Those with Ring Magainze Lists: Please Help

Discussion in 'Boxing News and Discussion' started by Joonie73, Jan 9, 2004.

  1. Joonie73

    Joonie73 Guest

    Someone in another forum is arguing that Corrales is better than Marcel, de Jesus or Buchanan. Part of his argument is that Corrales was rated #5 or #6 by Ring, whereas the 3 Duran opponents I rated were ever rated as high. Could anyone tell me how high Marcel, de Jesus or Buchanan ever hit on the Ring magazine pound-per-pound rankings?

  2. Rebel

    Rebel Admin

    It sounds like you're dealing with a real moron. I don't recall The Ring rating Corrales that highly. Based on what? His destruction of chinny Gainer and Manfraudy? These days, he's barely even top 3 in his division.

    I'll look at my Ring Ratings book. I'm not sure if they have P4P ratings for each year. I'll let you know tomorrow bro.
  3. ericjw

    ericjw Member

    I'm not sure about The Ring, but I know that one magazine did have Corrales at #5 P4P. The rankings in these magazines don't differ much (or maybe at all).
  4. Tam-Tam

    Tam-Tam Member

    Highest I ever remember him being mentioned was #7, but thats only through hearsay, he might of been higher or lower. Its crazy that people actually care what The Ring thinks anywho.

    Afterall, Corrie Sanders was the #2 heavyweight in the world after stopping Timber Klitschko.
  5. Valdosta

    Valdosta Boxing Fanatics Moderator

    No point of looking for Corrales's ranking. March 2001 edition he was #5. That don;t make him better than those other guys but the guy is correct about Corrales's ranking.
  6. Rebel

    Rebel Admin

    Good points.

    The Ring P4P ratings are merely opinion. I value their divisional rankings much more than their p4p lists. Though their divisional rankings are also subjective, I think they serve as a useful guide. It's better than nothing.

    [ January 09, 2004, 11:53 PM: Message edited by: Rebelde ]
  7. Valdosta

    Valdosta Boxing Fanatics Moderator

    I haven't bought 1 in a while but it seems to me they underrate a lot of good foreign fighters.
  8. Rebel

    Rebel Admin

    They aren't idiots bro. Attempting to accurately put together divisional rankings can be a very difficult task. Therefore, they use many foreign correspondents to help them with their divisional rankings. What do they have to gain from ranking a non-deserving fighter in their top 10? I'm sure a bit of bias exists in every non-computerized ranking system, but I think they're the best around. They're not perfect, subjective rankings are never void of flaws, but they serve they're a good guide IMO.

    [ January 10, 2004, 12:01 AM: Message edited by: Rebelde ]
  9. Valdosta

    Valdosta Boxing Fanatics Moderator

    I have some old one's so I can give some examples later. In general they underrate some of the smaller foreign guys.
  10. Rebel

    Rebel Admin

    Like I said, no one is perfect.

    Would you mind posting a few examples earlier? Maybe it's not so much that they were underrating them but more the fact that those fighters hadn't done anything to merit a top 10 ranking yet.

    For example, Joe Blow may currently be a top 5 featherweight, but he hasn't even proven to be top 10 yet. He may land a big win this year thus earning himself a spot in their top 10, confirming he was that good all along.

    [ January 10, 2004, 12:07 AM: Message edited by: Rebelde ]
  11. Valdosta

    Valdosta Boxing Fanatics Moderator

    2001 (Has Rahman on the front)

    Spadafora, Hatekeyama and Manfredy all above Grigorian (who was a good fighter back then). None of the above where really any more proven than he was.

    Tim Austin and Ayala ahead of Sahaprom at Bantamweight.

    Yosam Choi and Pichit Siriwat ahead of rosendo Alvarez. [​IMG]

    That's not really being picky. Just pointing out a few things that look glaringly wrong to me. That's just 1 magazine.
  12. Joonie73

    Joonie73 Guest

    I think "moron" is an understatement. He's trying to argue that Floyd is better than Duran overall.

    Let me know if you find out anything in regard to the rankings of de Jesus, Buchanan & Marcel. Thanks.

  13. Rebel

    Rebel Admin

    Most of those are debatable.

    Grigorian should've been ahead of Manfredy but at least he was in their top 10 considering that he hid in Europe for most his career.

    I don't know what issue you're looking at but maybe Alvarez hadn't fought Lopez at the time those rankings were out?

    Again, keep in mind that these rankings are all subjective. For the most part, their top 10 fighters are the top 10 in boxing or close to it. As soon as a new fighter scores an upset or a very good win, they're quick to rank him in their next issue. Of course, the order of their rankings will vary from what you and other fans feel. It's impossible to come up with accurate top 10 divisional rankings. There is no such thing.

    [ January 10, 2004, 12:56 AM: Message edited by: Rebelde ]
  14. Valdosta

    Valdosta Boxing Fanatics Moderator

    1 of 3 is debateable. Even so it's wrong to rate a guy like Austin in front of Shaprom when neither exactly fought stellar compeition. Sahaprom was a longer reigning champion though. Sahaprom is/was more active also.
  15. Rebel

    Rebel Admin

    It then comes down to preference of style, personal assessment of their skills, personal bias, etc.. But they weren't the only ones who felt Austin was the #1 bantamweight in the world during that time.

    [ January 10, 2004, 01:02 AM: Message edited by: Rebelde ]
  16. Valdosta

    Valdosta Boxing Fanatics Moderator

    You should have left that part out because that's my whole point [​IMG]
  17. Rebel

    Rebel Admin

    I didn't accuse the Ring of using personal bias as the sole means for putting their rankings together. I included that as one of several factors that "may" have influenced the order of their rankings. No system is void of some sort of bias. Are you insinuating that anyone that ranked Austin ahead of Sahaprom was biased? [​IMG] That issue was always debatable.

    Now if The Ring were to rank Travis Simms ahead of Winky Wright in their next issue, I'd have to question that ranking. LOL

    [ January 10, 2004, 01:06 AM: Message edited by: Rebelde ]
  18. Michael Matos

    Michael Matos Member

    Ring magaizine never rated and or listed a top 10 P4P until sometime in the late 80's to early 90's. KO magazine was the first publication to begin a top P4P list, something they called the dynamite dozen and it predated the Rings effort by 2-3 years.

    So you can call off that search Rebel. I've said many times that P4P rankings are a fairly new phenomenom. The popularity of these P4P rankings and lists has risen immeasurably since the proliferation of Organizational bodies.

    Sure Ray Robinson was called the "greatest pound for pound fighter" however when he was introduced as that it was with the addition of "whoever lived". Do soem research and find out when that phrase was first used in desrcibing Ray Robinson and you will find that it doesn't correspond to the highlights of his career. I've asked many an old timer whenb was the first time they heard Ray Robinson described as that. I even asked Eddie Futch that. Eddie wasn't quite sure, although he was of the opinon that it began to become very popular when Don Emblaum promoted a couple of Rays fights towards the end of his career and became universal when he received the Worlds Greatest Fighter Trophy at his reitrement party at Madison Square Garden in December 1965.
  19. Michael Matos

    Michael Matos Member

    There were no Ring Magazine P4P ratings back then. I gave the history in another post. I'm surprised that you would even assume they did.
  20. Rebel

    Rebel Admin

    That came to mind before I even looked through my Ratings book. I figured the Ring didn't begin posting their P4P ratings until the mid 80s-early 90s. I was aware of the inception of the term "pound for pound." Thanks.

    [ January 10, 2004, 10:02 AM: Message edited by: Rebelde ]

Share This Page