How credible is Ring Magazine and it's ratings?

[holmcall]

And I greatly appreciate your comment!

[Mr140]

Well the ring ratings are what they are and that is jst like all the rest.

[Galaxy]

My opinion is divisional rankings should be based on what a fighter has done in that division! Montiel although a great fighter has not really achieved much at 118 yet. On a pound 4 pound basis I would definitely have him above guys like Moreno & Hasegawa. But I think it is unfair to have him above these guys who have achieved much more & fought for a longer time at that weight.

I'm not criticizing your ratings Holmcall, just wondering why you don't like The Rings which every divisional rating is based on work done at that weight. Whereas I see Fightnews has Montiel at #1 at 118 when seriously what has achieved there? I know he has the potentil to but until he proves it he doesn't necessarily deserve it imo.

I don't see a difference between a top 10 or top 15 or top 20. Most guys usually have a few guys just outside the top 10 & as you said from there its just subjective.

I agree that knowledgable posters may know just as much as the guys from The Ring, but does that make there rankings any worse than yours or mine?

Imo The Rings divisional rankings are usually pretty spot on, a few of us on here do The SaddoBoxing Official Ratings & its fun, a lot of the decisions are made by votes from the division managers, which imo is the fairest way rather than just having one guy calling the shots...

[holmcall]

Like I said, boxing is a subjective business. I will say one thing that is dead on, however, and that's when you make a list of any kind (P4P, Rankings, 10 most exciting, etc), you are going to be taken apart. No one can ever agree on a list. The best you can expect a few props.

Peace.