Should Frank Bruno have been in this ring mag top 10?

No not really. He'd only beaten an old Bugner, then sat on his azz till the Tyson shot.

 

Is this before or after the Witherspoon fight ( I think its after). You could make a case he's somewhere near the bottom based on how he was doing well against Witherspoon (#4 here) before being stopped. But since being stopped by Spoon his best win was an old Bugner.

 

Definitely after. He lost to Bugner in 86 I belive. Then didn't really fight anyone decent. I remember him knocking Chuck Gardner out cold and a massive uproar that Bruno was fighting absolute bums.

 

Who did Biggs and Rodriguez beat then to deserve being in the top 10 ahead of Bruno?

 

Four fights in 1987 against middle aged journeymen Tillis, Gross, Gardner and Bugner probably wasn’t enough to argue his case. Then inactivity really hurt him as he waited for the Tyson fight

 

I did mark, my mistake. But they do look alike..

 

Not quite i think. Very close call with Hercules.

 

LOL.
Like I'm in charge of who gets put where in 30 year old ratings??

 

Funny, Bruno was ranked by other mags (Boxing Illustrated, KO) throughout 1988 and into the 1989 Tyson fight, but Ring was having none of it and didn't rank him in any issue (that I could see) during this period.

 

Ring Mag got it right that time. I remember the Mag rating Spinks their lineal champ. That was when Tyson had all the belts and basically had kod everyone decent.
But they stuck to their guns despite what some said and kept Spinks as the champion.
The old, man who beat the man who etc..

 

And, if I recall correctly, Tyson and his management (Cayton & Jacobs, etc.) at the time agreed with Ring.

 

That was Tyson for you back in the day, respect for boxing history and heritage.