BoxRec's supposed Ring Magazine's Annual World Ratings are wrong...

while looking up Ratings for Marcel Cerdan, for a thread, both Monthly and Annually, I discovered that BoxRec's listings of the Annual Year End Ratings for the 1940s at least, are different to the Actual Ring Magazine's February Annual Ratings issues.

How can that be possible (?),
they do have 'some' of the names right, most often placed in the wrong numerical spot, sometimes names are missing altogether and other fighters listed and at times seemingly widely different results???

I'm surprised none of you picked up on this,

How can BoxRec 'claim' these are the Ring's Annual Year End Ratings, when they don't line up with the actual Ring Magazine's Published Annual Ratings issues?

What's the deal here, you Boxing Sleuths.

 

I looked at that and thought maybe they have mistakenly looked in the January issues Top 10, which is a monthly listing, I even looked at the December issue for the last year entry, again a monthly issue and NO, that doesn't seem to be the mistake... I even though typo's or honest ommisions (which surely has to be an honest mistake somehow), but No, the ratings are entirely different for some years...

I can't understand How or Why this would be and if it is Human Error fine, but if it is manipulation that is concerning... the Link is in the Cerdan's Ratings thread, you will see 10 plus years there from the Ring Magzine's Annual Ratings issues, which I have from 1939 - early 50's. the Ratings copies are MW to 45 and L-HW to 49...

if you open that link and in a seperate window open BoxRec's RING Magazine annual ratings you will see the differences.

Strange.

 

I don't know but I will check later today, I'm about to go out here... I actually have all and in a few year most of the Ring Magazines (as well as Boxing News) from 1938 - 56, so I will look as many as I can later.

I do know BoxRec tweaked & changed for about 3 years regularly a few years back, which can only be determined they were trying to achieve certain outcomes in their ratings... anyway for some reason those years are wrong.

did you look for yourself yet?

 

go to the Marcel Cerdan thread now on the second page, click the link I provided from my Gilroy page, it will show you both British Ratings and World Ratings published in the Ring, open it and then in a seperate window open BoxRec's RING Mag's annual ratings and see the difference for the world ratings... I'm going out now, back in a few

 

@HistoryZero26

your Post from the other Thread here below,

Its not letting me compare WW or LHW to MW.

Its possible they are "taking libertys" based on changing what fighter gets sorted in what division but otherwise keeping the comparative rankings the same. But there were enough changes where if thats the case it is not obvious. Do the boxrec magazines have extra information that would inform where fighters would be ranked if they had been ranked in another weight class? Anything that would justify these changes and passing them off as the Rings rankings at all?

In addition to "combo fighters" another possible reason for discrepancys I discovered is ring possibily not counting fights where a fighter missed weight For example boxrec says ring ranked Ernie Vigh 3rd in 1941 while the magazine has him 8th. Vigh missed weight in nearly all his MW fights so is it possible ring didn't count those catchweight fights and boxrec "took libertys" to count them. Did boxrec give him credit for those catchweight fights and just decide that would have put him at 3rd or do they have sourcing where they know he'd have been ranked 3rd?

My response - I don't know what BoxRec have done, there is No Explanations as far as I can see...

and there shouldn't be any either, because BoxRec has NO Business stating that they are the RING Magazine's - Year End Official Publicized World Ratings when they are Not!

I am home now, I will check approx half a dozen years between 1939 - 1955 and tell you if they line up or not.

 

I wish it was just Bad information, but the truth is it is more 'likely' purposeful manipulation.

 

@HistoryZero26

well I checked they are all wrong from 1940 - 1955... BoxRec's 'supposed' Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings of World Boxers, in short the Yead End WORLD Ratings.

how can they even state that if they have some how changed the Ratings, messed them up or worse manipulated them, How, Why???

But as I said before some/many of the right names are there,
though not all in the Right Numerical Rating Order that "the RING Magazine" actually published every year in their February issues...

so again some names missing, many names in the wrong position and other names put in that the RING Magazine did not place.

for validity sake on my part, here are my RING Magazine Bound Volumes collection for those years.

This content is protected

 

it was accidently discovered while looking for Marcel Cerdan's ACTUAL Ring Ratings from the Magazines themselves, which I have about 15 years worth for that period... anyway after looking and listing the RING's Annual YEAR END Ratings for World Boxers (Ring absolutely did do Year End World Ratings every year from 1924 I beleive), anyway I discovered Cerdan first showed up in the Monthly Ring Ratings in April 1944 and was Rated ANNUALLY from the same 1944 - 48 where he was World Champion until his death in 49...

so just for curiosity sake I went to BOXREC's RING Magazines Annual Ratings Page only to find that the Rating's weren't the same, discrepencies in every year and every division for the years I checked between 1940 and 1955, abot 8 years I looked at.

those pictures were merely showing I have the Ring Mags, you know for validity for the few that might try to dismiss the claims or state otherwise.

YES to your 1st Question they are not what appears in the February Annual Rating Issues, innaccurate everytime.

the POINT is BoxRec is 'Claiming' Pages & Links for RING's Annual Ratings and yet they have altered them.

ah what kind of impartial & trust worthy resourse is that?

and what right do they have to do that??

and have the gull to Claim they are Ring's annual Ratings???

more importantly WHY would they do such a thing?