Ring Magazine belts- how is this fair:

Salido vs Garcia this weekend will be for The Ring belt Salido is ranked number 1 and Garcia number 3. The man rated number 2 is Chris John who has had all of his 50 fights including 48 wins and 2 draws (which he won in rematches) at Featherweight.

He's had wins over Derrick Gainier, Juan Manuel Marquez (which wasn't a robbery it was a close fight), Rocky Juarez and Daud Cino Yordan, but is getting bypassed by Garcia for a shot at The Ring belt.

Garcia, while he's been impressive his biggest victory is over Cornelius Lock who's record going into the fight was 19-5-1.

The Ring have announced today that the Ricky Burns- Miguel Vazquez fight will not be for The RING lightweight belt because Broner is not involved. This is based on Broner's ONE win at 135.

An extract from the article:

There was a lengthy debate among the Panelist about whether to consider the proposed lightweight unification bout between WBO beltholder Ricky Burns and IBF titleholder Miguel Vazquez for THE RING’s vacant 135-pound championship.

Panelist Martin Mulcahey opined that both No. 2-rated Vazquez and No. 4-rated Burns were more accomplished at 135 pounds than THE RING’s No. 1-rated lightweight, Adrien Broner, who has only one significant 135-pound victory – his eighth-round TKO of the magazine’s previously top-rated lightweight Antonio DeMarco. (He then opined that if it was OK to skip over No. 2-rated featherweight Chris John to make this Saturday’s showdown between No. 1-rated Orlando Salido and No. 3-rated Mikey Garcia a RING championship bout, it shouldn’t be a problem to skip over Broner to make the March 16 Burns-Vazquez matchup for THE RING belt.)

Panelist Mike Coppinger pointed out that both Vazquez and Burns were offered fights with Broner and both turned the opportunity down. There was a lot of back-and-forth opinions about the legitimacy of those offers.

 

Just as I thought(and said, in your other thread) about the LW situation.

 

Answer the question

 

Just because you think and suggest it's not fair does not make it so. These things are subjective, and both situations are handled within their guidelines.

 

Stop ducking a proper answer. Give me a reasonable argument why Broner and Garic should fight for a Ring belt and not Chris John, or Ricky Burns vs Miguel Vazquez.

 

John has apparently avoided fights with either Garcia or Salido outside of his region. Beating Marquez in what most consider a robbery more than half a decade ago does not give you the right to sit on your title without consistently facing your contemporaries.

DeMarco was previously rated number 1, and Broner took his crown. That makes much more sense.

 

neither should be is your answer

 

Would Broner travel to Scotland or Mexico to fight Burns or Vazquez- answer: would he ****.

John even offered Gamboa a fight in Indonesia where John would make much more money for a fight than traveling to the US. (Which he did to fight Juarez)

Many with boxing knowledge don't consider it a robbery in the same way they don't consider Pacquiao's wins a robbery, even if they thought Marquez won- they was close fights and there is a difference between a close fight and a robbery. The only western journalist who attended the bout scored it 116-110 for John. (http://www.thesweetscience.com/article-archive/2006/3470-chris-john-ud12-juan-manuel-marquez)

Broner beat DeMarco, who shouldn't had been top rated anyway. He got KO'd by Valero, and his wins against Linares and Molina where more to do with his opponents stupidity than DeMarco. His record was nowhere near as good as Vazquez and debatable whether it was as good as Burns or Abril at 135.

 

Burns vs Vazquez should. Both have better resumes at 135 than Broner's one win.

 

Chris John has no fanbase so it's easier to call it a robbery

 

sad but true

 

The thing is you're confusing the most accomplished fighters at the weight with deserved P4P status. You can't climb the ranks and sit there facing mediocre opposition, for whatever the reason. Whoever has the best win lately in the division should be considered the man there. Beating someone better years ago can't forever legitimize your top ranking.

The US is a center of boxing, commercially. Foreign fighters travel all the time, this is nothing new. For Chris John to complain while insisting on fighting in Indonesia or a neighboring country is pure hypocrisy. Matthysse got robbed in the US, you don't see him fading into obscurity in Argentina while making demands to fight there and only there.

DeMarco beating Linares was an impressive win, especially considering Linares's start in that fight. Having been over-hyped doesn't make him a garbage fighter. Broner destroyed DeMarco. There's certainly a case to argue for Vasquez or Burns, but picking Broner after that performance is reasonable.

 

I actually brought it up last week

http://www.boxingforum24.com/showthread.php?t=454102&page=2

My personal opinion is the ring belt should just be vacant unless they can make Salido-John fight...if it never happens, belt stays vacant. Just doesn't seem right to bypass John for Garcia...because even if you criticize John for his opponents it's not like Garcia has beaten down the murderers row of opponents himself. I think Salido has made a worthy case for himself, but to bypass John for Garcia is just something that doesn't sit right with me.

 

All due respect I think that comment is you who's believing that. Following his win over Marque,z John has fought Rocky Juarez and made nowhere near as much as he does from Indonsia. He also beat Yordan who has since made it into the top 10. Who exactly has Garcia beat who was or has since approached a top 10 ranking?

People don't say Andre Ward shouldn't be number 1 at Super Middle because all his fights have been in America or the Klitschko's because they fight in their back yard. Boxing is first and foremost a business and if John makes more money fighting at home then why should he be dropped in the ratings because the top boxer's are unwilling to travel to fight him?

Now I know for some inane reason people think struggling to a debatable decision Ponce De Leon, beating a coked up Eloy Perez, not bothering to make weight for a fight with Escobedo and beating the overrated DeMarco that some people, like Ring Magazine, think Broner now is a top pound for pound fighter.

But he's had ONE win at Lightweight. Chris John has had 48 at featherweight. Broner beat DeMarco- big deal before the fight you could make an argument of DeMarco being placed anywhere from 1 to 4 (with the other 3 being Vazquez, Burns and Abril). Vazquez and Burns have legitimate claims of being placed 1 or 2 and bypass Broner for a shot at the belt.

Mikey Garcia does not have a legitmate claim that he should bypass Chris John. Orlando Salido has beaten elite opposition so can claim to be in the top 2.

Therefore it's more fair that Vazquez v Burns be for the belt rather than Garcia v Salido.

 

Well put.

What are your thoughts on Vazquez v Burns not being for the belt, just because Broner has had one meaningful fight at 135?

I would agree if following Broners win over Demarco, DeMarco had beaten either Vazquez or Burns or one of DeMarco's recent opponents have- but the fact is, they haven't.