The Ring ****zine Ratings Subjectivity Illustration

[Willow The Wisp]

Over the past half century, I have enjoyed this hobby to the fullest. One of my great pleasures was working with some of the most prominent publishers and writers in the industry, working at times on the compilation of monthly fighter ratings.

Very often, people on these boards quote the esteemed Ring ****zine ratings, as a means of qualifying the resume of a particular boxer, seeking to establish a point regarding their quality of opposition.

For a recent newcomer to the sport, using The Ring Ratings as a gold standard is perfectly logical, for reasons known to all.
However; as I have stated in the past, the approach employed by those at the Ring, when compiling the ratings was to aggressively give upcoming boxers who appeared (in the moment) to be on the accent the benefit of the doubt.
This naturally sometimes lead to a premature ranking over more established commodities.

It is important to understand this, when stating proclamations that "Fighter X beat 8 "Ring rated opponents while fighter Z beat ony 3".

For our collective edification, let me use the following Heavyweights from the past 50 years to illustrate how the Ring's methodology could veer off the rails, while noting that premature ranking was far, far less often carried out by other publishers like Stanley Weston's World Boxing, International Boxing, KO, Hank Kaplan's Boxing Digest and Lou Eskin's Boxing Illustrated.

50 years of Heavyweights 1974 - 2024
Ratings Subjectivity Illustration -

20 Non-Ring Ranked heavyweights:
Boone Kirkman
Roy Tiger Williams
Richard Dunn
John Dino Denis
Luchien Rodriguez
George Chaplin
Gordon Racette
Florida Al Jones
Floyd Jumbo Cummings
Indian Joe Hipp
Lance Mount Whitaker
Lou Savarese
Frans Botha
Matt Skelton
Buster Mathis Jr.
Luan Krasniqi
Smokin' Bert Cooper
Alex Stewart
Carlos Takam
Derrick Chisora


....Were collectively a Better group than these 20 Ring ****zine Top 10 Ranked Heavyweights:

Randy Neumann
Howard KO Smith
Johnny Boudreaux
Marty Monroe
Domingo D'Elia
Adilson Rodrigues
Orlin Norris
Michael Bentt
Phil Jackson
Mike The Bounty Hunter
Lionel Butler
Alexander Zolkin
Derrick Jefferson
Fres Oquendo
Kirk Johnson
Monty Barrett
Calvin Brock
Vladimir Virchis (Vyrchyis)
Alexander Dimitrenko
Denis Boystov


Any thought about this????

[Dr. Z]

Over the past half century, I have enjoyed this hobby to the fullest. One of my great pleasures was working with some of the most prominent publishers and writers in the industry, working at times on the compilation of monthly fighter ratings.

Very often, people on these boards quote the esteemed Ring ****zine ratings, as a means of qualifying the resume of a particular boxer, seeking to establish a point regarding their quality of opposition.

For a recent newcomer to the sport, using The Ring Ratings as a gold standard is perfectly logical, for reasons known to all.
However; as I have stated in the past, the approach employed by those at the Ring, when compiling the ratings was to aggressively give upcoming boxers who appeared (in the moment) to be on the accent the benefit of the doubt.
This naturally sometimes lead to a premature ranking over more established commodities.

It is important to understand this, when stating proclamations that "Fighter X beat 8 "Ring rated opponents while fighter Z beat ony 3".

For our collective edification, let me use the following Heavyweights from the past 50 years to illustrate how the Ring's methodology could veer off the rails, while noting that premature ranking was far, far less often carried out by other publishers like Stanley Weston's World Boxing, International Boxing, KO, Hank Kaplan's Boxing Digest and Lou Eskin's Boxing Illustrated.

50 years of Heavyweights 1974 - 2024
Ratings Subjectivity Illustration -

20 Non-Ring Ranked heavyweights:
Boone Kirkman
Roy Tiger Williams
Richard Dunn
John Dino Denis
Luchien Rodriguez
George Chaplin
Gordon Racette
Florida Al Jones
Floyd Jumbo Cummings
Indian Joe Hipp
Lance Mount Whitaker
Lou Savarese
Frans Botha
Matt Skelton
Buster Mathis Jr.
Luan Krasniqi
Smokin' Bert Cooper
Alex Stewart
Carlos Takam
Derrick Chisora


....Were collectively a Better group than these 20 Ring ****zine Top 10 Ranked Heavyweights:

Randy Neumann
Howard KO Smith
Johnny Boudreaux
Marty Monroe
Domingo D'Elia
Adilson Rodrigues
Orlin Norris
Michael Bentt
Phil Jackson
Mike The Bounty Hunter
Lionel Butler
Alexander Zolkin
Derrick Jefferson
Fres Oquendo
Kirk Johnson
Monty Barrett
Calvin Brock
Vladimir Virchis (Vyrchyis)
Alexander Dimitrenko
Denis Boystov


Any thought about this????

I think some guys you metioned as non ring raked were in fact rated by Ring ****zine. I think Chisora was ranked for sure. Likely Mathis was too. Laun Krasniqui was decent enough to be ranked.

[Marchegiano]

No rules to enforce means no enforcement of anything.

Point is if Ring or anyone else had any kind of code for ranking fighters would use that code against them no different than the bodies are presently.

Which is why Ring ratings are subjective and body ratings, though you may like them, are largely objective.

Not the WBA's fault Lennox and Fres and Char sued them and won. Maybe you can blame them for writing the rules but as y'all know by how you *****, no one, including Ring, has come up with enforceable rules that ensure mandos that have not been and cannot be corrupted by the fighters and promoters themselves.

On the surface of things Ring is meant to be subjective.

On the surface of thing the WBC is meant to be objective.

On the surface of things fans are bias against objectivity.

Everything is as it should be. Some no name wins some unter belt and gets a rating for it while some name fighter avoids paying fees and loses a rating for it. This is not a function of subjectivity. Conversely some no-one performs very well but goes unrecognized by the boxing world, they get no rating by Ring. This is a function of subjectitiy.




I guess all I'm doing is writing the longest "duh" I could my bad. It's a good post you made Willow.

[Willie Pep 229]

I am going to beat my usual drum, but it applies at some level.

Prize fighting is the game, with the emphasis on prize.

Like the HOF, 'fame' in this situation helps bring rankings.

As nebulous as boxing is as a business, and not an organized league, marketability becomes one of the idicators for makimg it into the rankings.

Or simply put, having good handlers/backers.

At the time there was no aggregated 'win-loss' statistics actually avaiable. The creater of rankings had to seek out information or encourage reporting of stats, i.e. by good connected handlers. The Ring was best for this.

Promotion plays much into it. Often these unranked fighters were just missed and only noticed after they had their best run. Then their records create the question, "Why weren't they?"

Of course we accept that The Ring was straight up corrupted from time to time as well.

[Roberto Vasquez]

Honestly overall they are still the best ratings though. Even if not perfect

Just at the moment they are crazy though. Why is Zhang at no. 4?? Yes great result against Joyce but that is just one fight. How does that get you top-3?? Same with dropping Wilder to 10 after one bad performance. Jared Anderson is apparently better than Wilder now
.

[Willow The Wisp]

Very true. Good example. And to be fair to the Ring, BoxRec's are worse still in punishing "the bloody yank" for a 'nothing really happened' fight (Wilder's first).
Jared Anderson could turn out to be the next Larry Holmes, Mike Tyson or Lennox Lewis.
Here in the US, there is no shortage of people who are rooting for this.
Or...

He could just as easily turn out to be the next Jonn Tate, Michael Grant or Tony Yoka.
Just as easily.

Fact is, nobody knows yet. NOBODY.
But in a prognosticative ratings methodology, the Ring (and others), are betting heavily on Anderson to do far, far more than he'sdone to date, as they've done with others in the past.

Infusing the ratings with new faces, fostering the evolution of the standings, is fun. But, it runs the risk of having one's powers of observation embarrassed.

Lou Eskin and Stanley Weston's approach was far more conservative. From the "prove it first" school.

And consider: In hindsight, was there really ever a moment when Kirk Johnson was the 3rd best heavyweight on earth?

For those who understand what is illustrated here, we would take with a grain of salt or two, any post that seeks to quantify a fighter's historic worth by counting "Ring ranked opponents" alone.
That's newbie stuff from here on out.

[GhostofDempsey]

All rankings are subjective. Ring rankings tend to be biased towards GBP since Oscar bought them out. Other rankings can be biased just because whoever established them put their favorite fighters out ahead. The sanctioning bodies all have different rankings, which has always puzzled me. But that's how they stay in business. If we look elsewhere, rankings are all over the place with some wide disparities. Boxrec is just awful and any newcomer to the sport should search around before taking their rankings seriously.

[Eff Pandas]

Eh indie rankings by Ring or TBRB (I prefer TBRB myself & they are usually the one I quote) are a necessary & imperfect requirement in a sport with corrupt belt groups with inferior rankings.

I don't think anyone sees Ring or TBRB as perfect, but they are the best qualifier of how good someone is in boxing. And there are obvious or arguable biases in both of them, but there are still fewer than the 4 belt groups biases.

I don't even hate boxrec as goofy as their rankings can be, as an algorithm, which I trust to fail in more fair & objective ways than belt groups.

[max baer]

Over the past half century, I have enjoyed this hobby to the fullest. One of my great pleasures was working with some of the most prominent publishers and writers in the industry, working at times on the compilation of monthly fighter ratings.

Very often, people on these boards quote the esteemed Ring ****zine ratings, as a means of qualifying the resume of a particular boxer, seeking to establish a point regarding their quality of opposition.

For a recent newcomer to the sport, using The Ring Ratings as a gold standard is perfectly logical, for reasons known to all.
However; as I have stated in the past, the approach employed by those at the Ring, when compiling the ratings was to aggressively give upcoming boxers who appeared (in the moment) to be on the accent the benefit of the doubt.
This naturally sometimes lead to a premature ranking over more established commodities.

It is important to understand this, when stating proclamations that "Fighter X beat 8 "Ring rated opponents while fighter Z beat ony 3".

For our collective edification, let me use the following Heavyweights from the past 50 years to illustrate how the Ring's methodology could veer off the rails, while noting that premature ranking was far, far less often carried out by other publishers like Stanley Weston's World Boxing, International Boxing, KO, Hank Kaplan's Boxing Digest and Lou Eskin's Boxing Illustrated.

50 years of Heavyweights 1974 - 2024
Ratings Subjectivity Illustration -

20 Non-Ring Ranked heavyweights:
Boone Kirkman
Roy Tiger Williams
Richard Dunn
John Dino Denis
Luchien Rodriguez
George Chaplin
Gordon Racette
Florida Al Jones
Floyd Jumbo Cummings
Indian Joe Hipp
Lance Mount Whitaker
Lou Savarese
Frans Botha
Matt Skelton
Buster Mathis Jr.
Luan Krasniqi
Smokin' Bert Cooper
Alex Stewart
Carlos Takam
Derrick Chisora


....Were collectively a Better group than these 20 Ring ****zine Top 10 Ranked Heavyweights:

Randy Neumann
Howard KO Smith
Johnny Boudreaux
Marty Monroe
Domingo D'Elia
Adilson Rodrigues
Orlin Norris
Michael Bentt
Phil Jackson
Mike The Bounty Hunter
Lionel Butler
Alexander Zolkin
Derrick Jefferson
Fres Oquendo
Kirk Johnson
Monty Barrett
Calvin Brock
Vladimir Virchis (Vyrchyis)
Alexander Dimitrenko
Denis Boystov


Any thought about this????

Willow, does "star power" play any part? Does being good on tele play a part?
Great thread by you! Thanks

[Willow The Wisp]

Willow, does "star power" play any part? Does being good on tele play a part?
Great thread by you! Thanks

My take is that Effective Marketing perhaps shouldn't play a role in a fighter's accent in the rankings, but it does.
it's important to acknowledge, as others have pointed out above, that all boxing rankings are more art than science, and are partially subjective.

This applies to rating a largely unproven fighter against a fighter whose skills AND limitations have been proven out.

As an example; with US Heavyweights like Wilder, Miller and Martin seeming now in the twilight of their careers, there is an unspoken push to install hot commodity Jared Anderson is the Next Great American.

That's very natural, but does it really, combined with a hard earned win over a Charles Martin, entitle him to a top 10 placement? Or, are the ranking panels who place him there factoring in expected performances that haven't happened yet?

Looking at some of those prospects that the Ring selected to include in their top 10, this phenomenon of premature vetting is a repeating occurrence, and a number of those "pushed" Heavyweights in reality, never panned out to get within pissing distance of being one of the world's 10 best.

Thank you for the compliment my friend.