Are Ring rankings still the gold standard?

[ykdadamaja]

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.

Half of the guys in the top 15 shouldn't even be in the top 100. But they are...

[holmcall]

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.

[erics44]

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.

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

[SlimTrae]

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.

[holmcall]

I'll go with my own. Some group called the "Trans Gendered" or something like that puts out rankings that are pure puke.

[SlimTrae]

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.

[Rantcatrat]

The Transnational Boxing Rankings are supposed to be the best. Find them here.

[IamInuit]

The Transnational Boxing Rankings are supposed to be the best. Find them here.

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.

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.

[holmcall]

The Transnational Boxing Rankings are supposed to be the best. Find them here.

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.