The RING's Bizarre Rankings

Post Reply
ElJefe
Middleweight
Posts: 2545
Joined: 22 Apr 2014, 13:13

The RING's Bizarre Rankings

Post by ElJefe »

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

Post by tiny_acres »

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.
Chepppaaa
Super Middleweight
Posts: 2626
Joined: 01 Jun 2013, 19:32

Re: The RING's Bizarre Rankings

Post by Chepppaaa »

ring a joke
Freedom2013
Super Middleweight
Posts: 3879
Joined: 26 Nov 2012, 11:35

Re: The RING's Bizarre Rankings

Post by Freedom2013 »

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.
northern
Super Middleweight
Posts: 486
Joined: 28 May 2013, 15:35

Re: The RING's Bizarre Rankings

Post by northern »

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.
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)
Purse Bid Shakedown
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 296
Joined: 11 Oct 2011, 09:49

Re: The RING's Bizarre Rankings

Post by Purse Bid Shakedown »

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.
Horse
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 22334
Joined: 03 Jul 2005, 17:09

Re: The RING's Bizarre Rankings

Post by Horse »

Brook has one world class win: Porter.

He should not be No. 1.

Ridiculous ranking.
Ilya Muromets
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4243
Joined: 06 Nov 2009, 15:02

Re: The RING's Bizarre Rankings

Post by Ilya Muromets »

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.
SFW
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1246
Joined: 11 Sep 2009, 11:04

Re: The RING's Bizarre Rankings

Post by SFW »

Horse wrote:Brook has one world class win: Porter.

He should not be No. 1.

Ridiculous ranking.
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.
MachoTime
Middleweight
Posts: 1420
Joined: 18 Nov 2013, 02:13

Re: The RING's Bizarre Rankings

Post by MachoTime »

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.
Lennox
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1083
Joined: 26 May 2002, 12:35

Re: The RING's Bizarre Rankings

Post by Lennox »

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
Post Reply