Greatest P4P has been around 4ever. Good reason...Sugar Ray Robinson, long considered the greatest P4P although he almost won the Light Heavy before falling from the heat and a much bigger man, would get killed against a prime heavyweight, but it doesn't diminish his extraordinary skills, nor does it make him less a fighter than that particular heavy, who could be a plodding moronic drooling idiot, but has him by 125 lbs.
I like it.
You would. And no it hasn't been around "forever". When did Ring mag. invent the stupid thing, in the 1980's or 90's or something?
It was around long before. Ring just 'officialized' it. Boxing historians fans alike have been intrigued by this for a century or better. Why say "you would?" Is this that big of a deal?
I was pretty close. Wikipedia:
" Since 1990, The Ring magazine has maintained a pound for pound rank of fighters"
Show me a reference to "pound for pound rankings" anyplace prior to 1990.
"Why say "you would?" Is this that big of a deal?"
Humorless too, huh?
Re: Sergey Kovalev's pound-for-pound ratings drop from The RING?
You would. And no it hasn't been around "forever". When did Ring mag. invent the stupid thing, in the 1980's or 90's or something?
It was around long before. Ring just 'officialized' it. Boxing historians fans alike have been intrigued by this for a century or better. Why say "you would?" Is this that big of a deal?
I was pretty close. Wikipedia:
" Since 1990, The Ring magazine has maintained a pound for pound rank of fighters"
Show me a reference to "pound for pound rankings" anyplace prior to 1990.
"Why say "you would?" Is this that big of a deal?"
Humorless too, huh?
1 - I'm not just talking about Ring Magazine
2 - I have a sense of humor, which is why I tolerate ignoramuses such as yourself
3 - Who the f$ck gives a sh#t?
Enlightened-One wrote: ↑12 Mar 2018, 05:52
The RING’s ratings panel almost unanimously voted to significantly drop Sergey Kovalev in their mythical pound-for-pound rankings from 4th place to 9th, after his “sluggish” performance against the unrated and unheralded Igor Mikhalkin.
It has been twenty months since Krusher has scored a victory over a legitimate world class opponent, which was his lacklustre effort against Isaac Chilemba, who was rated 7th at the time by The RING.
Thoughts?
I get angry whenever I hear anything about "pound for pound ratings". The whole thing started out as a space filler in the trashy Ring magazine. It is nothing more than a list of some jerk's favorite boxers, usually favoring the little guys. The otherwise excellent BoxRec (except for their terrible new color scheme and layout) presents it as if it is some sort of official and objective statistic.
Jeff Horn is rated 9th in the BoxRec pound-for-pound rankings.
George Groves is rated above Sergey Kovalev.
Luis Nery is rated above Oleksandr Usyk.
Re: Sergey Kovalev's pound-for-pound ratings drop from The RING?
Enlightened-One wrote: ↑12 Mar 2018, 05:52
The RING’s ratings panel almost unanimously voted to significantly drop Sergey Kovalev in their mythical pound-for-pound rankings from 4th place to 9th, after his “sluggish” performance against the unrated and unheralded Igor Mikhalkin.
It has been twenty months since Krusher has scored a victory over a legitimate world class opponent, which was his lacklustre effort against Isaac Chilemba, who was rated 7th at the time by The RING.
Thoughts?
I get angry whenever I hear anything about "pound for pound ratings". The whole thing started out as a space filler in the trashy Ring magazine. It is nothing more than a list of some jerk's favorite boxers, usually favoring the little guys. The otherwise excellent BoxRec (except for their terrible new color scheme and layout) presents it as if it is some sort of official and objective statistic.
Jeff Horn is rated 9th in the BoxRec pound-for-pound rankings.
George Groves is rated above Sergey Kovalev.
Luis Nery is rated above Oleksandr Usyk.
I'm telling you. TBRB is the only non-biased 'reliable' one.
Re: Sergey Kovalev's pound-for-pound ratings drop from The RING?
oogiebe wrote: ↑13 Mar 2018, 14:51
It was around long before. Ring just 'officialized' it. Boxing historians fans alike have been intrigued by this for a century or better. Why say "you would?" Is this that big of a deal?
I was pretty close. Wikipedia:
" Since 1990, The Ring magazine has maintained a pound for pound rank of fighters"
Show me a reference to "pound for pound rankings" anyplace prior to 1990.
"Why say "you would?" Is this that big of a deal?"
Humorless too, huh?
1 - I'm not just talking about Ring Magazine
2 - I have a sense of humor, which is why I tolerate ignoramuses such as yourself
3 - Who the f$ck gives a sh#t?
I have yet to meet the most totally humorless person who says he doesn't have a sense of humor. Anyway, this annoying little fellow sounds like he's about ten years old. Is there an Ignore function here? This will be the first one I've put on it if there is. I'll have my staff look into it...
Re: Sergey Kovalev's pound-for-pound ratings drop from The RING?
" Since 1990, The Ring magazine has maintained a pound for pound rank of fighters"
Show me a reference to "pound for pound rankings" anyplace prior to 1990.
"Why say "you would?" Is this that big of a deal?"
Humorless too, huh?
1 - I'm not just talking about Ring Magazine
2 - I have a sense of humor, which is why I tolerate ignoramuses such as yourself
3 - Who the f$ck gives a sh#t?
I have yet to meet the most totally humorless person who says he doesn't have a sense of humor. Anyway, this annoying little fellow sounds like he's about ten years old. Is there an Ignore function here? This will be the first one I've put on it if there is. I'll have my staff look into it...
LOL! I'm sure I'm a couple of decades older than you...
Re: Sergey Kovalev's pound-for-pound ratings drop from The RING?
1 - I'm not just talking about Ring Magazine
2 - I have a sense of humor, which is why I tolerate ignoramuses such as yourself
3 - Who the f$ck gives a sh#t?
I have yet to meet the most totally humorless person who says he doesn't have a sense of humor. Anyway, this annoying little fellow sounds like he's about ten years old. Is there an Ignore function here? This will be the first one I've put on it if there is. I'll have my staff look into it...
LOL! I'm sure I'm a couple of decades older than you...
I have no idea what u r physically. I can only adjudicate your mental age, approx. 10.
OK, what does it mean "add foe"? Is that equivalent to Ignore or what?
Re: Sergey Kovalev's pound-for-pound ratings drop from The RING?
I have yet to meet the most totally humorless person who says he doesn't have a sense of humor. Anyway, this annoying little fellow sounds like he's about ten years old. Is there an Ignore function here? This will be the first one I've put on it if there is. I'll have my staff look into it...
LOL! I'm sure I'm a couple of decades older than you...
I have no idea what u r physically. I can only adjudicate your mental age, approx. 10.
OK, what does it mean "add foe"? Is that equivalent to Ignore or what?
I hate girls like you.
Re: Sergey Kovalev's pound-for-pound ratings drop from The RING?
See that guy, I did his kid's Christening last week!
Re: Sergey Kovalev's pound-for-pound ratings drop from The RING?
Posted: 15 Mar 2018, 00:06
by Ilya Muromets
Enlightened-One wrote: ↑12 Mar 2018, 05:52
The RING’s ratings panel almost unanimously voted to significantly drop Sergey Kovalev in their mythical pound-for-pound rankings from 4th place to 9th, after his “sluggish” performance against the unrated and unheralded Igor Mikhalkin.
It has been twenty months since Krusher has scored a victory over a legitimate world class opponent, which was his lacklustre effort against Isaac Chilemba, who was rated 7th at the time by The RING.
Thoughts?
My thoughts on Ring magazine remain the same as ever. It makes good toilet paper, except for the covers which are too slick.
Re: Sergey Kovalev's pound-for-pound ratings drop from The RING?
Posted: 15 Mar 2018, 06:36
by Heretic
Is Kovalev fighting for golden boy?
Is it surprise that golden boys boxing magazine drops Kovalev down when they got the chance to do so without loosing too much credibility?
