History!! - America 1..2..3 in The Ring p4p rankings........

First topic message reminder :

Can't remember Amercia having a 1 2 3 in The Ring magazine in my lifetime or KO for the matter.....(could be wrong)....

Feeling proud of my brothers across the pond !!

1. Mayweather
2. Ward
3. Bradley............Take a bow.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:So far everyone else on this thread thinks Bradley #3 is a joke.  But then, of course, their opinions will undoubtedly be disregarded as they don't fall into line with your own.

I welcome all opinions.

BS

Broner has 1 good win (DeMarco) and struggles past PM in a match he would've drawn or lost if officiated properly and he's ahead of Rigo who beat the p4p#3. That's rubbish.

I'd even have Garcia ahead of Broner.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:I think Bradley has as good a shout as anyone else to be ranked as high. Few things:

Since Ring Magazine was sold to Oscar De la Hoya and GBP (and fired all of the staff, such as Collins, Dettloff, Raskin, Goldman etc.) their ratings system eroded. This list is entirely the work of ex-judge Chuck Giampa -- even the editorial staff (Fischer, Rosenthal etc.) don't get a say -- so it's only one man's opinion.

Secondly, "pound for pound" is, essentially, a load of old nonsense -- naval gazing by writers wo can no longer make sense of a sport long since lost to indecipherable organisations and corruption. The whole thing got entirely out of hand a few years ago when Ricky Hatton started talking about WINNING the P4P title!!!

The best two fighters around are Floyd and Ward -- possibly with Rigo coming up on the rails. The rest are much of a muchness right now.

If Abner Mares hadn't been cold-cocked by Gonzalez, he would have been in the argument. His level of opposition over the past few years has been excellent.

I disagree I imagine back in the day...........People used to argue on who was the best overall fighter of the time............

Just because they didn't have p4p back then...doesn't mean it wasn't discussed.......

There wasn't remotely as much emphasis. People used to know who the champions and challengers were in each division and that was enough.

P4P is a load of old guff.

You don't know there wasn't as much emphasis anymore than I do.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You don't know there wasn't as much emphasis anymore than I do.

 
Ring Magazine first published a ranking list in 1990 -- that's when this imaginary merit system really took off - a direct result of the proliferation of world titles.
 
I don't doubt that fans have always considered lighter fighters to be better than their heavyweight peers but you didn't have fans arguing about top tens as they do now -- it simply didn't happen. I've read magazines dating back to before Rowley was alive and there wasn't the emphasis or attention on imaginary rankings.

hazharrison wrote: I've read magazines dating back to before Rowley was alive and there wasn't the emphasis or attention on imaginary rankings.

They were called periodicals then.

And I'm sure 'Merica has had a top three before. Jones, Oscar and Pernell were all kicking about back in the day.

All P4P means is "one of the better fighters doing the rounds because we no longer know who the best in each division is".

Rowley wrote:

hazharrison wrote: I've read magazines dating back to before Rowley was alive and there wasn't the emphasis or attention on imaginary rankings.

They were called periodicals then.

P4P takes greater significance now that the Heavyweight championship(which was called The richest prize in sport) looks unlikely to be held by an American. Now the P4P seems the richest prize in sport. Funny that.

Got to be honest I am not a huge fan of the P4P list and the current obsession with it. As a rule it tends to put a lot of stock on weight hopping so by its very nature favours lighter weights where the gap between weights is smaller and such a thing is viable and also does not do many favours to heavyweights who through no fault of their own have little to no opportunity to challenge guys in other weight classes.

Do also think that Haz’ point that were the world title picture not so utterly incomprehensible and impenetrable we would almost certainly not be quite so obsessed with what is ultimately and unavoidably a completely arbitrary and mythical listing.

kingraf wrote:P4P takes greater significance now that the Heavyweight championship(which was called The richest prize in sport) looks unlikely to be held by an American. Now the P4P seems the richest prize in sport. Funny that.

Thing you are seeing things that aren't there..........

Big thing when julio had it........

As (I think Jabmachine) has said - even though Bradley isn't everyone's cup of tea (I like him a lot, myself) - who else is deserving of that slot?

Pacquiao, Marquez, Witter, Peterson, Holt, Abregu, Provdokinov, Alexander.

Bradley is "real". His resume is genuine and actually surprisingly well padded with quality opponents.

I admired and rated Calzaghe - still do - he was credited as being ~p4p #2/3 prior to retirement. Does his record beat that? A prime Kessler, old but very much functional Hopkins, Lacy, aging Eubank, Mitchell, Brewer.

Give me Bradley's any day, w/w/o Pacquiao.

Whatever way we look at it he is not the third best boxer on the planet;

If we look at purely his record then he's behind the undisputed middleweight king Martinez and if we objectively look at their fights then Rigondeaux is easily above him. A win over Donaire with no if's and but's is the best win anyone has had in the past 12 months, he wasn't old, weight drained or any of the other stuff, he was simply beaten by the better man on the night. Regardless of Marquez being old I rate Donaire higher than him anyway, he is without out a world class deserving future hall of famer.

Broner and Alvarez ahead of Froch.

Hmm.

I like Bradley a lot, and there's no doubt he's the genuine article, a proper fighter. I've been very impressed with the way he's conducted himself and steered his career in the aftermath of the Pacquiao controversy.
 
But I think a top three pound for pound spot flatters him a little as things currently stand. I'd have him a couple of spots below that. There have been a few movers and shakers in the pound for pound lists lately, but in Mayweather, Ward and Rigondeaux there are three I'd put ahead of him without any hesitation, and perhaps Donaire as well, albeit how he fares at 126 will be important.
 
As an aside, there actually seems to have been a few instances when three (or more) Americans have taken a clean sweep of the Ring's medals, you'll be happy to know Truss! At the end of 2003 Jones, Hopkins, Mosley, De la Hoya and Mayweather made up their top five!
 
Other clean sweeps for the States, according to the Ring, include 2001 (Mosley, Hopkins, Jones), 1998 (De la Hoya, Jones, Holyfield), 1996 (Jones, De la Hoya, Whitaker), 1994 (Whitaker, Jones, Canizales), 1986 (Hagler, Tyson, Curry and Hearns making it a top four), 1984 (Hagler, Pryor, Holmes) and 1981 (Leonard, Hearns, Hagler and Holmes making it another four-timer).
 
I believe there was also a period in 1994 when the Ring had a top three reading Whitaker, Toney and Norris, albeit their year-end list changed.
 
But you'll love this one the most, beefster. America did a top three x 2 in 1983, with the Ring's top six pound for pounders all being from your shores; Hagler, Pryor, Holmes, Spinks, Chandler, Hearns.

Not sure why the yanks, of all people, 'decide' the p4p list? After all corruption is rife, drug use off the radar and so forth within their sports world.

Eagerly await the next World Series when theyre the only country entering, or able to enter, teams.

Joke country. Joke rankings.

You don't have to tread on egg shells, Izzi. Say what you really feel, mate!

I think the Ring definitely jumped the gun a little sticking Mosley in at number one between 2000 and 2001, mind you. But then again, hindsight is always 20:20.

Never been a fan of the whole p4p thing.

Good to see it gives truss a reason to give Bradley his props though, after years of slating him as rubbish!

Remember when he beat witter, i was shot down in flames by many for suggesting he looked a decent fighter who I'd give a shout at beating hatton too. But I'm not bitter.

andre wards last fight was over a year ago, so in a current p4p list surely he would struggle seeing though he hasn't fought. thats the point isnt it? who's the best out of current active fighters? if your going to throw ward is the second best fighter out there (i agree) then that also goes against bradley being 3 cant use argument for one and not the other

also cant have bradley 3 simply because he was beat by manny, id rather use my own eyes to judge than go off some corrupt judges just to win an argument

anyway i agree with rowley, these made up p4p lists are a load of rubbish anyway.

Izzi wrote:Not sure why the yanks, of all people, 'decide' the p4p list? After all corruption is rife, drug use off the radar and so forth within their sports world.

Eagerly await the next World Series when theyre the only country entering, or able to enter, teams.

Joke country. Joke rankings.

He's right Britain should decide...........After all with all the top 10ers it's had in the last 100 years it deserves to..........

Yep Britain should decide, good call Truss. It is our sport after all

Izzi wrote:
Eagerly await the next World Series when theyre the only country entering, or able to enter, teams.

On a point of pedantry the Canadian team the Toronto Blue Jays are in the MLB and as such capable of winning the world series.

Canada is USA's biggest state. Much the same way that Scotland is the biggest county in England.

Thanks for that.......Now other sport threads on 606 probably need your one line wisdom...

so see you later.......