Even if it only till the outcome of Pac/Hatton JMM is PFP#1

[Kev]

Totally irrelevant. We are talking Pac/ Marquez here. But you choose to interpret the data how you choose.

How is that irelevent? You are making an argument that the Ring Magazine should completely change their precedent and from henceforth decide to rate opponents purely on their subjective opinion on who won a fight regardless of official results. So what happens when they decide that a result was wrong in a fight where you didn't think it was?

If the editor of the Ring Rankings decided that actually Oscar beat Floyd Mayweather and so made him number 1 what would be your take on that?

To say its irrelevent is to completely miss the point. Either the Ring rankings should be objective and based around official fight results or else they should be free to make up the list any way they feel with no regard for objective ranking.

You are arguing for nothing more than your personal opinion, but when trying to create a legitimate, credible p4p ranking system like the Ring Magazine has for many years then personal opinion cannot be the driving force.

If however you just want your own p4p list, like Setanta or Moono then go for it, put whoever you want as number 1, Pacquaio, Marquez or Mike Arnoutis, it's entirely up to you.

All I'm saying is that all rankings are open for interpretation. There is no accurate ranking, you should be open to that. A magazine interpretation is just one of many. Individual opinions mean just as much sometimes.

The Ring rankings arn't just a magazine though as they have immense prestige in the world of boxing even taking precedent over the alphabet belts.

Especially in the last few years we've seen many fights announced as being for the Ring Championship, or the fighter being regarded by the Ring Magazine as p4p one of the best in the world.

It DOES has authority and significance and in that sense is an official ranking system, unlike for example the Boxing Talk rankings list or BBC's p4p lists which are generally shit.

Setanta for example have David Haye in their top 10, and Chris John at 8 presumably becuase they had the rights to screen his fight with Rocky Juarez.

The Ring rankings though are respected and carry weigh within the boxing world and hence cannot be based on mere personal opinion.

If you are talking about any other ranking body I couldn't care less who they have in their top 10 but the Ring magazine's rankings are supposed to restore credibility and objectivity to the question of 'who are boxing's best?'.