Ring Ratings.....MONTHLY issues

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by SuzieQ49, Dec 19, 2007.

  1. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    37,077
    Likes Received:
    3,725
    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.
     
  2. OLD FOGEY

    OLD FOGEY Boxing Junkie Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    7,670
    Likes Received:
    98
    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.
     
  3. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Messages:
    71,522
    Likes Received:
    27,094
    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.
     
  4. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    37,077
    Likes Received:
    3,725
    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.
     
  5. Bigcat

    Bigcat Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    Messages:
    21,545
    Likes Received:
    98
    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....
     
  6. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    80,613
    Likes Received:
    21,219
    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.
     
  7. DonBoxer

    DonBoxer The Lion! Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    8,063
    Likes Received:
    34
    I agree with that. I dont think people make this mistake intentionally, its more a lack of full thought.
     
  8. Foreman Hook

    Foreman Hook ☆☆☆ G$ora ☆☆☆ Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2010
    Messages:
    8,234
    Likes Received:
    16
    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.