Does anyone else think The Ring magazine has been bias?

The thing is The Ring often puts a fighter in its top 10 after an impressive victory, but Ward has just been entered over 4 months after his last fight and that was against Bika, who had lost more convincingly in many opinions to Bute

 

I stand corrected atsch, he is at #10. I was convinced I saw him above Segura at 9, but obviously made a mistake

 

Not just K Johnson. Read below

Seems you have been schooled again atsch

 

I notice you ran from the question of which active SMW has a better resume than Kessler

 

I dont think you forgot. I dont think you know atsch.
You highlighted against me noting Kesslers resume, yet sight him as a big win for Ward . Then think one win over Kessler when unwell, Bika who lost more convincingly to Bute and Green , is better than H Hide, T Hoffmann, K Johnson, D Williams, S Peter, JC Gomez, C Arreola, K Johnson, O Solis.
atschatsch

 

Heres where you fall flat again .

Froch beat Pascal when he wasnt even a top 10 SMW.
Dirrell who hadnt done anything of note at SMW
LOST to Kessler coming off a loss
Magee
Taylor who was 2 fights past a loss and got KOd in his very next fight (away)
Abraham coming off a loss and not a very good SMW (neutral site)

Kessler beat Siaca the then WBA champ (world champ) which is more of an achievement than any of the above had achieved at the time Froch beat them, in the SMW division
Then WBC champ Beyer, same as above
Sartison the regular WBA champ
undefeated Andrade
European champ Haussler away
2 time WBA champ Mundine away who became champ after Kessler beat him
Froch the undefeated 2 time WBC champ
Then add Lucas, Thobela etc

You think Froch who lost to Kessler has a better resume

 

In my opinion, this isnt the first time that The Ring mag has looked bias to Ward consider -

You had Bute as the #1 SMW and Ward at #2 etc. Now for Ward to have gone to #2, he beat then #1 Kessler, when he wasnt in the top 5. After the win Ward rightfully went above Kessler but Kessler is Wards only big win and overall Bute has a better resume than Ward even though not better than Froch or Kessler, so Bute became #1. Now Kessler beat Froch and was #3.
Froch beat Abraham coming off a loss and the Ring put Froch above Kessler after Froch had just lost to Kessler. Then Ward beat Bika a fighter Bute had beaten years previously and the Ring put Ward above Bute and made him #1.

Now this is where it seems strange to me.
The Ring is an American based magazine which understandably focuses on American fighters. Now America at this time have NO Ring champions.
Well chances are that the Super 6 final will be between Froch and Ward. Well the Ring sometimes lets the #1 against the #3 be for the Ring title.
It looks like the Ring has a plan in that if Ward was #2 and beat Froch at #3 he couldnt be a Ring champion and if Froch won he couldnt be either, but if they make Ward the #1 for no real reason other than for a win over Bika who Bute had already beaten they could make the winner the Ring champ and fight for their title.
The Ring had no reason to put Ward above Bute or Froch above Kessler. Ratings are supposed to be based on results.

I agree Bute hasnt fought the top guys yet but look at resumes overall, and note Andrade was in the top 5, the first time Bute beat Andrade

Bute beat Bika - better than Ward,
Miranda - better than Ward,
Andrade twice,
Joppy,
Zuniga, better than Cloud and Cloud beating Zuniga has put him above Dawson
Brinkley
Berrio - Holds a win over Steiglitz
Magee who is a European champ and was world rated fighter
You could also note Mock, Tatvosyan and Salem

Ward has beaten
Kessler - A very good win better than any name on Bute resume but remember that Kessler was an unwell fighter
Miranda
Green - who lost to Miranda
Bika
Next Abraham on a winning run of 1 injury victory and then 2 losses the last being very decisive
You could also note Buchanan

Now Wards victory over Kessler isnt better overall than Andrade twice, Berrio, Zuniga etc

 

Dont you think it has shown some bias here?