New Ring Rankings of 100 Best Boxers Introduced...

[Willie Pep 229]

Nino likely suffered in part from data limitations. If Ring had Jr middleweight rankings in the 60s, he probably fares better. Ultimately the difference is in the scoring results. The difference between guys who made the cut and just missed was often marginal and it’s one reason I wanted the addendum there as well to capture more of the breadth of how great most of these fighters were.

Ok - thanks for the reply. The absence of the Jr. MW rankungs would be important to evaluating Benvenuti - his first 60 plus fights would not be factored in the results.

[crold1]

Ok - thanks for the reply. The absence of the Jr. MW rankungs would be important to evaluating Benvenuti - his first 60 plus fights would not be factored in the results.

Not quite the case. Ring ranked Jr middles (mostly) as middles the same way later they would rank Jr fly/together in the 70s and 80s. So he had some ranked wins but not what they would have been had the title and top ten been separate.

It’s in contrast to Ricardo Lopez. Same run at strawweight after 1998 I would guess he finishes well inside the top 50. As was the magazine didn’t rank his weight class at all (not even combined) until before the rematch with Rosendo. Ends up with not even enough for the addendum.

There’s a lot more to this study than the list. That was really just a way to process the data. Sometimes it correlated with popular thinking about “greater” fighters. Sometimes less so.

[The Old LefHook]

Cliff has tried to quantify before here on boxingscene with mixed succes meaning that some results was kinda weird as I recall it.









PS: Cliff will steal your points if you’re not careful.

Weirdness will often be a by-product of original analysis. Methods will always be questioned, belittled or misunderstood. You have to choose some parameters and leave out others. Such work is more fun interpretation than hardcore analysis anyway. Some useful insight might come of it.