BoxRec

- Looks like a sorta Bill James approach to ranking fighters instead of Baseball players by using Ring's 100 years of Fight Division rankings as a baseline.

I'm rather dubious of that Ring Fishnet crew who horribly botched the now heavily derided Floyd Mayweather Olympic Drug Testing Testing TUE standards for boxing, but 'tis what it 'tis, a brand new Ring History perspective enhanced by what I assume to be a new algorithm to correlate all the details.

https://www.ringtv.com/634216-to-be-the ... gs-100-91/



Will Sugar Ray Robinson retain his traditional all time Greatest status, or could Harry Greb sucker punch him off of his throne? What of Ali? Could he withstand a Fury Blubber charge after being KOed by Rocky in the first computerized tourney?

From what I’ve just read it’s a load of shite. Tarver ahead of Basillio, Benitez, Mcallum, calzaghe and Toney.

Ridiculous.

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote: ↑03 Feb 2022, 10:03 - Looks like a sorta Bill James approach to ranking fighters instead of Baseball players by using Ring's 100 years of Fight Division rankings as a baseline.

I'm rather dubious of that Ring Fishnet crew who horribly botched the now heavily derided Floyd Mayweather Olympic Drug Testing Testing TUE standards for boxing, but 'tis what it 'tis, a brand new Ring History perspective enhanced by what I assume to be a new algorithm to correlate all the details.

https://www.ringtv.com/634216-to-be-the ... gs-100-91/



Will Sugar Ray Robinson retain his traditional all time Greatest status, or could Harry Greb sucker punch him off of his throne? What of Ali? Could he withstand a Fury Blubber charge after being KOed by Rocky in the first computerized tourney?

Thanks for this. This is right up my street. I was an avid Ring buyer until Golden Boy took over and have stopped completely since they overhauled their ratings policy. This is interesting though. Not that I can take it seriously as a yardstick. You'd think that The Ring would realise through the efforts of Boxrec that formulas and stats don't work.

What I like is the listing of a boxer's top ten opponents - something I feel that needs to be highlighted in today's boxers, possibly as much as their W-L-D ring record. The Ring once used this comparison for Orlando Canizales and Virgil Hill's 'record' world championship reigns and those of Manuel Ortiz and Bob Foster respectively. The former didn't come off well.

I might have missed it but they don't seem to acknowledge that an era with more weight divisions has more diluted top tens ie go back to Monzon's reign and you have just one divsion between middleweight and heavyweight. Nowadays there are three. Years ago I spent a few rainy afternoons picking a few boxers and did what the Ring have done here. One was Joe Calzaghe and my gut instinct but hazy memory tells me they are wrong on his fight with Eubank. After all, Eubank hadn't fought as a super-middleweight for two years and had two ten rounders at light-heavyweight in the meantime. Anyway, a commendable undertaking by The Ring for the work involved but surely they can see its flaws.

No sir. Calzaghe was ranked 8th and Eubank 9th in the Jan 98 issue. The next issue (welter skelter cover), Calzaghe moves up off the result. You're right about Eubank prior to the fight but he was there nonetheless.

Wee Tommy wrote: ↑03 Feb 2022, 12:29 From what I’ve just read it’s a load of shite. Tarver ahead of Basillio, Benitez, Mcallum, calzaghe and Toney.

Ridiculous.

lol, weird guy for them to ball suck

Wee Tommy wrote: ↑03 Feb 2022, 12:29 From what I’ve just read it’s a load of shite. Tarver ahead of Basillio, Benitez, Mcallum, calzaghe and Toney.

Ridiculous.

James Toney isn't one of the best 100 boxers ever.

595179 wrote: ↑04 Feb 2022, 18:08

Wee Tommy wrote: ↑03 Feb 2022, 12:29 From what I’ve just read it’s a load of shite. Tarver ahead of Basillio, Benitez, Mcallum, calzaghe and Toney.

Ridiculous.

James Toney isn't one of the best 100 boxers ever.

He’s a lot closer than Antonio Tarver!

Wee Tommy wrote: ↑04 Feb 2022, 18:11

595179 wrote: ↑04 Feb 2022, 18:08

Wee Tommy wrote: ↑03 Feb 2022, 12:29 From what I’ve just read it’s a load of shite. Tarver ahead of Basillio, Benitez, Mcallum, calzaghe and Toney.

Ridiculous.

James Toney isn't one of the best 100 boxers ever.

He’s a lot closer than Antonio Tarver!

Tarver ain't either.

595179 wrote: ↑04 Feb 2022, 18:15

Wee Tommy wrote: ↑04 Feb 2022, 18:11

595179 wrote: ↑04 Feb 2022, 18:08

James Toney isn't one of the best 100 boxers ever.

He’s a lot closer than Antonio Tarver!

Tarver ain't either.

I fuckin know that that’s what I’m saying

Wee Tommy wrote: ↑04 Feb 2022, 18:43

595179 wrote: ↑04 Feb 2022, 18:15

Wee Tommy wrote: ↑04 Feb 2022, 18:11

He’s a lot closer than Antonio Tarver!

Tarver ain't either.

I fuckin know that that’s what I’m saying

Calm yourself down darling, you'll give yourself an aneurism.

595179 wrote: ↑04 Feb 2022, 19:00

Wee Tommy wrote: ↑04 Feb 2022, 18:43

595179 wrote: ↑04 Feb 2022, 18:15

Tarver ain't either.

I fuckin know that that’s what I’m saying

Calm yourself down darling, you'll give yourself an aneurism.

Wee Tommy wrote: ↑04 Feb 2022, 20:09

595179 wrote: ↑04 Feb 2022, 19:00

Wee Tommy wrote: ↑04 Feb 2022, 18:43

I fuckin know that that’s what I’m saying

Calm yourself down darling, you'll give yourself an aneurism.

Don't put yourself down, you're not a clown, you just don't know much about boxing.

No surprise Robinson is still number one but their number 2 and 3 were a surprise to me.

I’m guessing the number 6 and 12 will cause some eyebrows to be raised.

orbtastic wrote: ↑07 Feb 2022, 10:13 No surprise Robinson is still number one but their number 2 and 3 were a surprise to me.

I’m guessing the number 6 and 12 will cause some eyebrows to be raised.

Can you tell us who they have in those positions?

2 Louis
3 Ali
6 Mayweather
11 Chavez (bit of a surprise for me but not opposed to it)
12 Hopkins (biggest joke for me)
17 Armstrong (see Hopkins, how on earth can you have Hopkins above him)
37 Alvarez
54 Marciano
58 Wlad (lolololol)
75 Hamed is sure to upset some
76 Greb. Wow
79 Frazier
82 Curry
88 Tarver
90 Crawford

No Ricardo Lopez (they go on to explain why, some convoluted formula, blah, weight divisions weighted blah, ring ratings missing, KO Magazine blah)

They have to make sure contemporary popular guys get high on the list.

Worst list I’ve ever seen. Elmers is better.

where was pacman?

curry shouldnt be touching a top 100 list for me, let alone at 82 (although then you see wlad at 58, 21 spots ahead of smoking joe, and think maybe its not so bad lol)

orbtastic wrote: ↑08 Feb 2022, 14:24 2 Louis
3 Ali
6 Mayweather
11 Chavez (bit of a surprise for me but not opposed to it)
12 Hopkins (biggest joke for me)
17 Armstrong (see Hopkins, how on earth can you have Hopkins above him)
37 Alvarez
54 Marciano
58 Wlad (lolololol)
75 Hamed is sure to upset some
76 Greb. Wow
79 Frazier
82 Curry
88 Tarver
90 Crawford

No Ricardo Lopez (they go on to explain why, some convoluted formula, blah, weight divisions weighted blah, ring ratings missing, KO Magazine blah)

That one really stands out like a sore thumb.
Marciano above Frazier is crazy to me among the others on the list.

Can someone share the full list? I am unable to find it online

lol maybe that high placement of tarver was to help justify the hopkins rating

Horrific list

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote: ↑03 Feb 2022, 10:03 - Looks like a sorta Bill James approach to ranking fighters instead of Baseball players by using Ring's 100 years of Fight Division rankings as a baseline.

I'm rather dubious of that Ring Fishnet crew who horribly botched the now heavily derided Floyd Mayweather Olympic Drug Testing Testing TUE standards for boxing, but 'tis what it 'tis, a brand new Ring History perspective enhanced by what I assume to be a new algorithm to correlate all the details.

https://www.ringtv.com/634216-to-be-the ... gs-100-91/



Will Sugar Ray Robinson retain his traditional all time Greatest status, or could Harry Greb sucker punch him off of his throne? What of Ali? Could he withstand a Fury Blubber charge after being KOed by Rocky in the first computerized tourney?

Hi Broughton, hope you're well my friend. Thanks for posting. I might buy it just to be able to whine. These things are always fun.

Hope all is well with you.

The whole issue is worth a read. It’s not just the listings. It’s got some decent articles looking back over the history. I enjoyed it anyway.

Wee Tommy wrote: ↑08 Feb 2022, 20:05 Worst list I’ve ever seen. Elmers is better.

I agree it is the worst I have ever seen as well.

Ezzard wrote: ↑08 Feb 2022, 17:16 They have to make sure contemporary popular guys get high on the list.

At first I thought they were just picking names out of hat. Greb wasn't picked until they got to 76 and so on.
But maybe you are all right, they were just catering to modern fans, with the occasional fighter from way back just to make it look like they had actually done some research.