I am getting so sick and tired of certain posters trying to claim a certain fighter was not ranked when the opponent beat them, because they weren't in the yearly ring magazine rankings. THIS IS HOGWASH. the MONTHLY ratings mean something too. If fighter A was beaten by fighter B in feb of 1968 when he was ranked 7th, but by the year end rankings he wasnt in the top 10, does this mean fighter B gets credit for a win over a top 10 contender? Yes it shall. Aight peace out, I gotta go pickup my girlfriend and get drunk/high to celebrate the end of finals.
The ratings can be only a contour to give a fairly good idea of the level of competition faced. They have limitations. Take Liston and his opposition. I don't think Billy Hunter or Nino Valdes were rated when Liston fought them, but let's assume Liston fought Hunter in 1959 when Hunter made his lone appearance in the ratings. Does this make Hunter the more impressive victory? I think not. Valdes was rated five different years, twice as #1 and once at #2. Even though a couple of defeats had dropped him out of the ratings, he was, I think, a far more dangerous opponent than Hunter. You are correct about the monthly ratings, but all ratings are only a guide and will always have flaws.
I guess I am one of the more notable ofenders here. The annual rankings are a useful tool for identifying the importance of a win in the era but they can be misleading.
i dont think so janitor. hell, i could classify myself as an offender. But i think its fair to start looking at the monthly issues as well, as it demonstrates whos hot, and whos not.
The ring had a lot of clout years ago. when Nat Fleischer ran the magazine its belt was like a real championship belt.. You could only win it or lose it in the ring.. I think a lot of yesteryears qualities were lost.. Now that Golden boy owns the magazine it may adopt some critical flaws.. it may somewhat become biased....
this is a good point, i think the error is often out of naivety. the annual rankings are very easy to get hold of so you can see clearly who is ranked year end when an opponenet beat them. monthly rankings are much harder to get hold of so people aren't always aware unless they were aware at the time i.e. solis probably won't be ranked year end but he was ranked when vitali fought him.
I agree with that. I dont think people make this mistake intentionally, its more a lack of full thought.
Suzie you virgin, you never tried ganja or girls in your life. But i agree with your topic, Foreman did beat way more ranked guys then haters be thinking, look at teh monthly rankings.