100th Anniversary of The Ring Magazine - Top 100 Rankings - Interesting Scoring System

[asero831]

I think Barney Ross only faced 6 rated fights. Most of his wins are against unrated fighters. But those six fighters are in the Top 3 of the Division.

[JAB5239]

Jab: Good question. Answer is it's not a "best" list. What I did for Ring was a study of their rankings for the anniversary, assessing points based on the ranking of opponents in the issue prior to fights for the years a fighter was ranked. Ross is a little lower ultimately because he had fewer ranked foes on that standard. It's not an assessment that either was better than him. When the remaining 75 are released with full details (probably next month), you'll be able to see what i mean. Those last 75 will shake up with a couple corrections and additional results past the cutoff date for the magazine (the magazine was current to the weekend after Alvarez-Plant). The study has the wins against ranked foes, what they were ranked, and in what issue, for all of it. It was a lot of fun to do.

As to the Greb comments above elsewhere, the study only included Greb's official results from 1924 forward as Ring didn't have rankings to assess prior to that. Consider how remarkable: his last two years as a pro was still that good.

Thank you for the clarification and reply. Interesting study. How do you personally rank fighters like Greb, Gans and Langford who fought before or at the beginning of the Ring ratings?

[JAB5239]

I think Barney Ross only faced 6 rated fights. Most of his wins are against unrated fighters. But those six fighters are in the Top 3 of the Division.

Ross at a quick glance appears to have beaten more than 20 (Inouding multiple fights) top 10 fighters. Going by this system they may not have been as high as some of his contemporaries on this list, but he fought a who's who of his era for sure. If I had time this morning I would dig deeper and get some better numbers for examples.

[QueensburyRules]

Jab: Good question. Answer is it's not a "best" list. What I did for Ring was a study of their rankings for the anniversary, assessing points based on the ranking of opponents in the issue prior to fights for the years a fighter was ranked. Ross is a little lower ultimately because he had fewer ranked foes on that standard. It's not an assessment that either was better than him. When the remaining 75 are released with full details (probably next month), you'll be able to see what i mean. Those last 75 will shake up with a couple corrections and additional results past the cutoff date for the magazine (the magazine was current to the weekend after Alvarez-Plant). The study has the wins against ranked foes, what they were ranked, and in what issue, for all of it. It was a lot of fun to do.

As to the Greb comments above elsewhere, the study only included Greb's official results from 1924 forward as Ring didn't have rankings to assess prior to that. Consider how remarkable: his last two years as a pro was still that good.

- - 1st Ring Rankings have 3 years to go for 100th anniversary.

So you pitted pre 1924 fights of fighters against post 1924 fights, hardly a fair comparison.

No matter, the Ring rankings only matter these days the inner echo chamber of Ring.

[soul_survivor]

Honestly, at this stage, who cares about The Ring? It lost al lrespect years ago.

[DeeMoney]

Fun little post and glad to see something like this. Its odd that people on other sites are getting bent out of shape over this, its just a mathematical formula: if you beat fighter ranked here you get X amount of points. But, I guess too many skip over the explanations.
Also, the bad mouthing of the Ring ratings in general is odd, has there been another source who has provided consistent rankings better than this for the past century? Yeah they have their biases at times, but who hasnt?

[crold1]

Thank you for the clarification and reply. Interesting study. How do you personally rank fighters like Greb, Gans and Langford who fought before or at the beginning of the Ring ratings?

I think Greb and Langford are the best debate against Robinson for best career of them all.

[crold1]

- - 1st Ring Rankings have 3 years to go for 100th anniversary.

So you pitted pre 1924 fights of fighters against post 1924 fights, hardly a fair comparison.

No matter, the Ring rankings only matter these days the inner echo chamber of Ring.

i know and the article addresses that it is 97 years of top tens. It was done for the 100th anniversary of Ring.

[QueensburyRules]

i know and the article addresses that it is 97 years of top tens. It was done for the 100th anniversary of Ring.

- - Well, coulda used Boxrec ratings for those years back then.

A couple of years back they swapped out that top 10 year by year format from their data base for an inferior, dumbed down, one page all everything format, so too late for that now.