The RING's Bizarre Rankings
The RING's Bizarre Rankings
Why do the RING have Tim Bradley ranked below Brook (#1) and Khan (#3) in their welterweight rankings but above both in the P4P rankings??? (Bradley is #10, Brook and Khan are not ranked)
-
tiny_acres
- Middleweight
- Posts: 9463
- Joined: 17 Feb 2014, 14:43
Re: The RING's Bizarre Rankings
Trying to figure out anyone's ratings is a guaranteed way to drive you to insanity. It is easier to look at them and laugh.
Re: The RING's Bizarre Rankings
ring a joke
-
Freedom2013
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 3879
- Joined: 26 Nov 2012, 11:35
Re: The RING's Bizarre Rankings
It's bizarre having Andre Ward as P4P #4 when he hasn't fought a decent opponent in several years, and has had only one fight (against someone coming off two losses!) in the past two years.
Re: The RING's Bizarre Rankings
the sad thing is you hit the nail right on the head there, the people behind the big titles decided who to put in their top ten (e.g Khan ranked #1 with the WBC but ranked #3 or #4 with the IBF and lower with the WBO and WBA)tiny_acres wrote:Trying to figure out anyone's ratings is a guaranteed way to drive you to insanity. It is easier to look at them and laugh.
-
Purse Bid Shakedown
- Light Heavyweight
- Posts: 296
- Joined: 11 Oct 2011, 09:49
Re: The RING's Bizarre Rankings
That's not necessarily wrong in principle, since one guy may carry a lot of p4p points from a lower division. However ranking Brook #1 at welter with his thin resume just seems wrong regardless of Bradley.
Re: The RING's Bizarre Rankings
Brook has one world class win: Porter.
He should not be No. 1.
Ridiculous ranking.
He should not be No. 1.
Ridiculous ranking.
-
Ilya Muromets
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 4243
- Joined: 06 Nov 2009, 15:02
Re: The RING's Bizarre Rankings
Ring has been irrelevant trash for many years. I am amazed that in this day of instant internet info, especially BoxRec right here, it is still in business. It must be only people who are computer illiterate who buy it.
Re: The RING's Bizarre Rankings
Yes criminally bad ranking there. Even that single top flight win is debatable, given the dozens of times Brook held and hugged just to squeak a win out.Horse wrote:Brook has one world class win: Porter.
He should not be No. 1.
Ridiculous ranking.
Re: The RING's Bizarre Rankings
Ring Magazine is owned by Golden Boy. I'd say it's probable that there is hint's of bias. So therefore Ring Magazine is useless.
Re: The RING's Bizarre Rankings
These are the best ratings if you think the best way to rate is man that beat the man etc.
The numbers in the last twenty fights reflect the before the fight ranking of the opponent beat. If it just says W then the opponent was ranked in the top 100 at the time of the fight.
Exposes quite a lot of truth.
www.premierboxingorganisation.com
The numbers in the last twenty fights reflect the before the fight ranking of the opponent beat. If it just says W then the opponent was ranked in the top 100 at the time of the fight.
Exposes quite a lot of truth.
www.premierboxingorganisation.com