Anyone else hate the fact that The Ring features the same guys over again?

That is true, they should focus on newer faces. I don't know if you like David Haye or not, but I think he is going to be on the next issue.

 

I maybe biase thinking Pacman deserves the notoriety.

but LOL @ pavlik and Margarito being on the cover 5 times.

Pacman has been on top for almost 5 years now, Pavlik barely a year before Hopkins got to him.

 

I'm not subscribe . . . but my cousin is . . . so I still get all the copies.

I have no problem with it . . . of course they'll be featuring the fighters within their top 10 rankings most of the time.

 

Screw the Ring.I still recall and resent their total US fighter bias when i was a kid.A Euro had to have a mad record to even break into their top 10.Hate the credibility that magazine and its belts and rankings get.

Utterly irrelevant to the thread but it brought on a belated rant.
'Bible of boxing' my arse.

 

Boxing monthly 'till the grave *****!

 

Far superior.I read the Ring as a kid,but boxing monthly blows it away.:good

 

edit

 

I stopped buying the ring in the 1990s.Boxing monthly is a far better read.

 

True... some of the American media bias is really amusing. And then you get American fans screaming all over robberies in Europe...I sometime wonder what kind of people live there? Do they get out of their house? lol

 

Stand up Ricky Hatton and Joe Calzaghe, both on the front pages 3 each, and Hatton was of course Fighter of the Year 2005!

 

uh hu.I said when i was a kid.
Nonetheless they are with our boys when they are ALREADY established stars,but they wouldnt 'champion' them as up and coming contenders the way they would,say Taylor,Lacey,Judah etc.
You think Hatton would have got his first shot at the title if it was down to the ring?Or Froch,or Haye,or Kessler etc?No way.