Page 1 of 1
The RING's Bizarre Rankings
Posted: 01 Jan 2016, 18:23
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)
Re: The RING's Bizarre Rankings
Posted: 01 Jan 2016, 19:05
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.
Re: The RING's Bizarre Rankings
Posted: 01 Jan 2016, 19:56
by Chepppaaa
ring a joke
Re: The RING's Bizarre Rankings
Posted: 01 Jan 2016, 20:31
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.
Re: The RING's Bizarre Rankings
Posted: 01 Jan 2016, 21:22
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)
Re: The RING's Bizarre Rankings
Posted: 02 Jan 2016, 01:22
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.
Re: The RING's Bizarre Rankings
Posted: 02 Jan 2016, 09:16
by Horse
Brook has one world class win: Porter.
He should not be No. 1.
Ridiculous ranking.
Re: The RING's Bizarre Rankings
Posted: 02 Jan 2016, 13:16
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.
Re: The RING's Bizarre Rankings
Posted: 02 Jan 2016, 13:56
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.
Re: The RING's Bizarre Rankings
Posted: 02 Jan 2016, 14:23
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.
Re: The RING's Bizarre Rankings
Posted: 02 Jan 2016, 17:49
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