Ring ****zine New Rankings: Deontay Wilder #3, Tyson Fury #2, Anthony Joshua #1

[Toffee]

The quirks of Boxrec are still better than the blatant corruption of Ring.




You look idiotic crying robbery when the majority of ringside experts didn't have Fury winning.

Save the tears for an actual robbery. Had Wilder won, you might have had a gripe since only 20% of ringside experts had him winning, but with 40% having a draw, that means 60% didn't have Fury winning. So there's no room to cry "robbery." The official decision was a draw. 60% either had a draw or Wilder winning. Stop being a biased fanboy.

So 80% had a draw or Fury winning.

Find it hard to believe that 40% actually scored a draw. You can argue it was close but you're still unlikely to actually score the rounds as a draw.

And even then you would surely agree Fury was unlucky to have a third of the judges side with a fifth of the ringside spectators?

[N/A]

All the experts on the TBRB and Ring panels had Fury winning. I'm sure that's well over 100.

If they weren't ringside, their opinions are irrelevant. Those of us actually watching the fight, as opposed to watching a TV showing the fight, are the ones in a position to judge what's really going on. You'll notice the "outrage" is among those who watched on TV.

Those of us on press row either had a draw, Fury winning by a couple points or Wilder winning by a couple points. Far more had Fury winning than Wilder winning, but so many had a draw that you can't complain about the official decision being a draw as well.

[N/A]

Find it hard to believe that 40% actually scored a draw. You can argue it was close but you're still unlikely to actually score the rounds as a draw.

113-113, which is how I scored it, was the most common score on press row. There were just as many Fury cards as there were draw cards, but the Fury scores varied. Normally a draw is an uncommon score, but for this fight 113-113 was very very common.

And even then you would surely agree Fury was unlucky to have a third of the judges side with a fifth of the ringside spectators?

If multiple judges agreed with the minority and Wilder won, I could maybe understand cries of robbery. But the fight was ruled a draw. A draw was a very very common score on press row. There was no robbery.

[MDPopescu]

i don’t necessarily disagree with you; just trying to see the logic behind their ranking system.

I looked up ring ****zines annual rankings back to 2014. (maybe i’m not looking in the right place).

2014:
wladimir klitschko, champion
1.alexander povetkin
2.bermane stiverne
3.tyson fury
4.kubrat pulev
5.bryant jennings
6.deontay wilder

2015:
tyson fury, champion
1.wladimir klitschko
2.alexander povetkin
3.deontay wilder
4.kubrat pulev
5.luis ortiz
6.bermane stiverne
10.anthony joshua

2016:
tyson fury, champion
1.wladimir klitschko
2.deontay wilder
3.kubrat pulev
4.luis ortiz
5.anthony joshua
6.joseph parker
10. Dillian whyte

2017:
tyson fury, champion
1.anthony joshua
2.deontay wilder
3.joseph parker
4.alexander povetkin
5.luis ortiz
8.dillian whyte

where i got info from:

how’s fury go from champion status to number 2 here for 2018?

..............................

[Combat Talk Radio]

The whole panel on Ring ****zine had Fury winning so despite the decision being a draw, they have ranked Fury higher than Wilder.

In before Wilder tweets that The Ring and TBRB are haters.

[Kris Silver]

If they weren't ringside, their opinions are irrelevant. Those of us actually watching the fight, as opposed to watching a TV showing the fight, are the ones in a position to judge what's really going on. You'll notice the "outrage" is among those who watched on TV.

Those of us on press row either had a draw, Fury winning by a couple points or Wilder winning by a couple points. Far more had Fury winning than Wilder winning, but so many had a draw that you can't complain about the official decision being a draw as well.

See you're still peddling this BS.

Post this proof, names, media companies who like you had it a draw or Wilder winning.

A simple request I'm sure you'll be able to list most of them no problem.

[Citizen Koba]

Well we cant take boxrec seriously, they accept robberies.

The Ring ****zine is acknowledging who 90%+ of the fans thought won. Wilder wouldn't even be #3 if they didn't rob Fury.

Ring ****zine can't be trusted on anything related (even indirectly) to GBP but they're not terrible otherwise... regardless I still much prefer TBRB as the new standard, especially when it comes to international representation.

On this occasion though TBRB and The Ring are in full agreement and both have elevated Fury above Wilder.

[Robbie Barrett]

See you're still peddling this BS.

Post this proof, names, media companies who like you had it a draw or Wilder winning.

A simple request I'm sure you'll be able to list most of them no problem.

He claimed to be a promoter, that he's paid to post here, now that he's part of the press. He hasn't provided an ounce of proof to back up any of this. The guy is a bull****ter.

[Chrismart]

Seems fair to me. Looks like Transnational Boxing have Fury at number 2 also.

[Robbie Barrett]

I don’t necessarily disagree with you; just trying to see the logic behind their ranking system.

I looked up Ring ****zines Annual rankings back to 2014. (Maybe I’m not looking in the right place).

2014:
Wladimir Klitschko, Champion
1.Alexander Povetkin
2.Bermane Stiverne
3.Tyson Fury
4.Kubrat Pulev
5.Bryant Jennings
6.Deontay Wilder

2015:
Tyson Fury, Champion
1.Wladimir Klitschko
2.Alexander Povetkin
3.Deontay Wilder
4.Kubrat Pulev
5.Luis Ortiz
6.Bermane Stiverne
10.Anthony Joshua

2016:
Tyson Fury, Champion
1.Wladimir Klitschko
2.Deontay Wilder
3.Kubrat Pulev
4.Luis Ortiz
5.Anthony Joshua
6.Joseph Parker
10. Dillian Whyte

2017:
Tyson Fury, Champion
1.Anthony Joshua
2.Deontay Wilder
3.Joseph Parker
4.Alexander Povetkin
5.Luis Ortiz
8.Dillian Whyte

Where I got info from:

How’s Fury go from Champion status to number 2 here for 2018?

He got stripped for being inactive for 2 years. Fighter actually have to fight to stay in the rankings you know.