LOL @ The Ring's Ratings

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by purephase, Feb 22, 2012.


  1. purephase

    purephase Boxing Junkie Full Member

    10,740
    89
    Jan 14, 2011
    All such rankings are personal opinion-based anyway though. I don't exactly see what deferring to the equally subjective judgments of sometimes completely incompetent if not outright corrupt officials really buys you.

    I agree boxrec type rankings are terrible, but such a system is where one can only end up if one is that fretful of personal opinion corrupting the results of such rankings.
    Such a degree of deference to ringside judges reflects what happened in the ring no more and no less than using one's own two eyes. Likewise, deferring to the Robertsons, Benoists, and Van Hoys of the world at best buys one only the illusion of impartiality; it's merely substituting the subjective opinions of other people for one's own.

    And this concern about remaining an objective source in the industry is hogwash in my opinion. There are already serious red flags about such objectivity independent of the poor choices often made in the course of their rankings (and as the Lara fight indicates, their willingness to diverge from this myopic focus on official results except in that case only further impugns such neutrality). The Ring belt is nice for the fans but carries essentially no weight in actually getting fights made or influencing the decisions of fighters and promoters. Furthermore, the magazine will plainly call such decisions robberies in articles right alongside the rankings that refuse to recognize them as such. How is it only the latter that influences the view of the magazine as objective?

    I don't think that's the case at all really. The only time I ever see anyone praising their rankings is when they specifically award a belt to the winner of a 1-2 clash and in most such cases, the fact that two guys are the best in the division is obvious to everyone anyway (though I'd note that even there The Ring has started to strain their credibility, as their rush to push Huck out of the cruiserweight division indicates).
     
  2. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    81,561
    21,927
    Sep 15, 2009
    I personally give no merit to official results whatsoever. I treat them as interim until i've scored the fight myself.

    I still feel the ring compile the best ranking out of everyone out there.
     
  3. purephase

    purephase Boxing Junkie Full Member

    10,740
    89
    Jan 14, 2011
    I'm surprised you would defend recognizing the official results like this. Your posts on this subject helped convince that it's better to have faith in one's own ability to watch and score a fight rather than relying on what the three judges think. I don't see why this shouldn't likewise apply to The Ring, even if the rankings are aggregate opinions rather than the views of a single individual.

    I also find the rankings of Cliff Rold at the Scene and Scott Christ at Bad Left Hook to be generally superior to The Ring's rankings.
     
  4. Badbot

    Badbot You can just do things. Full Member

    48,148
    36,972
    Apr 17, 2011
    Those idiots need a brain scan.

    They admit that Cloud got a gift decision but still have him at the top and Canpillo at 7.

    They say Williams won a "meaningless" fight but put him at nr 7.
     
  5. Chisora is #11 but Helenius should be #12 really.
     
  6. des3995

    des3995 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    16,903
    126
    Oct 23, 2009
    Yes, but their subjective opinion is the official opinion of record, and at some point it will be relied upon. Ours never will be. At some point you're relying on the opinion of others. Unless you plan on scoring every fight ever recorded, where would the integrity of such a thing begin and end?

    Officiating, good and bad is a part of every sport. And often affects the outcomes of events. I'd also like to say there is a big, big difference in poor/incompetent officiating, and corruption, obviously. Corruption should NOT be accepted on any level, yet, it is, all the time in boxing. It's a shame.

    In the end, it is simply a magazine. But it's rankings do carry weight that other mags/outlets don't. But it only carries as much weight as the consumer allows. It's a take or leave it kind of thing.

    I'd like to add that it's standing has taken a hit since GB took over.

    Praise, and acceptance are 2 different things. Their rankings are far more accepted than say boxrec or yahoo sports or espn or boxing monthly etc.

    There are going to be holes and inconsistencies in any rankings you could find. It's unavoidable.

    We're getting into a kind of philosophical debate now, but I think what we are both moving towards is that there is an absence of an impartial entity at the top of the sport. Above and beyond sanctioning bodies and promoters and state athletic commissions, etc. Am I right?
     
  7. purephase

    purephase Boxing Junkie Full Member

    10,740
    89
    Jan 14, 2011
    I think if you're going to be ranking such guys in any way that carries weight every effort should be made to have seen and judged the relevant fighters for oneself. I don't think this is an especially outlandish request for journalists paid to cover the sport for a magazine whose very belt and rankings are supposed to be superior to those of sanctioning bodies.

    Yes yes, not all fights are recorded and there's only a certain amount of time in a week. But that should only make such ranking subject to ongoing revision, something The Ring panel also generally does not engage in; guys seem to be locked into spots simply as a result of inertia and nothing else. This I believe is why Erdei and Diaconu are somehow still top 6 light heavies and why Sebastian Sylvester was a top 5 middleweight for seemingly ages.

    At some point these are close to the same thing. Take the judges in Williams-Lara and Cloud-Campillo: all for the most part were woefully inexperienced for fights of such magnitude. I don't think it's completely unreasonable to believe that their scores were the result of incompetence alone and that the actual corruption occurred in placing such poor officials ringside in the first place.

    I think that's correct and that's why I'm both critical of The Ring on this matter and more amenable to those willing to stand behind their own judgments. Given how much The Ring wants to stand above the shenanigans that sanctioning bodies regularly engage in, I don't see why there isn't an equal desire to not simply accept the status quo from officials and commissions equally likely to engage in such nonsense.
     
  8. bazza12

    bazza12 Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,561
    5
    Sep 26, 2009
    I usually agree with the Rings rankings to an extent, but Chisora and Campillo should be higher.
     
  9. Big Left

    Big Left Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,243
    20
    Dec 12, 2009
    actually his performances against guys who were heavily favored to beat him were so strong that his oppenents were left making excuses after the fights.

    he exposed Helenius and in a way showed that Vitali's strenghs can be removed by keep him on the back foot.
     
  10. Cableaddict

    Cableaddict Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,705
    292
    Jun 15, 2011
    I agree with all the negative comments, with one large caveat:

    As inconsistent as the Ring's methodolgy is, at least they have stated publicly, for the record, that boxing is corrupt & that some fighters must be ranked higher than their official records would indicate.

    This alone is a HUGE thing.

    Now if they could just get it right ....
     
  11. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    81,561
    21,927
    Sep 15, 2009
    I'm not defending it at all. As you know, I give no credit to official results.

    I'm just saying what I think their motivation is.

    The viewpoint of 3 men at ringside means nothing to me because my view is more important for my opinion.

    My point was more along the lines of; since they're choosing to recognise the official result, the least they could do is promote campillo to the place directly beneath cloud.
     
  12. bailey

    bailey Loyal Member Full Member

    39,977
    3,108
    Dec 11, 2009
    :clap: I have said many times that The Ring ratings are very bias and often a joke.
    Still I do understand them a bit in a way. The Ring is an American based magazine that focuses on American fighters/fighters based in America or fights in America.
    Campillo gets a bad decision in Germany and it doesnt have a great impact, yet gets a bad decision in America which The Ring is more aware of so they have tried to make a decision.
    I mean look at The Rings current SMW ratings where you have journeyman G Johnson at #8 who previously at SMW was a journeyman who couldnt beat many fighters, now he has dropped back to SMW where in three fights he has won just one over A Green coming off a loss. In fact Johnson has lost more at SMW than won. Yet B Magee who in his last five fights has lost to Bute but beaten world rated Larsen winning the European SMW title, beat world rated Markussen, won the WBA int title and has fought away most of his career and has a better SMW resume than the current numbers 5 -10, yet he isnt in the top 10. Work that out :huh.

    Heres an old thread I did a while back


    http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=294435
     
  13. des3995

    des3995 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    16,903
    126
    Oct 23, 2009
    I understand where you're coming from, but there is definitely a line to be drawn between making in error in good faith while fulfilling one's duty and being flat out corrupt. One can be tolerated, albeit disliked, the other can't.
    Everyone should be able to watch and score a fight and come to their own conclusions. These boards of full of fight fans who do it all the time.

    Unfortunately, it still doesn't change the official or historical winner of the fight. And when it comes down to it, we are all just voicing our subjective opinions.

    The Ring cannot just out and out disregard the official winners in favor of their own opinions, even if the panel themselves find differently.

    I'm in no way defending any particular ranking or whatever, I just think that IF they are doing their rankings with objectivity and are unencumbered by self interest, they are acceptable to me, even if I disagree.
     
  14. purephase

    purephase Boxing Junkie Full Member

    10,740
    89
    Jan 14, 2011
    My problem with drawing such a hard and fast distinction is that unless there's a smoking gun, we'll simply then chalk up practically every poor decision to incompetence alone, something that I think is somewhat naive for this sport.


    I think we're pretty much at the end of our discussion here, but I precisely reject the notion that they simply cannot do so and that there are any really compelling reasons not to place one's own informed view of the fight above problematic official results.
     
  15. bailey

    bailey Loyal Member Full Member

    39,977
    3,108
    Dec 11, 2009
    While I agree that a historical winner has to be rated higher as that cannot really be discarded and ratings should be based on factual results but The Ring have suited themselves a bit.
    Consider how Kessler beat Froch, then Froch beats Abraham coming off a loss and gets put above Kessler. Ward just got put above Bute for either his win over Bika or Green, yet Bika was someone Bute who was #1 had beaten already.
    Now Froch has lost to Ward he has been put below Kessler.
    Pascal was #5 LHW after his 2 wins over Diaconu, then beats Branco and finds himself at #3 with Dawson at #1. I cant remember what the shuffle was in fairness to get Pascal such a rise after beating old Branco but it looks like The Ring was hoping to get a Ring champion at LHW.
    Now Pascal beat Dawson and became Ring champ. Hopkins has just drawn with Pascal and become #1 LHW which is understandable, but Dawson has been moved to #3 and Cloud to #2 for beating former LMW title challenger Zuniga? why should Cloud have jumped Dawson with a win over Zuniga? Surely if Cloud gets so highly rated for a win over Zuniga to jump Dawson why has Ward jumped ahead of Bute when Bute scored a 4th round KO over Zuniga previously.