Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-06-2012, 09:37 AM   #61
TBooze
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: South of London
Posts: 10,820
vCash: 0
Default Re: The RING devalues itīs Championship - another sign of itīs decline?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lufcrazy View Post
Typo, I meant generally.

It isn't even a strong opinion. It's occasional musings on the internet.

There is no denying that jones jr was generally accepted as the lhw champion.

Lineage just isn't that big a deal anymore.
You are using a very general () meaning of general. In Jones' case, timing was cruel for him. Hill/Maske was announced before Jones verses McCallum, despite McCallum/Jones happening a day before Hill/Maske. Which I believe your argument should appreciate as thus a generally recognized champion was created when Hill won.

I think you would better pointing out Erdei in your discussions, who still is technically linear champ at 175. Thus showing a legitimate flaw in that system, which Briggs, Foreman et al were not.
TBooze is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 05-06-2012, 10:03 AM   #62
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,605
vCash: 330
Default Re: The RING devalues itīs Championship - another sign of itīs decline?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TBooze View Post
You are using a very general () meaning of general. In Jones' case, timing was cruel for him. Hill/Maske was announced before Jones verses McCallum, despite McCallum/Jones happening a day before Hill/Maske. Which I believe your argument should appreciate as thus a generally recognized champion was created when Hill won.

I think you would better pointing out Erdei in your discussions, who still is technically linear champ at 175. Thus showing a legitimate flaw in that system, which Briggs, Foreman et al were not.
The end product is the same. Jones was seen as the real champion. Holy in 97 was.

Lineage is moot in today's climate.

Has one lhw recently said "i will not consider myself champion until I beat erdei" has anyone in the media offered a similar sentiment?

Lineage is mythical and unnecessary today.

You can be as disgruntled as you wish, but it is what it is. Pretty much every man and his dog considers dawson lhw champ. You'd be hard pressed finding anyone who considers erdei the reigning defending lhw champ.
lufcrazy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2012, 10:21 AM   #63
TBooze
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: South of London
Posts: 10,820
vCash: 0
Default Re: The RING devalues itīs Championship - another sign of itīs decline?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lufcrazy View Post
The end product is the same. Jones was seen as the real champion. Holy in 97 was.

Lineage is moot in today's climate.

Has one lhw recently said "i will not consider myself champion until I beat erdei" has anyone in the media offered a similar sentiment?

Lineage is mythical and unnecessary today.

You can be as disgruntled as you wish, but it is what it is. Pretty much every man and his dog considers dawson lhw champ. You'd be hard pressed finding anyone who considers erdei the reigning defending lhw champ.
I think you have a better case for Dawson, but it simply does not wash for Jones. Hill was champ and he lost to Michalczewski, and for whatever reason Jones choose not to fight the Pole...
TBooze is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2012, 10:47 AM   #64
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,605
vCash: 330
Default Re: The RING devalues itīs Championship - another sign of itīs decline?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TBooze View Post
I think you have a better case for Dawson, but it simply does not wash for Jones. Hill was champ and he lost to Michalczewski, and for whatever reason Jones choose not to fight the Pole...
That's the thing, it did wash for jones. He might not have been the "tbooze general linear champion" nor the "wbo champion" but he held just about every other belt and sat atop just about every ranking system and he was the consensus champion of the division.

Your emotional involvement is interesting and I imagine it is an opinion you struck since becoming a regular poster on this forum. At the point i'm fairly confident that you, like many others, found no reason to doubt jones's championship status.
lufcrazy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2012, 12:59 PM   #65
TBooze
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: South of London
Posts: 10,820
vCash: 0
Default Re: The RING devalues itīs Championship - another sign of itīs decline?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lufcrazy View Post
That's the thing, it did wash for jones. He might not have been the "tbooze general linear champion" nor the "wbo champion" but he held just about every other belt and sat atop just about every ranking system and he was the consensus champion of the division.

Your emotional involvement is interesting and I imagine it is an opinion you struck since becoming a regular poster on this forum. At the point i'm fairly confident that you, like many others, found no reason to doubt jones's championship status.
I would love to think the TBooze Lineage is THE default boxing measure!

Reading back on some Boxing News', Rings and KOs of the time, it was standard to have Hill as the number one. That would be where I get influenced. The Internet is such a mesh of opinions, the thing is to try and be original and define yourself against the establishment, such as calling Jones number one, which simply was not the case at the time:

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

Last edited by TBooze; 05-06-2012 at 02:03 PM.
TBooze is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2012, 06:05 PM   #66
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,605
vCash: 330
Default Re: The RING devalues itīs Championship - another sign of itīs decline?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TBooze View Post
I would love to think the TBooze Lineage is THE default boxing measure!

Reading back on some Boxing News', Rings and KOs of the time, it was standard to have Hill as the number one. That would be where I get influenced. The Internet is such a mesh of opinions, the thing is to try and be original and define yourself against the establishment, such as calling Jones number one, which simply was not the case at the time:

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Well apparently the tbooze champion and the general champion aren't always one and the same!

Noone is denying hill was number 1. What is being denied is the relevance of "the man who beat the man" in the year 2000 hardly anyone disputed jones's title claim. Even dm himself considered jones the real champion!
lufcrazy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 01:18 PM   #67
Stonehands89
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,263
vCash: 1000
Default Re: The RING devalues itīs Championship - another sign of itīs decline?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lufcrazy View Post
Well apparently the tbooze champion and the general champion aren't always one and the same!

Noone is denying hill was number 1. What is being denied is the relevance of "the man who beat the man" in the year 2000 hardly anyone disputed jones's title claim. Even dm himself considered jones the real champion!
You have a major project where you identify "the premiere fighter" in every division of every year since your great grandfather was born.

We have gone round and round enough about my project that identifies what I call "The True Successions" but we can both agree that ideally, the best fighter in the division is also the premiere fighter in the division.

Given that, how can you justify The Ring's *asinine* new policy where the #2 guy can fight the #5 guy and take what used to be the only title worth a damn?
Stonehands89 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 01:49 PM   #68
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,605
vCash: 330
Default Re: The RING devalues itīs Championship - another sign of itīs decline?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonehands89 View Post
You have a major project where you identify "the premiere fighter" in every division of every year since your great grandfather was born.

We have gone round and round enough about my project that identifies what I call "The True Successions" but we can both agree that ideally, the best fighter in the division is also the premiere fighter in the division.

Given that, how can you justify The Ring's *asinine* new policy where the #2 guy can fight the #5 guy and take what used to be the only title worth a damn?
Yeah ideally it would be the case, I completely agree!

If 1 is fighting bums and ducks number 2, whilst 3 and 4 are unavailable I could probably buy into it. I'd have to see it in action before making a judgement.

All they've done is open the door to filling more vacancies. Like most things we'll just have to judge it case by case.
lufcrazy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 02:40 PM   #69
Asterion
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,879
vCash: 75
Default Re: The RING devalues itīs Championship - another sign of itīs decline?

I don't agree with some of the new rules.

A Championship should be decided by 1 vs. 2 or 1 vs. 3.

But I'm OK with stripping if a Champ doesn't defend his title in some time.

In the current era, and since the 80's, lineage is moribund. ****in Shannon Briggs wasn't really THE heavyweight champion.

Last edited by Asterion; 05-07-2012 at 02:58 PM.
Asterion is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 02:57 PM   #70
Asterion
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,879
vCash: 75
Default Re: The RING devalues itīs Championship - another sign of itīs decline?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lufcrazy View Post
Lineage began to die a death in the 80's.

By now it means nothing. I understand the interest in tracing something pure but it doesn't reflect the reality of today's climate.

An example today is marquez, he hasn't fought at lw for about 18 month now, how could anyone claim him as the champion of the division?

The rules for stripping are sound, if a man doesn't seek a top 5 contender within 2 years he shouldn't be a champion. If he doesn't fight within a year and a half he should lose his claim.

As for the 1 v 5 scenarios, it isn't like this is without precedent. Robinson v bell certainly wasn't 1 v 2. Holmes v ali certainly wasn't 1 v 2. Hart v root where 2 handpicked fighters by jeffries.

If anything, the 1 v 2 insistence I see on internet forum's is a move inconsistent with history. Now where the ring the only sanctioning body that insistence would work brilliantly, but as it is, in an era of 5 belts per division, declaring championships vacant seems a bit ridiculous.

This move will see more ring champs crowned which should increase it's prestige and hence water down that of the alphabet titles.
Asterion is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 05:07 PM   #71
pong
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,870
vCash: 500
Default Re: The RING devalues itīs Championship - another sign of itīs decline?

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
the ring has jumped the shark by the looks of it

Quote:
The Horrible New Ring Magazine Championship Policy
WRITTEN BY TIM STARKS | 04 MAY 2012

Having true champions in boxing has never been the cure for what ails the sport; there are so many tumors on pro boxing, no one cure can solve everything. But every couple weeks, I have a conversation that goes like this: Me: "Yeah, I write about boxing." Them: "Oh. I don't follow that sport." Me: "Why not?" One of the most common answers: "I dunno, there are so many belts, I can't keep track of who the champion is."

Since 2002, the closest thing boxing has had to a true champion is the owner of the Ring magazine belt in any given division. As of Thursday, that is no longer true. The Ring announced changes to its championship policy that, flatly, killed any claim the magazine can make to being custodians of an authentic championship lineage.

For those unfamiliar with the previous policy, the only way one could become the champion of a division was to beat the existing champion, or, in the event of a vacancy (for instance, if the champion retires or otherwise relinquishes his belt), for The Ring's #1 contender to face off with the #2 contender; occasionally, a #1 vs. #3 contender would be accepted.

The new policy vastly expands the eligible contenders who can win a vacant belt. Under some scenarios, a #2 could face a #5 contender. The reasoning for this change is that there were too many vacancies. And it's not as if that's not a valid problem; our own Scott Kraus analyzed the nature of that problem here, and came up with a proposal that the new Ring policy largely mirrors. What is terrible about The Ring's solution to that problem, though, is that it is a solution to one peripheral problem that fundamentally hollows out the very purpose of Ring belts. Here's how.

1. For many boxing fans, and for many sports fans, one of the main purposes of sports is to find out the answer to that age-old question: "Who's the best?" You can find out who's the best in a division if the #1 and #2 man fight one another. You absolutely cannot find out who's the best if the #2 contender faces the #5 contender. By way of example: There is broad consensus right now, and for perfectly defensible reasons, that Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao are the top two welterweights in the world. Ring has Pacquiao at #1 and Mayweather at #2. If one of them faced #5 Kell Brook, then Ring might allow that person to become champion at welterweight. There is no valid argument for Pacquiao-Brook or Mayweather-Brook as the true champion at welterweight, and no reasonable boxing fan would endorse it. Check out all the other divisions, and you'll find similarly ludicrous pathways to the championship. (Note: Occasionally the champion of a division will lose the belt to someone who isn't considered the best in his division. These champions are usually extremely short-lived: See the welterweight championship reign of Carlos Baldomir, for instance. In other words, in rare cases the champion isn't the best, but if he beat the champion, he earned the championship and deserves it. More on "earning" in a moment.)

2. One thing that is important about a lineal championship is to tie the current champions to those who came before; the heritage of the championship is part of its appeal. It is highly unlikely that anyone will now consider a belt acquired when a vacancy was filled by a box-off between #2 and #5 to be the "lineal" belt. If anyone does consider that lineal, they shouldn't. To anyone who has an interest in tracing championship lineage, Ring's new policy creates a void.

3. Far from a motivation for "the best to fight the best," this new policy is, if anything, likely to incentivize the opposite. I don't know what percentage of fighters care about the Ring belt; some of them do, like Andre Ward, who, upon winning the Ring super middleweight championship, displayed that belt as his post-fight press conference above all others. But now, if a fighter does care about acquiring the belt, the #1 fighter can come up with an excuse why a dangerous #2 fighter won't face him and hope that Ring sanctions him against someone far weaker. In the minds of the Ring editors, perhaps a top-rated boxer's chance of being passed up for a chance at the Ring belt will light a fire under him to face the top man. Best of luck on that.

4. Under the old Ring policy, you really had to EARN a belt; no longer. That is in part due to the new rules -- someone sneaking into the top five could manage to contend for a belt, rather than having to climb all the way to the very top of the rankings. But it is also due to how Ring has been rating fighters of late. You can view all my past criticisms of this over the months, because I will not violate any internal discussions I've had as a member of the Ring Ratings Panel. But increasingly, fighters are ranked highly not because they've beaten fighters in their division, but because Ring has simply perceived someone as worthy of a high ranking. Last week, for instance, Roman Gonzalez was appointed the #1 junior flyweight over Ulises Solis because, as the ratings update explained it, Gonzalez was "obviously the class of the division." Gonzalez is a nice little fighter, and might one day deseve that ranking, but he has not "obviously" proven himself the class of a division where Solis has a long, long resume. These days, you don't even have to fight anyone in your division to be ranked in it by Ring. Abner Mares was recently promoted to #7 in the junior bantamweight rankings after being #5 bantamweight Eric Morel at a 120-pound catchweight; i.e., even though Mares has not ever fought an actual junior bantamweight. Ring's ratings are increasingly about fantasy boxing match-ups (totally unreliable; let's see if one of these guys imagined to be better than the rest doesn't lose to the person he was promoted above sooner rather than later) rather than results (more reliable). That means to get to a #5 ranking in a division, you don't have to even earn that in the ring -- you simply have to capture the imagination of a couple editors at the magazine. Under the old leadership at the magazine, although I'd guess there are a few exceptions, the explicitly stated philosophy of recently deposed editor Nigel Collins was: "Divisional ratings are, as much as humanly possible, strictly objective and based on results within the divisions."

5. Ring shouldn't have champions just to have them, and in so pursuing that goal, Ring's editors have whittled away one of the few mechanisms whereby boxers can be persuaded to chase them. It would be great if Ring's vacancies were filled organically. This way? Opposite of great. This has already done massive damage to the belts' status, and that status is conveyed by boxing writers and fans who have adhered to the Ring belt as the gold standard. Look at the comments section on Ring's announcement of its policy change; that policy, with just a couple exceptions, is getting ripped to pieces. ESPN's Dan Rafael abandoned the belts in light of this new policy change. The operator of the biggest boxing blog, Bad Left Hook's Scott Christ, has revoked his endorsement of them. I also have decided to break my own ties with the Ring belt. I resigned from the Ratings Panel Thursday, and will shortly redo this site to remove the bar to the left. And I suspect this is only the beginning of the backlash. If the Ring belt has no power with the fans or media, what motive is there for boxers to attain that status symbol? What public pressure, however limited it was before, will any of us exert on fighters to convince them the Ring belt is THE belt? The answer, in both cases, is none.

It's important to state what I am not saying. This is not me decrying Ring Magazine as a whole. As it happens, I think after a rocky start that needlessly featured the departure of several excellent staffers, editor Michael Rosenthal has acquired a lot of excellent talent over there; it's hard to argue with Bart Barry or Gary Andrew Poole and the like as quality writers. Rosenthal's own writing gets dinged a fair amount, but I happen to like it. And Dougie Fischer has, similarly, led a good team to deliver a good product at the website. However, the stewardship of the Ring championship and policy under the current had already been pretty awful -- see the sketchy way they handled the Bernard Hopkins/Chad Dawson situation, and how they arbirtarily created a cruiserweight championship fight (and you would've thought they would've learned from how badly that backfired in the court of public opinion) -- and this new policy is irredemable. And I didn't even touch on what's problematic about their policy changes on stripping these "champions."

I wonder what the future holds. I don't think this makes the Ring belt "the same" as the alphabet gang; even with my criticism of their rankings of late and how champions will be selected going forward, I strongly suspect that Ring's ratings and champions will be more realistic than the WBCs and IBFs of the world, however bastardized they are now becoming. But this does feel like a strong step toward Ring becoming more like a sanctioning outfit. Will they soon request money? Will this open the door to favoritism of Golden Boy-promoted fighters, as GBP owns Ring? Will anyone step forward to fill the void of tracing lineage? (I didn't even touch on what's problematic about their policy on stripping "champions.") Will Ring recognize what a monumental misstep they've made and revoke their policy? These are some of the questions floating around, and I have no answers. All I know is that there's nothing good about this.
article by a rating panels member who recently resigned
pong is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 07:32 PM   #72
Stonehands89
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,263
vCash: 1000
Default Re: The RING devalues itīs Championship - another sign of itīs decline?

See below.

Last edited by Stonehands89; 05-10-2012 at 04:25 PM.
Stonehands89 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 08:30 PM   #73
kmac
On permanent vacation
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,407
vCash: 683
Default Re: The RING devalues itīs Championship - another sign of itīs decline?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pong View Post
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
the ring has jumped the shark by the looks of it
glad you posted this. i never post here anymore but i wanted to see if anyone else was as pissed as i am. from a fans viewpoint, the "ring" belt had some legitimacy to it, until now. what a mistake. the #2 vs #5 fighters can fight for the title? makes no sense.

the ring wants to fill it's weight class title vacancies so they change the championship rules, but now they actually vacate the pound for pound #1 ranking. wtf??

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
kmac is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2012, 04:25 PM   #74
Stonehands89
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,263
vCash: 1000
Default Re: The RING devalues itīs Championship - another sign of itīs decline?

Quote:
Starks isn't alone with his public rebuke. Stay tuned.
Why fool around?

Here's another article on what The Ring has done...

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Stonehands89 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2012, 05:34 AM   #75
fists of fury
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: March for Revenge
Posts: 5,975
vCash: 1887
Default Re: The RING devalues itīs Championship - another sign of itīs decline?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonehands89 View Post
Why fool around?

Here's another article on what The Ring has done...

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Read it yesterday. Good article, Stonehands.
fists of fury is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013