up to this point, I hadn't really noticed a bias, not to say I was happy with the magazine content-wise but I thought it was fair to Arum + GBP, but now this
up to this point, I hadn't really noticed a bias, not to say I was happy with the magazine content-wise but I thought it was fair to Arum + GBP, but now this
This is boxing, and there is a ton of money involved. The bias was going to surface sooner or later.
Commented earlier. Broner has the look of a top ten talent and if someone wanted him around 8-10, whatever. Top 5 got a "hahahahaha" out of me. It got people talking, which is all ****** ass P4P lists should ever do and this is exactly why people shouldn't take them so SERIOUS. I think though you can get them talking for the wrong reason. This might be a case...
...or it might be prescient. Like when Larry Merchant rated Pac top ten after ledwaba on the air, the world went nuts...and Merchant was right. He was just right on eye test instead of 'resume' which is what most people are looking at.
I wouldn't rate Broner over Donaire at all (or in the top ten yet), and I'd still have Pac, Froch, and Mares ahead of him. Ring has their take. Take it as you will.
For those who don't know, Ring's list is entirely composed by one guy: Chuck Giampa.
From the article on the new ratings: Due to the recent activity among elite fighters in the past few months, here is Giampa’s updated Pound-for-Pound Top 10 list (Editor’s Note: the mythical pound-for-pound rankings are not compiled with input from the Ratings Panel as the divisional ratings are):
Pacquiao is out of the top 10 because he got ktfo, no offense.
Agreed. I think he was in the bottom half (for whatever thats worth cuz pfp lists are dumb) before this fight. Floyd is around 5ish imo right now as well.
Comment