Is it ridiculous that Ring ranks Nigel Benn the 91st greatest puncher ever?

Blatant bias, Benn at the kind of rare power that could make any fighter abandon their game plan and retreat. Whenever Benn lost it was his terrible defense, questionable stamina down the stretch, and lack of imagination in putting his punches into combinations.

 

Holyfield?!!!

 

John Mugabi is at 38 on the list, Leotis Martin is at 68.

Surely Nigel Benn is getting a raw deal being put at 91.

 

He turned in to an accumulation puncher at 168lb, i'm also pretty sure that they are factoring in their overall ability as punchers. It's a pretty shitty list in any event.

 

I think a lot of the guys he fought at 168 were much bigger men naturally and most fought at light-heavy/cruiser before and after, whereas Benn could still make middle and says it took him 3-4 years to grow into the 168 division fully.

 

At 160 Benn really was a tremendously agressive and massive puncher.
If he caught anybody flush they would with very few exceptions be in serious trouble. The problem was if you got over his early assault he could tire,as he generally expended way too much energy and didnt show much finesse in punch picking. At 168 he learned to calm down and box,but he still carried a great dig.I think its just that he committed a lot less (except the mclelland fight.) and was fighting way bigger men at 168.
In terms of raw power a great puncher indeed,way better than most on the list.