http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2010/dec/16/dereck-chisora-klitschko-david-haye No edition of The ring would be complete without a list. This month it is their 100 best fighters in the world from the previous 12 months. The top six are: Pacquiao, predictably, followed by Mayweather (ditto), Márquez, Donaire, Paul Williams (obviously before he was kayoed in one by Sergio Martinez), and, er, Martínez. The anti-European bias in many of these lists, not just in The Ring, is hilarious. David Haye, the WBA heavyweight champion, can't even crack the top 50. In fact, only a handful of fighters from this side of the Atlantic make the first half: Wlad K is highest at 9, followed by Vitali K at 13, Kessler (retired) 27, Khan 28, Froch 33, Abraham 42, and Adamek 48. According to The Ring, Miguel Cotto (11), beaten to a pulp by Pacquaio, has had a much better year than Haye (56). Cotto's win over an over-hyped and hobbling Yuri Foreman was, apparently, enough to restore his reputation. Chad Dawson (21), who lost to Jean Pascal (14), is 14 places above Froch - the only man to beat Pascal. Ricky Burns (97) who has rebuilt his career and is now a credible world champion at super-featherweight, is 19 places below Paulie Malignaggi, who has got no title and was thrashed by Khan. You can guarantee that if Kell Brook, Matthew Macklin, Matthew Hatton and James DeGale - all within reach of a world title - were fighting in America, they would be on that list. Unbeaten Nathan Cleverly, who should soon be a world champion, sneaks in at 86.
How the **** is Adamek above Haye? :huh These rankings are always ****. Why even try and do a top 100 p4p list?
Adamek should be above Haye. On the last 12 months performances he's had four fights - two of them are decent wins, especially Fatty Arbuckle. Haye fought an old ass Ruiz and a flat out bum in Harrison. At least they say it how it really is about that dirty Millwall ****.
I actually agree that Adamek deserves to be higher than Haye anyway based on this year. The Audley event doesn't count for much and Ruiz was pretty much finished and would have been ranked top 20 at best. Adamek has a win over Arreola who would've been about 15th and a few other pointless fights added. The belt means nothing for me so that one's right. I don't really see the point in lists like this anyway. 100 is far too many to try and rank and you're always gonna upset a few people. Not sure what it's based on either. Paulie Malignaggi has barely won a round this year yet alone a fight so why is he there at all?
Either way, I can't honestly say that I believe Haye's achievements throughout his career are superior to Adamek's. He's been a part time boxer for the past three years pretty much, after beating a decent champion in Mormeck and an average Enzo. In that time Adamek has succeeded him as linear champion, with stoppage wins over Bell, Banks and a decision over Cunningham. Added to that five wins at heavyweight...... He's just a chancer with a big gob and power. In the 90's he'd be a nobody.
I think less anti-European, more pro-guys-we’ve-seen-on-TV. And US writers will always have a bias towards US-based fighters. Same as Kevin Mitchell has sympathy for British fighters – because he’s a British writer. Anyway, the Ring may be home of the least ******ed official rankings, but their writers veer from solid journalists (Fischer, Raskin) to complete aresholes (Rosenthal, Collins) who wear their agendas as openly as their nationality.
Always glad to be of service :good Having said that it is biased, even I wouldn't put him that low :yep
Makes it all the sweeter when a European goes over there and "upsets the odds" and we're all quids in! :good