28 years ago today...

[Britkid]

I wasn't around back then so wouldn't know, but it definitely is possible that he was ranked #1 over Sweet Pea because when he KTFO Spinks, Pernell was coming off a loss JLR a few short months before. It was a bullshit decision, but still technically a "loss", so Sweet Pea couldn't have been #1 at the time Tyson beat Spinks.

My point was 'The Ring' did not rank fighters pound for pound before 1995...

In 1989, yeah Whitaker despite the Ramirez fix... I mean robbery (so sue me Senor Suleiman), was not pound for pound a contender for the #1 spot, but Chavez was. And some had the Kid from Culiacan ahead of Tyson, pound for pound.

[Fenster]

I wasn't around back then so wouldn't know, but it definitely is possible that he was ranked #1 over Sweet Pea because when he KTFO Spinks, Pernell was coming off a loss JLR a few short months before. It was a bullshit decision, but still technically a "loss", so Sweet Pea couldn't have been #1 at the time Tyson beat Spinks.

My point was 'The Ring' did not rank fighters pound for pound before 1995...

In 1989, yeah Whitaker despite the Ramirez fix... I mean robbery (so sue me Senor Suleiman), was not pound for pound a contender for the #1 spot, but Chavez was. And some had the Kid from Culiacan ahead of Tyson, pound for pound.

This says Tyson was Ring ranked P4P no.1

The Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings: 1989 - Boxrec Boxing Encyclopaedia

Is it a mistake?

[Beanflicker]

My point was 'The Ring' did not rank fighters pound for pound before 1995...

In 1989, yeah Whitaker despite the Ramirez fix... I mean robbery (so sue me Senor Suleiman), was not pound for pound a contender for the #1 spot, but Chavez was. And some had the Kid from Culiacan ahead of Tyson, pound for pound.

This says Tyson was Ring ranked P4P no.1

The Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings: 1989 - Boxrec Boxing Encyclopaedia

Is it a mistake?[/QUOTE]

I think it's legit, I have a bunch of Ring magazines from pre-1995 (I'm at work right now so can't double check) that I'm 99.9% certain had p4p ratings.

[Beanflicker]

I think it's legit, I have a bunch of Ring magazines from pre-1995 (I'm at work right now so can't double check) that I'm 99.9% certain had p4p ratings.

[Fenster]

I think it's legit, I have a bunch of Ring magazines from pre-1995 (I'm at work right now so can't double check) that I'm 99.9% certain had p4p ratings.

I'm pretty sure @Britkid has/had all those mags as well?

I've used those ratings to bolster my argument about several topics, over the past few years, it'll be funny if they're actually incorrect ()

[Spicoli]

95' was just the beginning of a "official" belt. Funny given how subjective and open to opinion p4p really is.

[ross]

Yeah it is just opinion but Mike Tyson at that time back then was seen as unbeatable. The other top fighters around would have all had percieved weaknesses or losses as skilled and consistent as they were they didnt have that aura of invincibility and destruction where it was possible to see Mike beating any fighter in history (at that point)

[bradlee180]

Britkid, despite all his smugness and self-assuredness is simply wrong in several of his would-be corrections. I remember Ring in '89 and Tyson was #1 Pound-for-Pound. The Great Julio Cesar Chavez was #2. Ring pound-for-pound began in 1995, my rosy red rectum!!!
And I reiterate: nobody gave WBO any respect at all at the time. Effin' guy pullin' "WAA Heavyweight Champ" out of his @$$? For $#!t's sake!!!!


And Michael Spinks? Insinuating I'm confused? I've never heard anything so disgusting, you owe me an appy-polly-loggy! His knees were so f*<ked going into the Tyson fight, he basically only went through the motions in training camp. Any serious fight-fan already knew he was finished. It was just hype and building up the gate to suggest Spinks had a chance. He had been stripped of that last title, but people still saw him as the lineal guy. His entire camp and Spinks himself knew he didn't have a prayer. Huge payday, and after the 1st knockdown, that man did go out on his shield by electing to come forward back into the lion's den rather than staying away. Respect to Michael Spinks.

I'll admit to a little brain-damage, and my memory may be a bit f*<ked nowadays, and this stuff took place 28 years ago, but I remember this, and I can swallow it when I'm wrong. Some people just can't stand to be wrong. They'll go to great lengths obsessing, picking out every little detail eventually settling on spelling mistakes if there's nothing else to be had, trying to craft the perfect post, and when they make a flub (and more than one in this case), they just cannot stand to be wrong, so go back and edit! That's revisionism!



britkid and the bradguy are just going to have to agree to disagree...

[Britkid]

I wasn't around back then so wouldn't know, but it definitely is possible that he was ranked #1 over Sweet Pea because when he KTFO Spinks, Pernell was coming off a loss JLR a few short months before. It was a bullshit decision, but still technically a "loss", so Sweet Pea couldn't have been #1 at the time Tyson beat Spinks.

My point was 'The Ring' did not rank fighters pound for pound before 1995...

In 1989, yeah Whitaker despite the Ramirez fix... I mean robbery (so sue me Senor Suleiman), was not pound for pound a contender for the #1 spot, but Chavez was. And some had the Kid from Culiacan ahead of Tyson, pound for pound.

This says Tyson was Ring ranked P4P no.1

The Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings: 1989 - Boxrec Boxing Encyclopaedia

Is it a mistake?

No. that is right, it was the first ratings after their comeback. The KO magazine did an annual poll to decide the best pound for pound fighters, but when The Ring became part of the KO/World Boxing/Boxing 87 et al group, they eventually took over the poll, with a record of the previous polls, that date back to 1980.

KO (April 1995)



The Ring (April 2007)