Who wins the battle of the Joe's?

[JAB5239]

- -Tyson was18 when he turned pro but fought only the usual suspects that first year, so asking for a Ring rating for an 18-19 kid failing to make the Olympic team a stretch even for Ring.

Here's their 1985 ratings published in March 86 with Berbick #7 even though Mike claimed his WBC title in Nov of 85. It's the Ring, so go figure what nobody else can as they continue on their muddled path:

Tyson won the WBC in November of 1986 hence Berbick still being rated in March of 1986.

[Anthony342]

Tyson won the WBC in November of 1986 hence Berbick still being rated in March of 1986.

So you like Louis in this one? I think Joe Mama should fight the winner.

[JAB5239]

So you like Louis in this one? I think Joe Mama should fight the winner.

Lol, my man has jokes today!!

[QueensburyRules]

Tyson won the WBC in November of 1986 hence Berbick still being rated in March of 1986.

- -Good one. I just assumed he turned pro after the 84 Olympic trials ended, but at any rate he was unranked for 1985 his first year and #1 in 86, so he and Joe Louis share that distinction.

Interestingly he was stripped of his Ring title in 1989 which is the same year Ring debuted their p4p ratings with Tyson #1. Go figure Ring as nobody ever could after Nat passed.

[JAB5239]

- -Good one. I just assumed he turned pro after the 84 Olympic trials ended, but at any rate he was unranked for 1985 his first year and #1 in 86, so he and Joe Louis share that distinction.

Interestingly he was stripped of his Ring title in 1989 which is the same year Ring debuted their p4p ratings with Tyson #1. Go figure Ring as nobody ever could after Nat passed.

I believe the reason it shows like that in the Ring annual ratings is because they didnt come out until April 1990 and Tyson had lost to Douglas in February 1990. Just a guess on my part though.

[Anthony342]

Lol, my man has jokes today!!

Gotta have some fun in this crazy world.

[QueensburyRules]

I believe the reason it shows like that in the Ring annual ratings is because they didnt come out until April 1990 and Tyson had lost to Douglas in February 1990. Just a guess on my part though.

- -Has to be a guess since nobody can figure the Ring since Nat passed other than near bankruptcies, passed around by new owners like a hooker before being bought out by Fishnets who at least saved the historic Marquee value not withstanding dubious publishing values.

At any rate, using your logic Buster should've been Ring champ instead of vacant, but again, go figure Ring because noone can, NOONE!!!

[JAB5239]

- -Has to be a guess since nobody can figure the Ring since Nat passed other than near bankruptcies, passed around by new owners like a hooker before being bought out by Fishnets who at least saved the historic Marquee value not withstanding dubious publishing values.

At any rate, using your logic Buster should've been Ring champ instead of vacant, but again, go figure Ring because noone can, NOONE!!!

That's actually a good point.

[Willie Pep 229]

The Ring ****zine anual rankings can be confusing and at time unwittingly deceptive because of the delay in publishing. To give the rag a fair shake we would need to track their rankings month by month and I suspect they would seem more logical. We just need to get our hands on the entire archive LOL.

[JAB5239]

The Ring ****zine anual rankings can be confusing and at time unwittingly deceptive because of the delay in publishing. To give the rag a fair shake we would need to track their rankings month by month and I suspect they would seem more logical. We just need to get our hands on the entire archive LOL.

While it pains me to give Queenie credit, he does make a good point. Regardless if there is a time lapse in the ratings Douglas should have been listed as champion if Tyson was not at that point. The only thing I can think that may have made it that way was the Don King trying to get the decision overturned based on the bogus long count