I was looking at the Ring Rankings and wondering if whether or not it is still the gold standard by us and many?
I think Ring Rankings are probably the best rankings system out there.
Printable View
I was looking at the Ring Rankings and wondering if whether or not it is still the gold standard by us and many?
I think Ring Rankings are probably the best rankings system out there.
Yeah they are I suppose because nobody can pay them for a ranking but I've never liked the idea of Oscar owning the magazine.
I also dont like Cotto being immediately put at number 1 the morning after Martinez. That is just a bogus ranking and Cotto's one of my favourite fighters. It also shows how flawed the whole concept of "lineal" is.
Once Oscar took partnership and blew up as a major promoter not so much. Also the cologne ads and Broner being #5 p4p were obvious marketing moves. In fairness I understand the cologne is still doing well on the market :-X
I must be an unusual fan, the rankings are interesting and when I see them I always check them out, but I've never bought a magazine or even walked 20' to check them.
Interesting but I can do without them.
Are they something you have to see regularly?
I bought the magazine for over 20 years and always went by them - when I first got into boxing I couldn't understand why the WBA would rank someone 3rd who wasn't even in the top ten for say the IBF. Or why another alphabet champ wasn't even recognised at all by another.
The Ring rankings made sense and as far as I'm concerned, though I ddon't follow boxing like I did, they are still the ones to go by
I thought Oscar had pledged to stay out of what went into the magazine especially the rankings ?
No. The RING is compromised.
The Ring rankings are now compromised. Broner was top 5 p4p was a joke. Also some champions were lineal, meaning they did beat the man, but was not accorded such status as champion of the division. Then somehow a fighter becomes lineal champ of that division, when the no. 1 and no. 2 of the division never fought.
Although they may not be as bad as the alphabet soup gangs, they are imo getting there.
No. Mine are
I was going to say yours. So you would not accept $10,000 to bump up a fighter from a promoter?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lineal
I guess it makes sense to look at it if you wanna see rankings that are different from everyone else's.Quote:
Originally Posted by beenKOed
That would ruin all the work I put in. You get a reputation, people talk and the stigma never goes away.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterI was going to say yours. So you would not accept $10,000 to bump up a fighter from a promoter?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lineal
I could be persuaded with a Mayweather ring walk beside Bieber though
the ring rankings just add to the confusion
the ring belt adds to the confusion
best just ignoring it
But, universally speaking, we only get a preview of the guys that "may" be worth the time of day.Quote:
Originally Posted by erics44
Half of the guys in the top 15 shouldn't even be in the top 100. But they are...
The RING writers are for the most part members of the twat-filled BWAA. That right there should tell you all you need to know as to just how conflicted the rankings are.
Not only is Ring no longer a gold standard neither is boxing as whole. HBO PPV initially changed boxing thanks to Pacquiao and Mayweathers cherry picking ways fighting who they want (that will generate the most money) not who they should . Arum is king having taking catchweight to a new level and gaining titles the unconventional way . GBP leader ODLH's willingness to fight Pac at an unrealistic weight for "Money" was the launching pad for this new Arum Tactic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ykdadamajaBut, universally speaking, we only get a preview of the guys that "may" be worth the time of day.Quote:
Originally Posted by erics44
Half of the guys in the top 15 shouldn't even be in the top 100. But they are...
according to who?
the ring is just another opinion/system that is more than likely based on money as much as opinion/a system
what's the point in adding another opinion/system to a situation full of opinions/systems
we need just one system dont we? we need to be getting rid of opinions/systems not adding to them
Probably not the Gold standard it use to be, but its origin in 1922 was still shrouded in controversy from its founder Nat Fleisher to Tex Rickard, a boxing promoter who was involved back then, like Dela Hoya, a promoter today.
By the late 1970's Ring magazine's monopoly on boxing publication took on.. IMO the biggest scandal to date
.. when another boxing promoter Don aka Con- King helped fabricate fighter's records to ensure ABC television promoted a tournament to make American boxers look more successful than non-American boxers.
They flailed for awhile and for the first time lost the Gold standard rep.
Boxing historian Burt Sugar (R.I.P) did his best IMO to turn it legit. Nigel Collins as well, but I'm not sure who came first Collins or Sugar.
I think...the other boxing magazine I used to buy like KO, ended up being all own or run by the same people, so no matter the name of the magazine at that time, one couldn't have been more fair or shiesty then the other one. They eventually were all ran by the same orgs.
So DLH basically is in a line of promoters who have all used the magazine at some point to benefit themselves or their fighters.
First Ring champ Dempsey, then Villa. I think it would still be an honor to be called the Ring champ, since it really never was a clean sport with clean promoters from jump street. But Ring ensure kids like me and before me could read who fought who, when they fought and where...all the fights, minor as well as major.
No internet back then so Ring was the Bible of Boxing so to speak.
I'll go with my own. Some group called the "Trans Gendered" :o or something like that puts out rankings that are pure puke.
I use to buy the magazine with anticipation of reading all of the fights that occurred, nationwide and worldwide.
Is there a web site that lists as many fights worldwide?
As far as the rankings, they always had the divisional rankings and then the P4P rankings. Haven't bought one in years though.
The Transnational Boxing Rankings are supposed to be the best. Find them here.
Ring Magazine
Was good as any Ratings list for awhile.
They did include other good information;
* Prospect of the Month
* Upset of the Month
* NABF
* USBA
* British-Commonwealth
* European
* Mexican
* South American
* Oriental and Pacific
* Top Amateur events
They were 'on-and-off' with the WBC and WBA ratings.
For east coasters: NY- Do they still have newstands there?
Downtown Milwaukee--years & years ago, there was a guy who had a newstand where all the magazines could be bought.
I remember as a kid racing downtown to buy the latest issue of Ring & a magazine called Right On, with all the latest Funk & R&B entertainers.
The guy would always make sure I didnt get to look at the top rack, where Playboys were at.
Though I was only interested in Chunky Asses magazine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlimTrae
Remember Boxing Weekly, a weekly newsletter.
A lot of very knowledgeable people contribute to that system but they are no better or worse then anyone else. I find them all more or less the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rantcatrat
The Ring is just as susceptible to the post 8 division bullshit as anyone else is. They have had the task of trying to swim through the murky waters of the fabricated rankings of the 4 governing bodies. Over time unfortunately they have for the most part copied many of the practices used by others.
Take 168 for example. How is Arthur Abraham ranked #2 behind Froch? How is Chavez ranked 9?
To their credit TBR does not rank Chavez but they have Abraham at #2 also and Sturm at #6. They are all guilty of a paper trail sooner or later. At hev they have Fury at 2. Now I know its a wasteland but #2? The Ring has him at #3.
At middle both have Cotto as champion and that's insane. Much of the Rings history had the person viewed by the educated boxing public and sports writers as the undisputed champion with or without all the belts.
Paying to much attention to what was lineal has also helped just line them up with others as lineal is also a flawed concept. Does anyone actually believe that Cotto could beat the Kazak?
And both have Kid Ovaltine ranked at #2 and Martinez at # 3. That’s just wrong. I find the differences with all of these Orgs negligible at best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rantcatrat
They truly suck major barge pole because they are tied in with too many organizations and have compromised themselves. And who says they are the best? They are the worst.:confused:
Most serious fans can do ranking as well as anyone. Actually, if you look at the 6 or 7 rankings out there and then do some cross-referencing and comparative analysis, you should be able to come up with a very solid list for any division plus a neat P4P list.
My point is that serious fans (posters) and aficionados are as good or better at doing this than the morons in the twat-filled BWAA.;D
Wow, rankings like that?Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuitA lot of very knowledgeable people contribute to that system but they are no better or worse then anyone else. I find them all more or less the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rantcatrat
The Ring is just as susceptible to the post 8 division bullshit as anyone else is. They have had the task of trying to swim through the murky waters of the fabricated rankings of the 4 governing bodies. Over time unfortunately they have for the most part copied many of the practices used by others.
Take 168 for example. How is Arthur Abraham ranked #2 behind Froch? How is Chavez ranked 9?
To their credit TBR does not rank Chavez but they have Abraham at #2 also and Sturm at #6. They are all guilty of a paper trail sooner or later. At hev they have Fury at 2. Now I know its a wasteland but #2? The Ring has him at #3.
At middle both have Cotto as champion and that's insane. Much of the Rings history had the person viewed by the educated boxing public and sports writers as the undisputed champion with or without all the belts.
Paying to much attention to what was lineal has also helped just line them up with others as lineal is also a flawed concept. Does anyone actually believe that Cotto could beat the Kazak?
And both have Kid Ovaltine ranked at #2 and Martinez at # 3. That’s just wrong. I find the differences with all of these Orgs negligible at best.
My 1980-1990's Ring magazines, I was lock in step with whom they had ranked division wise & P4P.
Can't say I would today with you've quote, thats pretty rough.
To their credit TBR does not rank Chavez but they have Abraham at #2 also and Sturm at #6. They are all guilty of a paper trail sooner or later. At hev they have Fury at 2. Now I know its a wasteland but #2? The Ring has him at #3.
At middle both have Cotto as champion and that's insane. Much of the Rings history had the person viewed by the educated boxing public and sports writers as the undisputed champion with or without all the belts.
Paying to much attention to what was lineal has also helped just line them up with others as lineal is also a flawed concept. Does anyone actually believe that Cotto could beat the Kazak?
And both have Kid Ovaltine ranked at #2 and Martinez at # 3. That’s just wrong. I find the differences with all of these Orgs negligible at best.[/QUOTE]
Wow, rankings like that?
My 1980-1990's Ring magazines, I was lock in step with whom they had ranked division wise & P4P.
Can't say I would today with you've quote, thats pretty rough.[/QUOTE]
Use mine!!!!!!!!!!
Ranking contenders over a continuous period of time can be more difficult than just posting a one off list of the top 10 contenders. Achievements in a division, opposition and other results become a factor.Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuit
I'd be curious to see your Super-Middle ratings. I rank Abraham at #2 at 168 behind Ward as Champion and Froch as the number one contender. He is a 2 time titlist at 168, and a former titlist at 160. Who would you rate ahead? Groves who has suffered 2 recent back to back knockout loses (controversial or not). Anthony Dirrell? Whose only victory of note is Bika. Or Andre Dirrel who has painfully inactive at this weight and his recent opposition has been limited. Stieglitz? Who Abraham holds 2 victories over. Sturm is rated because he arguably defeated Stieglitz in their drawn bout. DeGale has been impressive but it would be a push for wins over Gonzalez and Periban to carry him as high as #2.
I do currently rate Chavez (#9) mainly due to the fact that Vera was riding victories over Mora and Dzinziruk into the first Chavez fight, which he arguably won. Chavez defeating Vera was enough to get him inside the 168 ratings. I would like to rank Sanchez (my #10 who I consider the real deal) who I would love to see face Chavez higher, but his caliber of opposition does not currently allow for it.
I would consider not having Cotto as champ at 160 insane. He has followed the linage set when Hopkins became the champion in defeating Trinidad and he deserves that recognition!
The champion is not always the best fighter in the division. Look at Patterson for example who was steered clear of Liston. Or Hagler waiting around for his shot. Those guys were considered the best fighters in the division but they were never champion until they beat the man.
Question: If we had Wilder or Fury challenging Wlad tomorrow and Wlad was beaten, would you consider the winner the new champion? I think most would, Cotto deserves the same credit.
No use mine:Quote:
Originally Posted by holmcall
https://boxranks.wordpress.com/
Quote:
Originally Posted by LinealRanking contenders over a continuous period of time can be more difficult than just posting a one off list of the top 10 contenders. Achievements in a division, opposition and other results become a factor.Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuit
I'd be curious to see your Super-Middle ratings. I rank Abraham at #2 at 168 behind Ward as Champion and Froch as the number one contender. He is a 2 time titlist at 168, and a former titlist at 160. Who would you rate ahead? Groves who has suffered 2 recent back to back knockout loses (controversial or not). Anthony Dirrell? Whose only victory of note is Bika. Or Andre Dirrel who has painfully inactive at this weight and his recent opposition has been limited. Stieglitz? Who Abraham holds 2 victories over. Sturm is rated because he arguably defeated Stieglitz in their drawn bout. DeGale has been impressive but it would be a push for wins over Gonzalez and Periban to carry him as high as #2.
I do currently rate Chavez (#9) mainly due to the fact that Vera was riding victories over Mora and Dzinziruk into the first Chavez fight, which he arguably won. Chavez defeating Vera was enough to get him inside the 168 ratings. I would like to rank Sanchez (my #10 who I consider the real deal) who I would love to see face Chavez higher, but his caliber of opposition does not currently allow for it.
I would consider not having Cotto as champ at 160 insane. He has followed the linage set when Hopkins became the champion in defeating Trinidad and he deserves that recognition!
The champion is not always the best fighter in the division. Look at Patterson for example who was steered clear of Liston. Or Hagler waiting around for his shot. Those guys were considered the best fighters in the division but they were never champion until they beat the man.
Question: If we had Wilder or Fury challenging Wlad tomorrow and Wlad was beaten, would you consider the winner the new champion? I think most would, Cotto deserves the same credit.
No use mine:Quote:
Originally Posted by holmcall
https://boxranks.wordpress.com/
OK
no, use mine LOL!