And the Ring doesn't strip champions. All fighters are able to be rated, regardless of what title they hold, and they don't have interim or super champions. They don't operate the same, regardless of whether you like them or not.
Quote: They have taken money of DKP to rate fighters though That was 30 years ago. Nothing like that has happened since. The Ring went through a major restructuring since that incident. The Ring is VASTLY better than any of the ABC sanctioning bodies. They have a huge rating advisory panel, so there's a lot of expert input. They don't take money from promoters or fighters, and they have sensible rules for their chamionship policy. Find me a better rating system for boxing.
youre the type of moron who has discovered boxrec, doesnt know **** all so thinks what people tells you to think
So you just discount all fighters you have not seen? Their resumes simply don't exist? By doing this you are removing some of the greatest fighters ever.
no im saying how can i say they are the best of all time if i havent personally seen them. just as im sure most people here havent. he may well have been dont get me wrong. its just 99% of people you ask whip out SRR like they have seen him in his prime. or know his opponents
Basilio should not have caused so much trouble to SRR if he was really as good as Joe Calzaghe and Roy Jones.
Nat decided who was and was not rated for 50 years... Collins is trying to sort the mess out but at the end of the day The Ring like all other alphabet organization have their own agenda... Comment back if you want, better still start another thread. I apologize as Idid start this, but this meant to be about Robinson, so I will comment no more about this, on this thread.
But by the same token, you can't say the fighters you HAVE seen are better than them because you haven't seen those fighters. Its why we have historians and records.
There is no reason to comment. You just repeated something you basically already said. We are discussing CURRENT Ring, not Ring from years ago. They don't operate the same and as far as I am concerned they sorted their problems out.
He was a ballhog, he didn't shot the 3 that well, in the beginning of his carerr his jumper was suspect, he was both verbally and physically abusive to his teammates. Jordan didn't have many flaws, but he wasn't perfect.
oh yeah i cant do that either but whenever i get asked my opinion, its my opinion on things that i have seen not on what peopple have told me.