Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How Ring Magazine lost it's final credibility.

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    How Ring Magazine lost it's final credibility.

    “We won’t get involved in the editorial side of rankings,” promised CEO Richard Schaefer when Golden Boy Enterprises purchased The Ring in 2007. Few believed him. I raised an eyebrow.
    At the same time that Schaefer made one promise, Oscar De La Hoya made another. He said that Nigel Collins would stay in his position as editor-in-chief of the magazine. Last summer, Collins cleaned out his desk while De La Hoya cleaned house and moved The Ring from Blue Bell, Pennsylvania to his bathroom in Los Angeles.
    One month later a newly-appointed editorial board pledged allegiance to the boss. After Bernard Hopkins lost his title by TKO to Chad Dawson, The Ring broke its own rules, fell in line with Schaefer, and declared that Hopkins was still the champion despite the referee’s call. The referee’s call was faulty and would later be overturned, but that isn’t the point. The point is that The Ring rushed to support a Golden Boy fighter when it would have been perfectly reasonable to wait for the official decision by the California State Athletic Commission.


    I raised another eyebrow.
    In January, the editorial board decided to remove number one-ranked Marco Huck from the cruiserweight rankings because of what turned out to be a single venture into the heavyweight realm. The next two ranked contenders were moved forward and fought for The Ring championship. This hasty move soon had the editors backpedaling faster than Joey Archer. This spring, Floyd Mayweather stepped up a weight class to challenge Miguel Cotto and was not removed from the welterweight ratings. Why? Editor-in-chief Michael Rosenthal stated the difference as one of “intentions.” In other words, had Huck won his heavyweight bout, he may have intended to leave the cruiserweight division “because he can make more money as a heavyweight.” But he didn’t and so returned to the cruiserweight division, which he also may have intended to do. The Ring “decided against dropping Mayweather because it is clear that he is a welterweight who took the fight with Cotto only because of economics.” In other words, “economics” was the magic bullet behind removing Huck and retaining Mayweather. Or was it simply that Mayweather, like Hopkins, is a Golden Boy fighter?

    I don’t claim to know, but with no more eyebrows to raise it was time to take action.
    Some weeks ago, I contacted a member of The Ring Ratings Panel for reassurance. I got that and an invitation to join the panel and see for myself. So I did.
    Nineteen days later I resigned.
    The reason I did is that the editorial board, unbeknownst to the ratings panel, reworked The Ring’s championship policy and effectively destroyed its purpose and credibility. [See below]
    The full article is here:


    #2
    Gbp have discredited Ring as a credible source to use for lineal rankings. TBR is now the go-to rankings.

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by BattlingNelson View Post
      The full article is here:


      Battling Nelson:

      First let me confess I did not yet read this article. Forgive me if my response neglects any important considerations but I did feel compelled to make a point regarding journalism in boxing. I make this point as one who writes in the field for fun, and who has also written professionally.

      These magazines always have ulterior motives, interests that will ultimately reflect in the content of ranking systems and other such things. It is virtually an impossability to objectively reflect and rank fighters accordingly. Its one of the reasons why the older guys who are dying off way to fast....the guys who saw fighters in action of a bygone era and can compare these fighters, are so important! Say what you will about the late Bert Sugar or Nat Flecher but these guys eyeballed many of the guys they lionized in their ranking systems.

      The great philosopher of Hermeneutics Jurgen Habermas says that the authored word when put into press becomes the property of the masses and when so put, is no longer the exclusive property as the author who merely becomes another commentator.

      Ring magazine and all the other magazines that claim to rank fighters should ideally have no privaleged editiorial power over others....that is the problem. They are not an authority on the subject because they can never be objective. They are simply a medium to present their take on the subject...much like when a poster here takes the time to make a list of this sort.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by billeau2 View Post
        Battling Nelson:

        First let me confess I did not yet read this article. Forgive me if my response neglects any important considerations but I did feel compelled to make a point regarding journalism in boxing. I make this point as one who writes in the field for fun, and who has also written professionally.

        These magazines always have ulterior motives, interests that will ultimately reflect in the content of ranking systems and other such things. It is virtually an impossability to objectively reflect and rank fighters accordingly. Its one of the reasons why the older guys who are dying off way to fast....the guys who saw fighters in action of a bygone era and can compare these fighters, are so important! Say what you will about the late Bert Sugar or Nat Flecher but these guys eyeballed many of the guys they lionized in their ranking systems.

        The great philosopher of Hermeneutics Jurgen Habermas says that the authored word when put into press becomes the property of the masses and when so put, is no longer the exclusive property as the author who merely becomes another commentator.

        Ring magazine and all the other magazines that claim to rank fighters should ideally have no privaleged editiorial power over others....that is the problem. They are not an authority on the subject because they can never be objective. They are simply a medium to present their take on the subject...much like when a poster here takes the time to make a list of this sort.
        The thing is that Ring Magazine is called the bible of boxing. What stands there should be a standard of excellence and indepence. One of the major things regarding indepence is rankings as Ring Magazine rankings carries (or should or did carry) a lot of weight and in a professional sport such a ranking is worth money.

        To ensure indepence, a rankings comitee with Independent writers from around the World was installed and a set of rules was to be met.

        Everybody knew, that as soon as GBP bought the Magazine, there was an immanent danger of the storied ring Magazine becoming a part of the sport and not a reflector of the sport. De La Hoya I'm sure, had the best intentions, but he has failed and now GBP is clearly (mis)using the name of the Magazine to promote its own fighters.

        As a lifelong fan of the sport it saddens me greatly that the Magazine which I grew up with is reduced to a marketing instrument for a leading promotor. Nat Fleischer is turning in his grave.


        As for journalism, well I know that money matters. That goes for boxingscene as well, as I highly doubt they'd perform investigative journalism into promotors who sponsor this site..
        Last edited by BattlingNelson; 04-19-2014, 10:00 AM.

        Comment


          #5
          People put too much stock into a mag's P4P ranking. It literally changes from month to month almost. Their weight ratings are usually the best out there

          Comment


            #6
            Thats why i never use the ring rankings,, they are not accurate alot of the time..

            I always get a chuckle when debating someone and they rush to the Ring Rankings as evidence... These guys have had broner, ghost, and canelo, in the top 10 P4P... Also had Shane #3 after the Margs fight, even though shane hadnt won a legit big fight in about a decade, people to this day think he was #3 p4p when he fought floyd because The Ring said so. Shane was no doubt a top welter at the time, but not p4p, especially when it basically was a one hit wonder for him,, forrest beat him twice, winky twice, cotto, floyd, manny canelo, and oscar was robbed in rematch... Shane hadnt had a legit big win since 2000 with oscar, and then in jan 2009 with margs, thats a decade of time nearly that had passed between big wins, and yet Ring had shane #3 p4p and people bought into it because it was the RING....
            A bunch of sheep is what boxing fans are for the most part...

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Holywarrior View Post
              People put too much stock into a mag's P4P ranking. It literally changes from month to month almost. Their weight ratings are usually the best out there
              They don't have Herrera in the top 10 at 140 after the Garcia fight.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Holywarrior View Post
                People put too much stock into a mag's P4P ranking. It literally changes from month to month almost. Their weight ratings are usually the best out there
                How can you put Stock into those rankings knowing that they're skewed towards one promotional stable?

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by BattlingNelson View Post
                  The thing is that Ring Magazine is called the bible of boxing. What stands there should be a standard of excellence and indepence. One of the major things regarding indepence is rankings as Ring Magazine rankings carries (or should or did carry) a lot of weight and in a professional sport such a ranking is worth money.

                  To ensure indepence, a rankings comitee with Independent writers from around the World was installed and a set of rules was to be met.

                  Everybody knew, that as soon as GBP bought the Magazine, there was an immanent danger of the storied ring Magazine becoming a part of the sport and not a reflector of the sport. De La Hoya I'm sure, had the best intentions, but he has failed and now GBP is clearly (mis)using the name of the Magazine to promote its own fighters.

                  As a lifelong fan of the sport it saddens me greatly that the Magazine which I grew up with is reduced to a marketing instrument for a leading promotor. Nat Fleischer is turning in his grave.


                  As for journalism, well I know that money matters. That goes for boxingscene as well, as I highly doubt they'd perform investigative journalism into promotors who sponsor this site..

                  That objectivity is a very hard thing to maintain. Consumer Digest seems to do it! But whenever anyone with skin in the game gets into the mix, somehow just magically things seem to tilt a bit. It is a shame

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by jas View Post
                    Gbp have discredited Ring as a credible source to use for lineal rankings. TBR is now the go-to rankings.
                    What's TBR again? I might have their site bookmarked, not sure, as I have so many these days.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X
                    TOP