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

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by thistle, Oct 31, 2025 at 1:50 AM.


  1. PrimoGT

    PrimoGT Active Member Full Member

    1,244
    1,151
    Jul 20, 2025
    I think it could be a case of them calling the 'December' (February or March issue or whatever in later years) monthly ratings the 'Year End' ratings, which is correct. But there were also 'Annual Ratings' that might have been broader and slghtly diifferent?
    As the photos @thistle posted show, Annual Ratings.
    I do remember Annual Ratings even in the 1980s magazines, which graded a lot of boxers, after the top 10, with "A", "B", "C" etc, which might have been a later incarnation of annual ratings.
    Lots of newspapers from the 1930s and 1940s actually noted Ring magazine annual ratings, so i can check there too.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2025 at 5:54 AM
  2. thistle

    thistle Boxing Junkie Full Member

    7,535
    8,065
    Dec 21, 2016
    Hi John, yes most of us understand this, @Saintpat too...

    it took a month, often nearer two months for Fight Report's & Rating's consensus' to come into Ring Headquarters, most of us know this and understand that... and as I've said 3 times now, I too looked at the December Monthly Ratings in the Ring Mags and also the January Monthly Ratings in case BoxRec were drawing from there, they were all still different...

    but lets not get too far off point allowing for such considerations, BoxRec should NOT Produce anything other than what they are purporting something to be, in this case the Year End RING MAGAZINE'S World Ratings usually published every year in the Ring's February Issues...

    BoxRec has NO Right to State that 'if' they are not and they have even less right to alter, change or manipulate such Historical Records, again especially whille still Reporting them to be Such & Such, in this case Ring's Annual Rating's of World Boxers...

    any variables they 'might' be hoping to improve on, i.e the full year outcomes should be applied Only to BoxRec's own Annual Ratings.

    the problem is BoxRec, in general have tweeked things so often and so much to their own ends, that their own ratings have become laughable and as I stated in 'might' have something to do with their Star Rating program for fights, which can easily deem fighters 'less' or 'more' in the final analyses than what they might otherwise be.

    BoxRec also seems to be supporting Modern Fighters over Past Era's, a monentary drive, just like the Media Pundants today all hyped up in attempts to sell, encourage support and bring in sponsership revenue, thus selling a lessor and/or false parcel. There also appears to be Nationalistic Influences too.

    the RING Annual Ratings and Classifications, Sectional and Regional Ratings provide more than enough info for BoxRec to Draw on and equally Fight Records and Reports to provide Good & Acceptable honest & neutral Ratings for their own BoxRec Annual Ratings and Let the Recorded History Speak untouched and not 'themselves' or any other.

    BoxRec has disapointed for a good many years now.
     
    JohnThomas1 likes this.
  3. SimonLock

    SimonLock Member Full Member

    412
    616
    Nov 15, 2018
    Breakthrough!

    The 1951 "year-end" ratings on Boxrec which claim to be from the Feb 1952 edition are actually the Feb 1st 1952 ratings from the Mar 1952 edition.

    Details below:

    I've looked at the year-end ratings for 1951, focussing on heavyweights.

    According to Boxrec, the Ring ratings at the end of 1951 were published in the February 1952 edition, and were as follows:

    Jersey Joe Walcott, Champion
    Ezzard Charles
    Rocky Marciano
    Clarence Henry
    Roland LaStarza
    Karel Sys
    Joe Louis
    Cesar Brion
    Joe Baksi
    Bob Baker
    Johnny Williams

    Source - The Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings: 1951 - BoxRec

    Now, I have a copy of the February 1952 edition, and it actually lists the following as the 1951 rankings:

    Jersey Joe Walcott, Champion
    Ezzard Charles
    Rocky Marciano
    Clarence Henry
    Roland LaStarza
    Joe Louis
    Bob Baker
    Cesar Brion
    Rex Layne
    Hein Ten Hoff
    Joe Baksi

    The magazine specifies that "these ratings are based on results from January 1 to December 20, inclusive" and that "the ratings listed below are the result of considerable thought and study and not recorded through mere guesswork. The RING editor has had the assistance of an able staff, consisting of his co-workers on the RING and his correspondents in gathering the data necessary for a world-wide ranking of pugilists as appears in this issue".

    Source - Cover & Contents


    Now, in case Boxrec have just picked up the wrong edition, I have checked both the January 1952 and March 1952 magazines.

    January 1952 Magazine:

    Jersey Joe Walcott, Champion
    Ezzard Charles
    Rocky Marciano
    Roland LaStarza
    Clarence Henry
    Joe Louis
    Bob Baker
    Cesar Brion
    Rex Layne
    Hein Ten Hoff
    Joe Baksi

    The magazine specifies that these results are ending December 1, 1951.

    Source - Contents

    March 1952 Magazine:

    Jersey Joe Walcott, Champion
    Ezzard Charles
    Rocky Marciano
    Clarence Henry
    Roland LaStarza
    Karel Sys
    Joe Louis
    Cesar Brion
    Joe Baksi
    Bob Baker
    Johnny Williams

    The magazine specifies that these results are ending February 1, 1951.

    Source - Contents

    And these are an exact match for the 1951 "year-end" rankings on Boxrec, which purport to be from the Feb 1952 edition. They are actually the Feb 1 1952 rankings from the Mar 1952 edition.
     
  4. thistle

    thistle Boxing Junkie Full Member

    7,535
    8,065
    Dec 21, 2016
    yes you may have discovered a reason for that year, but this type of possible mistake, though arguably correct, relatively speaking... has already been considered and looked for, so are you saying it is the same for all years, or are you merely speculating 'it Might' be?
     
  5. Saintpat

    Saintpat Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    23,609
    27,161
    Jun 26, 2009
    This seems to be exactly what I’ve been trying to get at — @SimonLock has certainly found an example that, if we research and try to match what Boxrec has listed as annual rankings we can probably figure out where they got those rankings.

    You seem intent that this is some kind of purposeful act on Boxrec’s part so they can for some reason manipulate past rankings with some nefarious purpose (I can’t see how they would profit from this, and yes they have their own rankings but who on earth really goes by those or pays attention to them).

    I think it’s probably just a simple mistake. They had someone (perhaps an unpaid intern for all we know) look up the final rankings from each year from the first issue in the following year that seemed to encompass all results through the end of the year and they put those in a database. Or maybe they said ‘look up the annual rankings’ and someone saw the rankings in an early-month issue and mistook those for annual rankings.

    Again, never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence. People make mistakes. It happens. I suspect now more than ever that this is what happened.
     
  6. thistle

    thistle Boxing Junkie Full Member

    7,535
    8,065
    Dec 21, 2016
    I too stated from the get go (go back & read my posts), that it was probably an honest mistake, I also looked at the last month of the year being covered i.e 43 and the Jan Monthly Ratings 44, before the Feb issues of 'actual' Annual Ratings, to see 'if' perhaps that's what they were reporting from, they were still wrong... I told Hero & you also I had done this.

    I also stated it might be how Boxrec has programmed the Star fight system over & over, 'their' Ratings too, that might have caused Computer progamming automachines to wrongly place fighters, both the above & this possible technical thing as understandable honest mistakes.

    I also stated that 'IF' these possibilities aren't the case, then BoxRec has NO Right to call the Ratings the RING Magazine's Annual Ratings, which I still state.

    I even accounted for misplacement typo type things and I asked @SimonLock 'if' he found the Monthly thing, found this in other years or was he speculating perhaps that was merely the possible cause for the difference they put up.

    so I have allowed for 3 possibilities, stated BoxRec might simply have accidently or systems wise inadvertently cuased such, BUT IF they did it themselves knowingly or willingly, they had no right.

    which again, I still state.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2025 at 5:21 PM
    HistoryZero26 and Saintpat like this.