Criticism of Itauma Is Fascinating

But it amount to the same thing--they still have to beat the relevant fighters. Who a magazine ranks has negligible effect on their career.

And what makes the Ring any better, frankly? (and I know who do good work for them). Didn't the Ring rank Itauma before he beat anyone of consequence? Do they not rank Gassiev, who 3/4 of fans on here can't dump in fast enough?

The bottom line is, my honorable friend there keeps trying to make the argument that the Ring are the ratings that really matter- but they LITERALLY don't. The fighters pursue the fights that will get them shots. So citing that Tyson never beat a "ranked" opponent before Berbick is absurd.

 

We should wrap the thread up here.

 

The facts is that the ring ratings are the most accurate, general consensus because you 1. Don't have to pay to be on there and 2. It accounts for all heavyweights, whereas the ABCs don't.

The champion as of today is the same as the ring champion, and that is Usyk.

 

I was one of the original and loudest Wilder critics. But how are these guys supposed to get title shots following some other ratings from a magazine not sanctioning fights? They have to drive their own careers and should be given some credit for it.

 

Fair enough, but we've gotten to the point where we are just talking about two separate realities. Maybe the Ring does do a better job or ranking guys, and that is fair, but the fighters have to abide by the alphabet rankings to further their careers, and that is just reality. The idea that I am supposed to find Tyson's early record lacking, which set off this whole chain, because he fought WBA/WBA ranked guys and got a shot in two years, is as absurd to me now as when we started.

 

These same clowns were claiming Johnny Fisher had a chance against him a couple years ago, says it all.