New Ring Rankings of 100 Best Boxers Introduced...

[crold1]

- - Well, with a blooming of a rare orchid, you finally live up to your moniker. Robby with120+ undefeated fights from 130-147 against more HOFers than 99.9% fighters ever fought took his first loss vs LaMotta, another HOFer whom he avenged 5x.

After near death from heat prostration vs Archer at LH, what few of the people not on his bandwagon flocked to his epic comeback middleweight title swaps when he was well passed his best.

The Ring Study has a narrow focus, that of complete consolidation of Ring Rankings, so from early debut years to ancient retirement era years he of course is gonna have more rankings than anyone else. I applaud the effort of taking as much subjectivity out of the project that has always limited any Ring or other ratings save that of boxrec.

Glad you ultimately enjoyed. I’m sure there were other ways to approach this but I hope folks enjoy the detail there. Addendum should begin to drop soon

[The Old LefHook]

Who beats whom, is the only criterion I employ in mythical lists. Longevity is nice, impact on boxing is noteworthy, jumping weight classes is impressive--but they do not matter in AT rankings, unless you are ranking who was more influential et al. Who beats whom is what matters. The three criteria above will not even come into play. The boxers are merely wind-up toys in their respective primes.

[GhostofDempsey]

Who beats whom, is the only criterion I employ in mythical lists. Longevity is nice, impact on boxing is noteworthy, jumping weight classes is impressive--but they do not matter in AT rankings, unless you are ranking who was more influential et al. Who beats whom is what matters. The three criteria above will not even come into play. The boxers are merely wind-up toys in their respective primes.

Who beats who only applies if we're talking ATG from specific weight classes. Discussing these mythical P4P lists leaves us to measure fighters by their resume/accomplishments, quality of opposition and whether they fought other greats at their best, overall boxing skill, stamina, heart, determination, impact on the sport as a whole, and several other factors that come into play. Despite that, there will never be a definitive list, they are all subjective to a large degree, but many of the same fighters typically make the cut on everyone's list.

[crold1]

For those interested, the addendum to the study began running today: https://www.ringtv.com/635451-to-be-...iego-corrales/

[BattlingNelson]

I always love when Cliff tries to quantify boxing records. Good job cliff.

[The Old LefHook]

I always love when Cliff tries to quantify boxing records. Good job cliff.

He has either used legitimate statistical analysis, or he is simply pulling our legs. If you are going to quantify something, that is how it is done, not by making up numbers you would like to see there.

[BattlingNelson]

He has either used legitimate statistical analysis, or he is simply pulling our legs. If you are going to quantify something, that is how it is done, not by making up numbers you would like to see there.

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.

[Willie Pep 229]

Nino Benvenuti went 63 fights before his first loss; had a trilogy with Griffith, winning two of the three.

Defended the MW title several times and at one point (by his last year holding the title) he had fought seven of the Ring's 10 ranked MWs. There are not too many champions who can say that.

He aged out and lost his his title to Monzon . . . and couldn't make the top 100?

OK maybe that's fair, but then how the hell does Griffith end up number five?

Maybe the dumbest list I have yet encountered on this forum, and that's saying much.

[crold1]

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.

I don’t know what the points thing is referencing but I acknowledge the occasional weird. No leg pulling here (this was too much work to try to make anything up) though there was human error in compiling the data and limits to what the data could show. It’s why I tried to be clear about what this was not. If I ever publish all of it, it will be more as an encyclopedia approach and may incorporate more publications.

Thanks for the kind words Bat.

[crold1]

Nino Benvenuti went 63 fights before his first loss; had a trilogy with Griffith, winning two of the three.

Defended the MW title several times and at one point (by his last year holding the title) he had fought seven of the Ring's 10 ranked MWs. There are not too many champions who can say that.

He aged out and lost his his title to Monzon . . . and couldn't make the top 100?

OK maybe that's fair, but then how the hell does Griffith end up number five?

Maybe the dumbest list I have yet encountered on this forum, and that's saying much.

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.