony bellew

1 Froch
2 Burns
3 Haye
4 Groves
5 Frampton
6 Khan
7 Brook
8 Degale
9 Macklin
10 Munroe

You guys do realise that both macklin and frampton are irish??

LeinsterFan4life wrote:You guys do realise that both macklin and frampton are irish??

Without getting too politically involved and off topic; Carl Frampton is from Northern Ireland, which is part of Great Britain. Mathew Macklin happens to be born in Birmingham but has an Irish background. Nevertheless, they both hold a British license which renders them available for selection.

All Time Great wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:You guys do realise that both macklin and frampton are irish??

Without getting too politically involved and off topic; Carl Frampton is from Northern Ireland, which is part of Great Britain. Mathew Macklin happens to be born in Birmingham but has an Irish background. Nevertheless, they both hold a British license which renders them available for selection.

NI is not apart of great britain, its apart of the UK. matthew macklin carries the irish flag and plays the irish national anthem at his fights, yet he is still considered british...why? because he's good. andy lee was born in britain, yet i never hear him being claimed as "british".

All Time Great wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:You guys do realise that both macklin and frampton are irish??

Without getting too politically involved and off topic; Carl Frampton is from Northern Ireland, which is part of Great Britain. Mathew Macklin happens to be born in Birmingham but has an Irish background. Nevertheless, they both hold a British license which renders them available for selection.

northern ireland is not part of great britain. although it is infact british. pedantic i know

macklin is a brummie though

LF4L, not that I want to p**s on your chips, but this is something that has been gone through so often on these boards that all you're likely to raise here is a bit of a yawn. Macklin is a former British champion; Frampton is eligible to fight for a British title (not known as a UK title just yet), but looks like he will have bigger fish to fry. Nobody considers Steve Collins to have been British, for example, although he was better than any of the fighters we're talking about.

Other than the fact that he was born in the UK, Lee has sod all to do with UK boxing, having been raised in Ireland and done all his pro fighting there and in the States. Ergo, he doesn't count for this exercise. Now, it might be an idea to take your out of date brand of nationalism back to the rugby boards, where it seems that people still enjoy settling ancient scores.

captain carrantuohil wrote:LF4L, not that I want to p**s on your chips, but this is something that has been gone through so often on these boards that all you're likely to raise here is a bit of a yawn. Macklin is a former British champion; Frampton is eligible to fight for a British title (not known as a UK title just yet), but looks like he will have bigger fish to fry. Nobody considers Steve Collins to have been British, for example, although he was better than any of the fighters we're talking about.

Other than the fact that he was born in the UK, Lee has sod all to do with UK boxing, having been raised in Ireland and done all his pro fighting there and in the States. Ergo, he doesn't count for this exercise. Now, it might be an idea to take your out of date brand of nationalism back to the rugby boards, where it seems that people still enjoy settling ancient scores.

actually nationalism doesnt exist in rugby because the irish rugby team represents a 32 county ireland

I'm aware of that. You, on the other hand, don't seem to be aware that a British title can be fought for by anyone holding the appropriate licence, which includes Macklin and Frampton. It is therefore reasonable for them to be included in this topic.

I may be missing something here, but your name doesn't seem especially familiar to me on the boxing boards. Perhaps I'm doing you an injustice, but you appear to have graced us with your presence this once purely to manufacture some synthetic outrage about a thread where no-one has been trying to offend anyone else. As I said, it tends to be the international rugby board where that kind of thing is noticeably popular, and I wonder if you accidentally strayed onto the wrong page.

Human being for life.