What bodies rankings do you trust ?

Boxrec has Tarver as the 21st greatest HW ever. Toney 20th. Guillermo Jones(one fight at HW) in 70's. That's all you need to know about their rankings.

WBU and WBF Nah but seriously Boxrec is weird, it's done by some computer algorithm. It has Gilberto Ramirez ahead of Ward and Kovalev...

boxrec too

ring isn't bad. you just need to watch out for a few fighters / divisions in which thety have a ton of skin in teh game. can't take canelo's rating in that magazine seriously, for instance. tbrb seems to be the best that we've got right now. no ranking is perfect. anybody with a decent p4p list will tell you that it's an opinion based on an abstract idea that can only exist in your head anyway. p4p for me usually means the very best fighters on the planet. there may not be 10 of them that are a shoe-in. once you get beyond the top 1-5 guys that often becomes very tough to hash out, unless the guys have fought common opponents or each other. and sometimes you have 10 great fighters at once that all feel like one of the best fighters on the planet. it's just hyper subjective.

http://www.tbrb.org/all-rankings/

TRBR and boxrec as a reference tool for fighters outside of Top10.

I remember James Toney back in the day calling the WBC 'We Be Crooks'.

Id rather rely on boxing publications than any ABCs. I realize that the Ring may be influenced by GBP (maintenance of Canelo as MW champ is a joke IMO), but I would rely on the Ring, especially in the lower weights. I will admit that I am not fully tuned into all the Asian boxers, so I rely on the Ring to scope that out. Rafael's ESPN rankings I respect, in that he seems to be completely independent, unbiased. For example, he has vacated Canelo. But I don't think Rafael knows the lower weights very well, and I do think he values "big" fights - so that if a fight is on TV, with lots of hype, he may just it as more meaningful than it actually is.