Boxing  

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


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-16-2013, 02:58 PM   #1
bazza12
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,247
vCash: 475
Default Ring Ratings - More Tomfoolery

I've just read a thread stating that The Ring will not sanction Ricky Burns-Miguel Vazquez for its vacant Lightweight title.

Meanwhile, Salido-Garcia WILL be contested for their vacant Featherweight title.

Now, I'm sure last year, they said they had revised their ratings policy, stating that:

Any top two fighter can fight any top five fighter for the vacant Ring belt.

Forget why the Ring have decided upon this, the fact is they are now behaving like any other sanctioning body. They now make the rules up as they go along. This is a moment I hoped would never happen, but it is official...The Ring's ratings are as good as useless. Nice to see Golden Boy is battering a quality publication.
bazza12 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 01-16-2013, 03:29 PM   #2
Elliot
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,653
vCash: 634
Default Re: Ring Ratings - More Tomfoolery

Ring don't want anyone but Broner getting hold of that, even more so because they would have to rank either Burns or Vazquez P4P.
Elliot is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 04:07 PM   #3
iceman71
WBC SILVER Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: the DIRTY SOUTH
Posts: 24,390
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Ring Ratings - More Tomfoolery

any unification should give them the nod as the champ at that division, but the RING is run by human beings who have agendas just like the other ABCs
iceman71 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 04:13 PM   #4
bazza12
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,247
vCash: 475
Default Re: Ring Ratings - More Tomfoolery

I have a feeling that is a lot to do with it Elliot. I believe Broner is one of the most talented, technically gifted fighters in the sport today. I think eventually he will win titles in multiple weight-classes and potentially cross-over to the general public, but the way the Ring are bumming him right now makes a mockery of their ratings system.

I mean, they might as well not have ratings or "a policy" at all. They might as well call Richard Schaefer, ask him what he thinks of two fighters and ask if they could fight for the vacant belt.

Total bullshit. Glad I unsubscribed.
bazza12 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 04:17 PM   #5
bazza12
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,247
vCash: 475
Default Re: Ring Ratings - More Tomfoolery

Quote:
Originally Posted by iceman71 View Post
any unification should give them the nod as the champ at that division, but the RING is run by human beings who have agendas just like the other ABCs
I think generally that's a reasonable rule, though you have to remember some belts come easy these days. Not all the time, but a lot of the time.

I've expressed how I feel about Broner, but the agenda here on The Ring's part is clear as daylight. Should Burns beat Vazquez, he adds him to Katsidis, Moses, Mitchell at Lightweight. Not to mention his win over Roman Martinez pisses over anything Broner did at 130.

Then you've got Broner at 5 P4P. Fisher and Rosenthal tell people to contact Chuck Giampa, who is responsible for the ratings.....

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
bazza12 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 04:24 PM   #6
KO KIDD
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,492
vCash: 835
Default Re: Ring Ratings - More Tomfoolery

I actually think Vazquez would present Broner with an interesting challenge

it would probably be a shit fight but I wanna see how Broner would deal with Vazquez's style
KO KIDD is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 04:25 PM   #7
iceman71
WBC SILVER Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: the DIRTY SOUTH
Posts: 24,390
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Ring Ratings - More Tomfoolery

Quote:
Originally Posted by bazza12 View Post
I think generally that's a reasonable rule, though you have to remember some belts come easy these days. Not all the time, but a lot of the time.

I've expressed how I feel about Broner, but the agenda here on The Ring's part is clear as daylight. Should Burns beat Vazquez, he adds him to Katsidis, Moses, Mitchell at Lightweight. Not to mention his win over Roman Martinez pisses over anything Broner did at 130.

Then you've got Broner at 5 P4P. Fisher and Rosenthal tell people to contact Chuck Giampa, who is responsible for the ratings.....

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
if burns wins, its a no brainer he should be ring champ, his resume will be looking pretty good. even though i think broner whips him, broner shouldnt be a ring champ at 135 until he actually beats the winner of these 2 guys, which hopefully plays out before this year.
(chuck giampa )
iceman71 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 04:25 PM   #8
KO KIDD
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,492
vCash: 835
Default Re: Ring Ratings - More Tomfoolery

Quote:
Originally Posted by bazza12 View Post
I think generally that's a reasonable rule, though you have to remember some belts come easy these days. Not all the time, but a lot of the time.

I've expressed how I feel about Broner, but the agenda here on The Ring's part is clear as daylight. Should Burns beat Vazquez, he adds him to Katsidis, Moses, Mitchell at Lightweight. Not to mention his win over Roman Martinez pisses over anything Broner did at 130.

Then you've got Broner at 5 P4P. Fisher and Rosenthal tell people to contact Chuck Giampa, who is responsible for the ratings.....

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Total agreement here
KO KIDD is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 04:33 PM   #9
Brickhaus
Packs the house
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Badlefthook.com
Posts: 11,159
vCash: 75
Default Re: Ring Ratings - More Tomfoolery

The RING rules clearly state that #1 vs #2 gets the belt unless the top two guys CHOOSE not to fight each other. That makes Burns vs Vazquez ineligible because both guys have expressed interest in fighting Broner.

On the other hand, it makes sense for featherweight because John (the #2) ain't leaving Indonesia, and with Gamboa moving up, it's a #1 vs #3 matchup.

Can't say I object to this, and this is probably how it would have worked under the old rules anyway. I still do think the rule change was absurd though.
Brickhaus is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 04:44 PM   #10
Brickhaus
Packs the house
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Badlefthook.com
Posts: 11,159
vCash: 75
Default Re: Ring Ratings - More Tomfoolery

Also, I'll add tha Chris John is still co-promoted by Golden Boy while Salido and Garcia are promoted by Top Rank, so it's hard to argue that GBP ownership is playing promotional favorites here.

I'll save my ire for when they do something really stupid, like if they say a Mares fight that doesn't involve Donaire or Rigondeaux is for the lineal title.
Brickhaus is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 05:09 PM   #11
Nonito Smoak
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington State, USA
Posts: 15,182
vCash: 250
Default Re: Ring Ratings - More Tomfoolery

Golden Boy owns The Ring.

As simple as that.

Any non-Golden Boy fighter who wins a vacant Ring Title from now on should be praised, because the bias against them will be severe.


But at the same time, now everybody knows to establish lineages in their own mind and opinion, so The Ring Title doesn't mean jack.
Nonito Smoak is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 05:25 PM   #12
Reppin501
The People's Champ
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Little Rock, AR
Posts: 9,212
vCash: 75
Default Re: Ring Ratings - More Tomfoolery

If Burns was worried about the Ring belt he could have taken on Broner, but elected not to.
Reppin501 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 05:28 PM   #13
DeMarco
Gatekeeper
ESB Full Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: North West England
Posts: 444
vCash: 75
Default Re: Ring Ratings - More Tomfoolery

A poster here used to say Oscar was called the Golden Boy because he liked people pissing on him. I thought he was ****ing funny.
DeMarco is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 05:29 PM   #14
Brickhaus
Packs the house
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Badlefthook.com
Posts: 11,159
vCash: 75
Default Re: Ring Ratings - More Tomfoolery

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nonito Smoak View Post
Golden Boy owns The Ring.

As simple as that.

Any non-Golden Boy fighter who wins a vacant Ring Title from now on should be praised, because the bias against them will be severe.


But at the same time, now everybody knows to establish lineages in their own mind and opinion, so The Ring Title doesn't mean jack.
Which explains why they're passing over a Golden Boy fighter for two Top Rank fighters how?
Brickhaus is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 05:32 PM   #15
bazza12
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,247
vCash: 475
Default Re: Ring Ratings - More Tomfoolery

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brickhaus View Post
The RING rules clearly state that #1 vs #2 gets the belt unless the top two guys CHOOSE not to fight each other. That makes Burns vs Vazquez ineligible because both guys have expressed interest in fighting Broner.

On the other hand, it makes sense for featherweight because John (the #2) ain't leaving Indonesia, and with Gamboa moving up, it's a #1 vs #3 matchup.

Can't say I object to this, and this is probably how it would have worked under the old rules anyway. I still do think the rule change was absurd though.
I wasn't aware that was the case Brickhaus, cheers. Still though, I think its ridiculous. If you have a rule, stick to it. At what point does a fighter "express an interest"? If Orlando Salido said he wanted to fight Chris John tomorrow, does that mean this weekend's fight is NOT for the vacant belt?

And what gives The Ring panellists the right to make that call? Are they involved in every fighter's promotional dealings, or aware of whether or not a fight might happen at some point down the line?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brickhaus View Post
Also, I'll add tha Chris John is still co-promoted by Golden Boy while Salido and Garcia are promoted by Top Rank, so it's hard to argue that GBP ownership is playing promotional favorites here.

I'll save my ire for when they do something really stupid, like if they say a Mares fight that doesn't involve Donaire or Rigondeaux is for the lineal title.
I'm not suggesting The Ring plays favourites with Golden Boy fighters at all times, though from what I see, they certainly have a thing for Broner.

The guy has one truly meaningful win, and he leaps into their pound for pound top 10 and nestles right there in the middle? Because a fight between Burns and Vazquez (who you could reasonably argue have a better record at 135 than Broner anyhow) doesn't involve Broner, it isn't for the vacant title? Its a poor show as far as I'm concerned.
bazza12 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > General 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 01:50 PM.


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