Ring Magazine's To be the Best Top 100 Ranking

Duran should be higher than Pac or Floyd imo.

Looks like a list to get controversy. A bit like the playboy cover that had gay men on the cover.

Do they still print? Or is this digital only? I've not seen the mag in shops for years.

 

Harry Greb 76 lmao

This list is just clickbait.

 

Maywether top 10 gtfo

 

Wait... WHAT?!

Really?

 

No way in hell a guy who ran from the best available opposition, and practiced very selective matchmaking at Welter is #6

 

facts

 

It's a worthless list to be honest as we don't know how it is calculated.

Yeah having Floyd even near the top 10 is joke considering the depth of other peoples resume's

 

Thanks @Hanz Cholo really enjoyed reading those!

 

PBF has a great resume and was extremely dominant he earned his ranking on that list.

 

Jofre came in at #39, while Olivares came in at #68.

 

Sure Rummy, he came in at #12. His record versus ring-rated opposition was 20-6-2 (8 KOs), with 1 NC. It says his first Ring rating came in June of 1992 and his last was in December 2016.

 

Any list that has Floyd in top 10 and/or above Pac is a complete joke list.

 

here is the introduction of the article to help shed some light of how this list was populated / calculated . . . 97 years of data collected by the Ring Magazine.

For those of you to lazy to read the intro skip down to the last paragraph that I have emboldened for the formula & criteria they used to populate this list.

(article starts below dashed line below)
————————————————————-
FOR 97 OF ITS 100 YEARS, THE RING HAS RANKED THE TOP FIGHTERS IN THE GAME – HERE, THROUGH THE LENS OF THOSE LISTS, WE LOOK BACK AT THE 100 MEN WHO PERSONIFIED THE PHRASE “TO BE THE BEST, YOU HAVE TO BEAT THE BEST”

This is not a ranking of the 100 best fighters in a century of The Ring Magazine.

Plenty will read it that way, skimming right past this and diving in to let the debates begin. Most of the fighters one would expect to see on such a list are here, so a little misunderstanding is inevitable.

For those who take a moment to understand what this is, versus what it’s not, there should be plenty to enjoy and it will alleviate some reader anxiety (No Sandy Saddler?! Where is George Foreman?!). This is a study of fighter performance using The Ring’s ratings – from the divisional rankings’ debut within the pages of the February 1925 issue to today – as the central gauge.

Several years ago, research began on a project for The Ring’s centennial. The idea was to treat the rankings almost like seeds in a never-ending tournament. On the occasion of The Ring’s 100th birthday, what can those rankings tell us about who beat whom and when they beat them?

The Ring has published top 10 divisional rankings for 97 years. Using a formula focused on where an opponent was ranked in the print issue prior to a specific fight, and based on official outcomes, these are the top 100 fighters calculated by their performances vs. Ring-rated opposition.

——————————————————————
—-end Quote / Excerpt from the The Article—-

 

more from the article
to how this list was populated & why those who actually beat some of the fighters ranked ahead of them are ranked below them.

———-plz read below —————————-

The Ring has published top 10 divisional rankings for 97 years. Using a formula focused on where an opponent was ranked in the print issue prior to a specific fight, and based on official outcomes, these are the top 100 fighters calculated by their performances vs. Ring-rated opposition.

 

Cheers for the information.

I think a lot of these kind of lists will be flawed. I prefer the ones Rummy did per divison and by decade as although I disagreed with a placement or two this one seems like it's designed to be a bit more controversial to garner some interest from the fans.

I don't know what there circulation is these days but if Playboy is putting gay men on the covers to cause smoke then I don't see this being much different.