The Ring - UK release dates...

i agree, i used to spend upto £30 monthly on all boxing magz BUT SINCE THE INTERNET HAVE STOPPED!

net's way better! with video streams ,live fights,latest news+interviews, full press conferences etc
magz are **** n outdated!:twisted:

since internet , no need for HMV,VIRGIN,all music stores!, BLOCKBUSTER, all movie stores & cinemas! & of course no more WH-SMITHS!

God Bless The Internet! :happy

 

if i get done for shoplifting, its all your fault !!!!!

 

To be honest mate, I can't remember either but, if that was the case, it was erroneous in the extreme. I don't see as a list to live and die by though, it just makes for an interesting read.

 

Just reading this Top 100 horse****, who writes this crap, The Ring need to get off Bernard Hopkins's nuts, the guy fights once every 18 months and is rated No4 same as last year without even having a fight in the 12 months from the last list, Arthur Abraham at 13 based on wins over Raul Marquez, Lajuan Simon and Mahir Oral!?!?! Glen Johnson jumping up 36 to 18 based on wins over Aaron Norwood and Daniel Judah. Juan Carlos Salgado crashing the rankings at 28!!?!! based on one win over Jorge Linares and our own Carl Froch entering the rankings at 59!! even though he's beaten Pascal, Taylor and Dirrell???

What a pile of ****

 

Where would you place Hopkins right now then?

 

I suppose it depends on the criteria they use for compiling the list, what they use to mark one fighter down they use to mark another fighter up, there doesn't seem to be the consistency across the 100.

That said I'm not a Hopkins fan and would therefore be seen to be biased, but it seems an insult to fighters who have fought more than once and put their titles on the line to see someone who has been largely inactive for the last year or so remain within the top 5.

I'd say the same about their monthly p4p list he is always in the top 5 win or lose whilst other fighters drop out or down places as soon as they lose Hopkins went nowhere even after losing to Calzaghe.

If the list is based on where they sit based on their performance since the last list then he should be out of the top 10 at least as he hasn't done anything, the 'threat' of greatness if he did fight anyone is not enough to warrant placing him above fighters who actually did fight at least once in the intervening year, but like I said the criteria for the list is unclear

 

Pound for pound has become a popularity contest anyway, what it really means is that if all the fighters were the same size who is the best? Of course that has to be proven against other great fighters, but I think Hopkins has done that. He lost to Joe, who was in the top ten already, so I think that's why his ranking wasn't greatly affected. The Ring thought a lot of Joe at this point.

 

Thats true, I still think some entries on the list are terrible, but I suppose thats why they create them in the first place, to generate debate etc

 

I'm very much of the opinion (and I know GazOC feels the same) that debating positioning of people on a top 10 p4p list, nevermind 100, is pretty pointless. As long as we have a consensus number one (which we do) the rest is opinion.

 

Why would anyone want to waste their money on magazine's..when you have the internet.

 

its the quality and the depth that makes it worth buying.Also the top 100 is opinion not fact

 

Posterity.

 

I think it's reasonable value, good photos, interviews, debate. Format of having something written down and that you can pick up and put down/keep is different to web.