The top 100 boxers in history according to Ring Magazine

For those interested, the addendum to the study began running today: https://www.ringtv.com/635451-to-be-the-best-addendum-from-baby-arizmendi-to-diego-corrales/

Just to add my voice to the general consensus that comparing fighters between eras inevitably degenerates in to a morass of subjective bullchit... most of what I'd have to say already been covered by Bagz, Rocky, Romano et al. Thing to do with stuff like this is treat it as a bit of fun or perhaps a starting point for debate... same pretty much goes for all the 'P4P' nonsense too, least IMO. Guess I like that they at least tried to apply a consistent methodology... don't necessarily make the outcomes any more meaningful than boxrecs but at least you can see how they got to em. And I hope folks dig in because I think there is a LOT of fun stuff in the study. There's a reason I started the intro by noting what the study is not. There's little nuggets along the way like why Ring wouldn't recognize Canzoneri as Jr. welterweight champ (when the rest of the world did); how that adds to the footnote of Ross-Fuller; how Jackie Jurich essentially won recognition from Ring as flyweight champ despite a knockout loss; how Ring once recognized two men as middleweight champ concurrently; how Marvin Johnson knocked out Galindez to crown Saad in their pages. Everyone won't dig it and it won't, and shouldn't, end any debates. Not everyone will be all that into a rankings study in general. But I think everyone can find something interesting in there if they look. Fun. That's the right word

- - Wilt would slam dunk Mikey to stiffen him up straight before using him for the same day javelin competition. Does NBA have a Valhalla like Boxing where we can see this kind of stuff? HAHA....love it bro. So sick of the goat talks in every sport.

I hear ya man. The GOAT debates are tiring, especially in the NBA. Jordan would score 40 ppg in todays NBA and today's top scorers would see a significant drop in ppg. - - Wilt would slam dunk Mikey to stiffen him up straight before using him for the same day javelin competition. Does NBA have a Valhalla like Boxing where we can see this kind of stuff?

It's just a bit of fun. Whereas people actually take P4P seriously! I hear ya man. The GOAT debates are tiring, especially in the NBA. Jordan would score 40 ppg in todays NBA and today's top scorers would see a significant drop in ppg.

Just to add my voice to the general consensus that comparing fighters between eras inevitably degenerates in to a morass of subjective bullchit... most of what I'd have to say already been covered by Bagz, Rocky, Romano et al. Thing to do with stuff like this is treat it as a bit of fun or perhaps a starting point for debate... same pretty much goes for all the 'P4P' nonsense too, least IMO. Guess I like that they at least tried to apply a consistent methodology... don't necessarily make the outcomes any more meaningful than boxrecs but at least you can see how they got to em.

Could you imagine the havoc our best present day fighters would have over the pre tv era ? Our guys are bigger (HW), stronger, more technically sound.... Similar to NFL. We can't really judge present day to the 70's. It's almost a different sport, as was boxing. They can stand over a guy until they got up, had leather mittens instead of gloves, wrestling was encouraged.... ATGFF is more like it (FantasyFighters) Fantasy fighters is exactly it. The P4P lists and mixing one era with another is impossible. It's all speculation and opinion and we both know how wild that kind of view point can get.

These all time great lists are so hard for me to give any thoughts to. Ranking guys from different era's is incredibly hard and based on the criteria the Ring used, its even more puzzling. Someone pointed out that Hamed is ranked above MAB, which to me is utterly confusing. I get it, its based on their formula, but how can anyone say that some of the greatest heavyweights in history could match up with fighters from the last 10 years like the Klitchko's or Fury. This same concept applies to all sports, especially the NBA, NFL, NHL where in the 80's-90's the game was played much differently then it is today. It's just a bit of fun. Whereas people actually take P4P seriously!

You mean a champion fighting a debutant is no longer acceptable? :lol1: Yeah, agreed, should be in categories but we don't even separate history properly. John L Sullivan is hardly the first queensburry world champion but we like to put him there anyway. Sullivan does not belong amongst Tunney Tunney does not belong amongst Charles Charles does not belong amongst Spinks No, I don't think they'd have a hard time in each other's eras. I think they'd fight entirely differently. Make it real stupid, Mayweather, regardless of talent, does not belong next to names like Mendoza. Mayweather knows nothing about a fight to the finish and his entire style depends on their being a scheduled end. He simply does not fight like Money as a BK fighter. I'm not saying Spinks is better than Charles. I'm saying Spinks fights 12 rounds, charles fights 15, ought to be rated by the rules they fought under not how much your ***** gets wet when you watch. I think most of us (boxing fans, not fan boys) can agree on the quality of a fighter and their opposition. Just because 15 rds was done away with doesn't mean our guys couldn't do it. And those who did go 15 usually looked dead on their feet after 12. You are way smarter than me so perhaps you know the fatality/serious damage % between the eras ? Our era seems more damaging. Credible historians weren't able to critique our guys so how do they know Same situation when our historians knowledge will be limited to what they lived to see. If scoring fights is objective, makes sense that lists are too.

This is true logic right here GREAT POST Could you imagine the havoc our best present day fighters would have over the pre tv era ? Our guys are bigger (HW), stronger, more technically sound.... Similar to NFL. We can't really judge present day to the 70's. It's almost a different sport, as was boxing. They can stand over a guy until they got up, had leather mittens instead of gloves, wrestling was encouraged.... ATGFF is more like it (FantasyFighters)

These all time great lists are so hard for me to give any thoughts to. Ranking guys from different era's is incredibly hard and based on the criteria the Ring used, its even more puzzling. Someone pointed out that Hamed is ranked above MAB, which to me is utterly confusing. I get it, its based on their formula, but how can anyone say that some of the greatest heavyweights in history could match up with fighters from the last 10 years like the Klitchko's or Fury. This same concept applies to all sports, especially the NBA, NFL, NHL where in the 80's-90's the game was played much differently then it is today.

- - Watching muffins with bowels in an uproar over historical Ring Ratings...priceless:dance:

The BHOF has ''eras'' So should lists The ''fight once a month'' era could not survive in this era. The quality of opponents are better and no Mob to push a guy through. ATG lists cannot not exist due to so many variables This is true logic right here GREAT POST

I get they are going by a formula, but it seems weird to see Marco Antonio Barrera as #76, then Naseem Hamed at #75 :rolleyes: I can understand that one. Just sort of how the math worked out. Also something that could change as scores adjust with new results over time.

I get they are going by a formula, but it seems weird to see Marco Antonio Barrera as #76, then Naseem Hamed at #75 :rolleyes:

The BHOF has ''eras'' So should lists The ''fight once a month'' era could not survive in this era. The quality of opponents are better and no Mob to push a guy through. ATG lists cannot not exist due to so many variables

Saw this and to clarify, it's not really the best 100 fighters in history (though most of the names one would expect are on there somewhere). It's a study of their rankings, from 1924-present, with an index of who beat who and what the magazine ranked them heading into fights. The intro lays it out: https://www.ringtv.com/article/to-be-the-best-intro/ Hope you enjoy. :) Who the best fighters are is largely a subjective argument. It's really impossible to say who was the absolute best when you're comparing fighters from different generations across numerous weight classes. This list tries to make the argument as objective as possible by showing how dominant certain fighters were against highly ranked opposition at the time they were competing.

Lol You can see why nobody takes that rag seriously anymore. Just saw it some old school fans are meltimg down on facebook

https://www.ringtv.com/634271-to-be-the-best-the-top-100-boxers-in-the-history-of-the-ring-rankings-90-81/ https://www.ringtv.com/634878-to-be-the-best-the-top-100-boxers-in-the-history-of-the-ring-rankings-20-11/ https://www.marca.com/en/boxing/2022/02/15/620bf985268e3ea31b8b45dd.html Both Pacquiao and Mayweather are top 10 according to Ring Magazine Saw this and to clarify, it's not really the best 100 fighters in history (though most of the names one would expect are on there somewhere). It's a study of their rankings, from 1924-present, with an index of who beat who and what the magazine ranked them heading into fights. The intro lays it out: https://www.ringtv.com/article/to-be-the-best-intro/ Hope you enjoy. :)