Now I know americans don't give a **** but surely for the sake of creditability you would think this american bias would end? Boner 25 fights 21 ko's...biggest win...Nobody really Rank 6 Joe Calzaghe 25 fights 23 ko's biggest win Chris Eubank Rank: not in top 20. now im only using calzaghe because its an easy one to use. But when you have americans on this site screaming about P4P rankings can you not see why everyone else sees these american lists as bull****? I mean explain how Broner is top 6 even though hes never beaten anyone of note but Calzaghe wasnt even top 20? I mean Ward is number two! ****ing two after only one more fight but with 10 less KO's than calzaghe, now you could say hes fought better competiton early in his career...but his best win is still Cazlaghes leftovers, once again this isnt a clazaghe thread just using it as an example of how baised they are towards american fighters and why there 'p4p lists' means **** all
Yeah. P4P list is a goldenboy/ US-centric marketing tool. It's a lload of rubbish. Only septics take it seriously.
Guerrero in the top 10 is only to boost the Mayweather fight by saying he will be fighting a top 10 p4p guy. I can see a case for Broner in the top 10 to be honest (at 9 or 10) because it is hard to pick anybody around the 130-135 weight class that he could fight that it would be close in the betting. Ring had Mayweather at #5 I think back in 1998 after a handful of fights too, so similarities. I still think Ward at #2 is too high, I agree that if he wasn't American I wonder would he have been so high.
Their rankings are a joke. Broner ahead of Wlad, Pacquiao and Bradley? Ward ahead of Marquez? They don't even try to hide their bias anymore. GBP have now put the rankings in the hands of one man: Chuck Giampa.
It's back and forth. Reading the articles they are not biased, but their rankins are silly as ****. For all the times Oscar and Co. have awarded Pac FOTY and Pac spanked Oscar and is promoted by his mortal enemy, I don't buy the bias 100%
What was interesting was that as soon as GBP took over The Ring they a) put the p4p rankings in the hand of one guy b) adopted a championship policy that makes it easier to crown a ring champion. Overnight it went from being a fans championship policy to being one that is more boxer friendly. Well for two grand in the right hand, all the championship policies are fighter friendly. Which has proven to be a total disaster.
Is "The Ring" the last boxing magazine? Back in the day I used to **** w/KO Magazine & Boxing Illustrated ect... (Are they still around?)
The Ring is just a mouthpiece for Golden Girls Promotions since Delahoya took it over & fired all the good writers. I'll bet poor Nat Fleischer rolls in his grave seeing what theyve done to The Bible of Boxing
They, along with many other respectable and knowledgable boxing people, can see and project the talents of Broner. If you can't that's on you, but it's pretty obvious to most that he's one of the most skilled and talented fighters in the world P4P. Not sure what argument you're trying to make here.
as early as 1939 the UK's Boxing News stated that; "though these lists provide a good measure or guide the abscenes of certain fighters seemed surprising and in some instances LAUGHABLE!!! the point is, though America was 'generally' stronger among the heavier divisions, it certainly was'nt in every case, and sometimes the omissions of some foreign fighters was rediculous... and this is still true and always has been!!!