Explain this to me...

exactly, i have found better sources of fair boxing info like this site for example

yeah good point not good for improving boxings reputation of being purely about greed and corruption if the man who owns it is motivated to keep himself on the top list when he clearly is not in the top 10 it just shows an example of why its not good for a promoter to control a source of boxing media, sure its there opinion, but puting him at 3 because "he's the only one who tested Floyd" is ridiculous The easiest way to end that is stop reading it. I've read ring and other boxing litterature for years and IMO, I've learned more here and others places on the net. Let's just see these a-holes put him in their top 10 when the same jr. welter tears his ass up again? As if anybody, who knows anything about boxing doesn't know Floyd will put it on him worse this time...

a promoter owning ring magazine can`t be good for boxing. yeah good point not good for improving boxings reputation of being purely about greed and corruption if the man who owns it is motivated to keep himself on the top list when he clearly is not in the top 10 it just shows an example of why its not good for a promoter to control a source of boxing media, sure its there opinion, but puting him at 3 because "he's the only one who tested Floyd" is ridiculous

I bought the April 2008 copy of The Ring Magazine yesterday It has an end of year review section and one part is the 2007 Best Fighter Poll A survey of "Experts" have chosen the their top 10 fighters of 2007, overall scores being added together to make the 2007 list Earlier on in the magazine it says Oscar De La Hoya's purchase of the magazine franchise has had no effect... Well out of the 10 "Experts" asked for a top 10 for 2007, 10 chose floyd as #1... obviously.. but two of them "Buddy McGrit & Max Kellerman" had Oscar in their top 10... WTF? He fought once in 2007 and lost to pretty boy in a hardly inspiring performance Buddy McGrits reasoning for chosing oscar at #3 in his list (ahead of Cotto/Calzaghe/Vazquez) is "Oscar i put there because he was the only one who really tested Floyd"...:tapedshut I know its only personal choice, but he failed to chose Kelly Pavlik in his whole top 10 :nonono: Thats not it, these two choices in the top 10 for oscar (#3 & #7) just happened to give him 13 points which was enough to squeeze him into the overall top 10 for 2007, tied 10th place with Juan Diaz What a load of bollocks... It's my opinion that the ring is not worth reading and has lost all credibility. Having ODH ranked proves the point. As far as Buddy and Max their just licking nuts hard. They can say anything they want and try to back it up with obviously , assinine reasoning and most who can think for themselves will recognize it for what it really is, drivel...

Buddy McGirt is a good trainer, and was a good fighter, so you think he would be a little more on top of his shit than to say something as stupid as that...

i disagreed with buddy. castillo tested floyd in their first fight more than oscar did. that was a closer bout.

You are right, sorry. Oscar tested Floyd, which in many peoples opinion is something not many below 154 can do. Some people felt like he gave the fight away (I felt Mayweather didn't bother to fight). Based on that one fight, those two people probably recognizes that Oscar could beat pretty much anyone below 154. However, that doesn't really apply to that list, as it should only reflect the fighters who had a succesful year. I think McGirt and Kellerman confuses top fighters 2007 with a P4P list, at least per definition. I could be wrong, they could be both stupid. And they could be both nutlickers... Indeed :grumble:

You are right, sorry. Oscar tested Floyd, which in many peoples opinion is something not many below 154 can do. Some people felt like he gave the fight away (I felt Mayweather didn't bother to fight). Based on that one fight, those two people probably recognizes that Oscar could beat pretty much anyone below 154. However, that doesn't really apply to that list, as it should only reflect the fighters who had a succesful year. I think McGirt and Kellerman confuses top fighters 2007 with a P4P list, at least per definition. I could be wrong, they could be both stupid. And they could be both nutlickers...

Why bother leaving meaningless replies?

Why bother getting upset over subjective opinions from people you don't know?

a promoter owning ring magazine can`t be good for boxing.