Ring mock 140 test They have Khan the winner out of 8

I remember that. Also, Ring TV made a big thing out of Chagaev being the best HW in the world other than the brothers, saying it was a better fight that Haye-Wlad and Chagaev had a real chance.

Naturally, it wasn't and he didn't.

 

Khan doesn't need to fight any of those guys in the boxing ring. He's already KO'd them all on twitter. He's the undisputed champion of the social networking world.

 

Lets not re-write history wit the benefit of hindsight here. At the time of Wlad-Chag, David Haye had only beaten Bonin and Barrett at heavyweight.

 

And Chagaev hadn't fought more than twice in two years through illness that had the Valuev rematch cancelled, and injury.

The point I'm making is that The Ring does often push an agenda in its journalism which is partially why the criticism of bias comes up in their rankings. Actually, William Detloff has a piece on the site about the rankings today...

http://www.ringtv.com/blog/2198/dawsonpascal_ignites_the_search_for_more_real_champions/

While I believe the Ring rankings are generally pretty good when deciding a champion, the individual placement of some fighters is a bit more debatable.

 

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=224146

if yiou want a fair ranking system with set out rules for having a champion, you dont have to look to far.

 

Yep, I see Robs agenda comes out at last. I nearly pulled you for it on page 4 when you mentioned your rankings but I thought I'd give you the benefit of the doubt.

Guess I was wrong...

 

Chag was the number 3 at the time and nobody was saying he didn't deserve that ranking. No fair minded person would have ranked Haye above him at the point in time.

 

I completely agree that Chagaev was legitimately ranked three.

He just wasn't close to the top two and I don't believe that a lineal champion can be crowned by picking the next best available match up if the best fighters do not fight each other (for whatever reason). Just for clarity I have no problem at all with the Klitschkos not fighting each other, I also would have had no problem at all with the Ring title remaining vacant for however long was necessary in the absence of a fight between the two best heavyweights.

 

Haye's not my point since I agree that he didn't deserve a shot at the champion, but more that Chagaev had barely fought in that time period, with his best victory coming over Matt Skelton in that period.

I don't think Wlad should have been given a pass to take the Ring title when he wouldn't face his brother. Other than that, and a few other other ranking snafus, I like the Ring rankings.

And Rob, I have some issues with the rankings when Cotto's the number 2 LMW above Cintron who's beaten the better guys at the weight (even though I like Cintron more), or Gamboa at 2 at Featherweight despite beating **** all in the way of good opponents.

 

You mentioned Haye, I wouldn't have brought him if you hadn't. I guess we got sidetracked.

I totally understand people having a problem with Wlad-Chag being for the title but lets not start ripping records apart when Chag very much the concenous number 3 in that division that the time. As Cobbler says, the problem isn't with Chag being number 3, its the gap between numbers 2 and 3.

I smell the rancid reek of corruption.

 

Rob's rankings had Chad Dawson P4P no.3, nuff said

Anyway, Cobbler is right. Chag was no.3 but he'd looked crap in his comeback and was nowhere near the Klits. This is what Nigel Collins, the Ring editor, said today:

This is the same as the HW division where the gap between 1 and 2 (the Klits) and the rest of the field is "fairly sizeable". So for Super Bantam the Ring's policy is the top 2 HAVE to fight each other even though "according to veteran Japanese matchmaker and journalist Joe Koizumi, we shouldn’t count on that happening."

Double standards from the Ring.

 

You think theres a Palmer/ Dawson/ HBO ratings fixing conspiracy doing on?

 

1) there not my rankings.

2) 119 people voted for the P4P. If you can think of a fairer way of doing it let me know?

theres a new P4P vote starting August 15th btw.

 

That is very probable, we all know Dawson is not worth of such a lofty position (yet) so something must have persuaded Rob to rank him so highly.

 

I never decided. it was a vote. Personally I would have him 6th. here is the tally which happend in May.


P4P
1. Manny Pacquiao - 1125
2. Floyd Mayweather - 1113
3. Chad Dawson - 666
4. Paul Williams - 600
5. Juan Manuel Marquez - 570
6. Sergio Martinez - 522
7. Wladamir Klitscko - 436
8. Shane Mosley - 216
9. Nonito Donaire - 191
10. Tim Bradley - 188
11. Fernando Montiel - 101
12. Andre Ward - 77
13. Miguel Cotto - 76
14. Lucian Bute - 75
15. Bernard Hopkins - 69
16. David Haye - 67
17. Vitali Klitscko - 60
18. Juan Manuel Lopez - 55
19. Celestino Caballero - 46
20. Tomasz Adamek - 43
21. Chris John - 39
22. Ivan Calderon - 22
23. Pongsaklek Wonjongkam - 21
24. Yuriorkis Gamboa - 13
25. Vic Darchinyan - 11
26. Andre Berto - 10
27. Andre Dirrell - 9
28. Mikkel Kessler - 8
29. Devon Alexander - 7
30. Carl Froch - 6
31. Nkoshinathi Joyi - 4
32. Marcos Maidana - 2
33. Anselmo Moreno - 1