But if they fought in March of 54 wouldn’t the rankings which came out in feb 55 for the year of 54 be the accurate ratings? I ask this not telling. Not sure I fully get what year exactly it would be considered
I can't really help you any more i'm afraid. I've directed you literally what to click to see what i've seen and I don't feel I can do any more than that, sorry.
No way, Haye is way faster than Valuev-the question is when did a smaller AND slower man beating a larger faster man.
Buster Mathis was ranked #10 by Ring going into his fight with Joe Frazier and for the two months right after the Frazier fight. Here's what Nat Fleischer had to say about it in the first issue that went to press after their fight: "Of paramount interest as regards the ratings, albeit it did not affect the numerical sequence of the heavyweight ratings, is the result of the fight between Joe Frazier and Buster Mathis. Frazier went into the ring ranked No. 1 among the contenders. Mathis entered the brawl in tenth place. Joe could not rise. Mathis could not fall, because below the Michigan Mastodon there is nobody worthy of the No. 10 location." --- Also, if you rely on BoxRec's annual Ring rankings, 1) be aware that rankings change from month to month depending on the happenings in the world of boxing. 2) BoxRec's rankings are often not from the issue BoxRec claims they are. If they claim that they've posted "Ring's Annual Rankings" from the February or March issue, those posted rankings are often from an issue 1 to 3 months earlier or later than BoxRec claims. This is true from the mid-50s to the early-80s; I researched it. I'm not sure the reason for the deception (rankings given to them by a notorious former poster here who was kicked off of BoxRec for supplying false information, perhaps), but I've brought it to their attention at least twice and gotten no response.
I collected - still doing it - them from buying copies of the old mags (eBay, mostly), looking at old newspapers online, and getting help from a friend who has the same interest. Because I'm mainly interested in heavyweight history, it's heavyweight rankings that I've collected and typed into a very long document that I can refer to in a post like this. I'm working on a book series, if I ever finish it, where one of the main features will be monthly "consensus" rankings, rankings averaged from at least two sources and ideally three or four.