Ring magazine 1975 ATG HW list

Youre arguing from both sides of your mouth now. First you said nobody paid any attention to alphabet ratings before the Ring ratings scandal. Thats not true as Ive illustrated. Now you are saying that you were specifically referring to the networks and that even they didnt pay any attention to the sanctioning bodies deferring instead to Ring. Thats untrue as well.

Tying all of that together with the IBC, the Kefauver hearings and the the 1970s Ring ratings scandal doesnt really work. First you are somehow trying to tie the NBA/WBA in with the Kefauver hearings and the IBC. The Kefauver hearings ended in 1951. The IBC was broken up in 1959. The hearings you might be referring to were the Senate Sub Committee hearings on organized crime and its influence on boxing which started the year after the IBC lost its appeal to avoid being broken up as a monopoly and which effectively ended its reign. So no, the Senate Sub Committee was not responsible for that. It was likely influenced by what came out during the IBC trial but the two were not directly connected. Moreover, The NBA/WBA was not implicated in either the case against Norris or the Senate Sub Committee hearings. In fact the IBC didnt need the WBA/NBA specifically because it was operating as a monopoly, controlling venues and air dates. The IBC through Norris had unfettered access to most of the major venues because of this they commanded bigger gates. Bigger gates meant bigger paychecks for the fighters so the fighters flocked to the IBC. If you wanted to do business with the IBC you had to go through Carbo who supplied the fighters to Norris. Television wanted to broadcast fights and with Norris and Carbo controlling the venues and fighters the networks went to Norris. But none of that means the NBA was irrelevent. It just means that the NBA was merely a reflection, an echo, of the fights that were being staged. Thats how ratings work after all. But during this period the NBA ratings were published at least as much if not more (I would argue more) than Ring magazines. In fact, you see during this period an explosion in the influence of the NBA and the use of its ratings. Why? Because where New York had previously been the dominant player in boxing Norris took his operation to a National level. The NBA was a national organization of affiliated states. So as the New York establishment (which Fleischer was part of) fell by the wayside in terms of influence and power the NBA stepped into its place. That didnt end with the IBC it continued on. In fact you could easily argue that the influence of the NBA which turned into the WBA followed by the WBC, then the IBF, and then the WBO have all each only continued to grow steadily in influence since 1921. There may have been minor ups and downs along the way but certainly nothing like a nearly two decade long dip in its influence that you assume.

And frankly the Ring wasnt exactly a crusader against guys like Norris and Carbo. Fleischer largely sat on the fence while guys like Dan Parker and others were doing the heavy lifting and really putting heat on dirty business going on behind the scenes of boxing. It was only rarely that Ring editorialized on that subject and they were usually pretty well behind the leaders of the pack.

So the IBC could and did influence the ratings merely by controlling the fights and fighters, not the other way around. Furthermore the dissolution of the IBC did nothing to dent the proliferation of television air dates because you had not only major outlets like ABC, NBC, and CBS broadcasting fights nationally but you also had an increasing number of local affiliates which broadcast their bouts on a regional basis and in some cases, like the Olympic Auditorium shows, they were filming these on 16mm to send all over the country to be shown on a delay basis. Remember, it was a monopoly and with mob muscle behind it a lot of small time operators who wanted to stage and televise shows got squeezed out. Once the IBC was dissolved it was a feeding frenzy and you had all kinds of people flooding into that space on a local and national level. And yes, while these fights were being broadcast the WBA ratings and titles were being used to sell them. Not the Ring ratings because again the Ring didnt dictate who was a champion and who wasnt. The only thing the Ring ratings did was created, on occasion, another talking point. You can go down the list on that.

Think about it: If the Ring has a different set of ratings (or doesnt even recognize a weight division) and a guy who either wasnt in their ratings or who was rated low wins title their ratings arent really that important are they? This happened not all the time but on a regular enough basis to illustrate that the Ring wasnt running things or even a great guide. When you hear Don Dunphy or Steve Ellis in those old TV broadcasts proclaim a guy a #2 contender or whatever, go back and match that up to the NBA or Ring ratings and see which one it corresponds with.

Furthermore, the idea that ABC never proclaimed Ellis or Frazier champion is nonsense. Go watch any live ABC broadcast of any of those fights and the phrase "champion" is all over them. Watch any of them, youll see. Ellis-Patterson was advertised and broadcast as a championship fight. So was Frazier-Ramos. So was Frazier-Quarry. Youre going to sit here and tell me that ABC is going to invest millions in a HW elimination tournament for the championship and then refuse to name the guy who wins it as champion, de-legitimizing the entire investment??? No. Go back and watch any of those fights and tell me they didnt. And of course they could claim and promote Frazier as a champion because he had a very real claim being the #1 contender when ABC came up with the tournament. He rightly felt that he should get his title shot rather than have to wade through three more contenders. They essentially did an end run around him and if they went out of their way to refuse to call him a champ it would be self serving in light of their own actions. Besides, when the two champions eventually unified it made for good business. NBC essentially did the same thing with Foster-Rondon 2 years later.

It was typically Ring who was late to the party in such much matters i.e. refusing to recognize Frazier or Ellis, refusing to recognize jr champions or even weight divisions etc.

So no, I stand by my initial point. Wallau may have been stating that for that instance he/they relied on the Ring in order to build brackets for the fight (And in fact I believe thats what happened) and after he was notified by Flash Gordon about the situation he pulled back and didnt rely on the ring again but thats a totally different situation and rather unique compared to the broad statement that either NOBODY or even NO NETWORKS paid any attention to the WBA prior to that. Thats simply not true and to go so far as to say ABC refused to label either Ellis or Frazier champion as an offshoot of this philosophy is incorrect and easily proven false by a quick five minute trip around Youtube.

 

I'm not arguing out of both sides of my mouth. You saw something about RING ratings and wrote a 1,000 word rant dissing the RING ratings ... because you wanted to argue ... and I just clarified that I meant television networks didn't pay much attention to the sanctioning body ratings before the RING scandal ... and now you've written another 1,000 words because you still want to argue.

I agree with you about the validity of the RING ratings. I never put much stock in them.

However, THE NETWORKS did put stock in them .. and the networks DID NOT put stock in the sanctioning body ratings until the RING scandal. THE HEAD OF ABC TELEVISION, THE SAME GUY WHO BOOKED FIGHTS FOR ABC before and after the scandal SAID SO.

Whether you believe it or not isn't the question. The guy who booked the fights said he put merit in the RING ratings ... and after the scandal ... they went with the sanctioning body ratings.

Now you're writing another 1,000 words on why you don't believe the ABC president.

Argue with him about it.

 

You keep bringing up the WBA tournament as an example showing the networks DID follow the sanctioning body ratings, but it's the exception that proves the rule.

The heavyweight champion had never been stripped before and his license had never been revoked. Nobody knew how to proceed. Ali wanted to fight but wasn't allowed to. He couldn't fight abroad because his government wouldn't let him leave. He was trapped.

Yet boxing was a major part of the ABC television schedule. So the WBA proposed a tournament to crown a successor, ABC purchased it, and then Joe Frazier declined to participate. That basically messed it up from the start. ABC always identified the tournament as the WBA TOURNAMENT. The participants were identified as being rated where they were by the WBA. They always acknowledged on their broadcasts that Ellis was just recognized by the WBA. They continued to televise Joe Frazier's title fights, too, and they always recognized on their telecasts that Frazier didn't have universal recognition, either. It was a unique situation for them at the time. ABC even tried to help Ali get his license back in the late 60s, and if they'd been successful, planned to match Ali with ELLIS for the WORLD title (and shut Frazier out), because they recognized Ali as champ just like RING did, and they still hoped to give the tournament they showcased the credibility it didn't have. The networks didn't recognize Frazier as the champion until RING did.

Really, other than that, before the RING scandal, if a sanctioning body stripped a fighter, the networks would basically treat it as the odd story it was and continue to recognize the champ RING followed. Title claims by guys like Terrell and Rondon weren't given much credence by the networks. If contenders were introduced, like Norton and Quarry before their fight or Frazier and Quarry before their rematch, their RING ratings were announced. The network put stock in those. "Here he is, the number three heavyweight contender, Jerry Quarry." Or whatever.

After the RING scandal is when the networks started to identify "this guy is the WBC champ and this is the #4 WBC contender who we've never heard of" ... and all that nonsense began. "Here he is, rated number-three by the WBC, number eight by the WBA, number 12 by the IBF, unrated by the WBO, the champ of the IBC, the North American, Pan-Asian, WBA, Transcontinental Super Cruiserweight champion ... Jerry Quarry."

All that nonsense essentially began with sanctioning bodies gaining power when the national networks stopped recognizing RING ratings as the authority and handed that power "over them" to the sanctioning bodies.

After the RING scandal, every weird sanctioning body decision carried more weight because the national television networks gave them the weight they didn't have before.

 

Yes, regional boxing shows were filmed and shipped to some larger cities around the country. But they were mainly lower budget affairs and most people didn't see them until cable televsion started to expand in the late 1970s.

The national networks carrying boxing tended to follow the RING champs. The reigns of Mando Ramos, Laguna, Duran ... RING lightweight champs .... were carried by the national networks. Guts Ishimata and his line tended not to be. Because the networks followed RING's lead.

Jose Napoles, John Stracey, Carlos Palomino ... RING welterweight champs ... were carried by the national networks. Because the networks followed RING's lead.

Hell, I don't think Pipino Cuevas' title fights were carried by a national network prior to the RING scandal. Before 1977, Palomino was usually referred to on telecasts as the Welterweight champion. From 1977/78 on, Palomino was referred to on national broadcasts as the WBC champ and because Cuevas was also getting airtime nationally as the WBA Welterweight champion ... after the networks had distanced themselves from RING and its ratings.

That's how the sanctioning bodies gained real power with television. With NATIONAL networks now carrying all the sanctioning body champs, the money got better. Cuevas didn't have to make $40,000 for an Olympic defense. He could make three or four times as much on ABC. The sanctioning bodies made more money. The networks got more title fights. So the sanctioning bodies started making more titles or splitting titles to feed the demand of TV.

The RING scandal opened the floodgates for the sanctioning bodies to run amok.

 

You dont have to agree. You are wrong. You wrote something incorrect and rather than have somebody believe your nonsense I corrected it. You made several false statements from:

"In fact, the Ring ratings were considered so sleazy during the last three years of the 1970s that the television networks began focusing on the WBC and WBA ratings, and that's how the sanctioning bodies assumed so much power. Before that, nobody really paid much attention to them."

to:

"Before that, if an org stripped someone, like the WBA stripping Ali for signing to rematch with Liston, or the WBA stripping Bob Foster for not fighting Rondon, the networks didn't pay them much mind. Ali and Foster were still the world champs. The other guys weren't. The world champs tended to be clear in everyone's mind."

to:

"The Ring ratings scandal coincides with the rise of the power of the sanctioning bodies, particularly the WBC - which was rarely mentioned by name at all prior to that, but was once the networks started citing their ratings. Which, in turn, lead to the creation of more sanctioning bodies."

to:

"ABC didn't before. Before the scandal, they relied on Ring ratings when deciding what fights to air and what fights they wouldn't, and who they'd call champ and who they wouldn't. After the scandal, they relied on sanctioning body ratings. Same with CBS and NBC."

to:

"The NBA/WBA didn't have any real pull with network television after the Kefauver Committee broke up the IBC at the end of the 1950s."

to:

"And even then ABC spent countless hours showcasing Joe Frazier and his title fights ... and they were clear never to proclaim Frazier or Ellis as the World Champion (because Ring still recognized Ali as the champ) ... UNTIL Ring decided to recognize the winner of the Frazier-Ellis unification as champ. (And ABC was directly involved in trying to put that together.)"

Essentially every point youve tried to make his been woefully inaccurate. Im sorry if you dont like long posts pointing this out but you are making sweeping statements using broad generalities about a significant events comprising decades and Im not going to make the same mistake as you by trying to boil all of your missteps down into a single incorrect sentence.



If the networks and ABC in particular, didnt pay any attention to the NBA as opposed to Ring magazine prior to the late 1970s and particularly AFTER the IBC was broken up then exactly why did ABC spend the greater part of the 1960s television NBA sanctioned bouts and advertising them as such. In 1960, one year after the IBC was irrevocably broken up, ABC broadcast the Junior Welterweight Championship between Carlos Ortiz and Duilio Loi. Now, Ring didnt even recognize that championship. So tell me, if ABC was so in line with Ring and didnt pay any attention to the NBA, why broadcast this fight and promote it as a championship? NBC broadcast the Ortiz-Lane bout and promoted it as a championship fight for the newly resurrected NBA JWW title. Again, Ring didnt recognize that fight. So yes, the networks were clearly interested in what the NBA/WBA was doing. They certainly werent saying: "Oh gee, the Ring doesnt think this fight is a championship so we better be careful not to call it that." When Ortiz rewon the LW championship he was in danger of being stripped for avoiding Kenny Lane. He was eventually forced to fight Lane by the WBA/NBA. If they carried no weight why would Ortiz fight him when he didnt have to? You can go down the list easily and see all of the WBA championships fights that were broadcast on TV and see very clearly that networks were paying attention to the WBA and/or that Ring's influence was limited at best: The entire WBA tournament, Ellis-Patterson, Ellis-Frazier, Frazier-Quarry, Frazier-Ramos (both for the NY title and both ignored as championships by Ring but not by ABC) all broadcast by ABC. Gene Fullmer was only a NBA champ. He won the vacant title againt Basilio in their first fight after the NBA stripped Robinson for failing to fight Basilio a third time. That was televised by NBC and promoted as such. ABC broadcast the rematch. NBC broadcast Fullmer-Webb and guess what? It was billed and televised as an NBA championship. ABC broadcast Fullmer-Robinson 2 for the NBA title and guess what? They actually have a title screen before the fight promoting it as for the NBA title... ABC broadcast the fourth fight as well and also listed that as an NBA title fight. ABC also televised Fullmers fights with Paret and Fernandez and televised them as NBA title fights. All of those fights came well before the Ring Scandal and after the IBC was broken up. When Monzon was stripped by the WBC for failing to fight Rodrigo Valdez both ABC and CBS broadcast by turns the title fights between Valdez and Briscoe, Cohen, and Tonna. This is just a handful of examples from various times to illustrate that you incorrect. I could easily keep going but I think the point is made. Not sure why you cant admit you misspoke or maybe you didnt know but either way now you do.

 

It wasnt the exception. Sugar Ray Robinson had been stripped and continued on as champion while Gene Fullmer, operating as only NBA champion's bouts were covered by the networks. And guess what, the same networks covered Paul Penders bouts as well. So you are wrong. Period. And yes, almost every single time out they were televised in accordance with the sanctioning bodies dictates with little or no mention of Ring. Another example above was the Monzon-Valdez situation which came AFTER Ali and before the Ring Scandal. The networks covered it the same way. Sorry but you are wrong on this. Period. The Ring had almost zero influence on TV dates. No influence on who was champion and no influence on who got title shots. Period. They did have an influence on that tournament you mention but again, that was a one off. Wallau can pretend that the Ring's shady records at the time gave credence to the sanctioning bodies but hes just trying to minimize his own culpability in the fact that networks looking to air marquee boxing bouts packaged as title fights is what gave rise to the power of the sanction bodies. Not anything the Ring did or didnt do. Networks didnt care who was called a champion as long as they could sell it as such so they gladly went along with the NBA, WBC, NYSAC, IBF, etc. in order to sell marquee fights. Thats proven by history and the fact that you cannot draw any kind of logical conclusion for any of your points is a perfect example of that. You are forced to constantly give ground "nobody cared about the ABC titles" to the "the networks didnt care about the ABC titles" to "The networks cared but only in that one instance." Now that Ive illustrated that a champion being stripped and the networks gleefully going along with it to serve their own purpose Im sure youll come back with something else but anyone can see that the networks were more than willing to televise NBA and WBA and WBC title fights and list them as such, in opposition to the Ring's editorial stance, whenever they wanted for decades prior to the events you describe.

 

Right, the IBC didn't need the NBA. It was the other way around. The NBA needed the IBC because Norris controlled the dates.

That's why I said the NBA didn't have as much influence with the networks after the Kefauver Committee because the NBA worked closely with the IBC so their fights got televised. Once the IBC was broken up, and Norris didn't control what fights made it on most of the national boxing telecasts, the NBA lost the partner funneling them TV dates.

 

I KNOW they didn't control who got title fights. I never said they did. I've argued for hours along with you that the RING has no say in who got title shots.

AGAIN, I'm talking about TV dates. The people programming boxing on television SAID they tended to rely on RING ratings when determining programming. NOT WHO GOT A TITLE SHOT. WHAT THEY TELEVISED. Who they televised. Who they announced as CONTENDERS.

You keep trying to make this an argument about RING ratings having power over who got title shots. I'm NOT saying they did. Because they didn't.

I'm saying the RING ratings mattered on who got on national TV.

 

Of course the networks were going to freaking televise Sugar Ray Robinson fights. He was FREAKING SUGAR RAY ROBINSON for God's sake.

And you keep bringing up these unique situations like Monzon-Valdes. Valdes was living in New York. He was trained by Clancy (who advised the networks on boxing). Emile Griffith (the most popular fighter in New York) was his stablemate.

It was basically an instance of NEW YORK boxing and media guys trying to take control of the middleweight division from Monzon.

There are exceptions to what I'm saying because there are always exceptions. But the RING ratings influenced the men who televised boxing nationally, and when RING stopped influencing them (after the scandal) the SANCTIONING BODIES ratings gained influence.

That's all I'm saying.

I don't know why you keep trying to turn it into me saying the RING was all powerful. I'm not. I'm saying, before the RING scandal, the networks tended to rely on the RING ratings to determine whose fights they showed ... BECAUSE THE NETWORK GUYS SAID THOSE RATINGS DID.

And the sanctioning bodies ratings mattered more after the RING scandal BECAUSE THE NETWORK guys admitted they did.

It's like you're insisting the sky is green and not blue ... because THREE TIMES you remembered when the sky looked green to you.

 

Again, this isnt true. As Ive illustrated above. In the situations you list as examples you conveniently choose to ignore the fact that to a man your examples were from foreign countries. You can count how many ABC, CBS, and NBC boxing matches from day to the late 1970s were broadcast from foreign countries on your fingers and toes. Boxing was loved by the networks because it was cheap. Prior to early bird satellite in the late 1960s there was no easy way to broadcast a foreign boxing match live. Even after the use of satellite until the late 1970s you rarely had international bouts broadcast in the USA. Go back and look throughout the history of unified or Ring championship bouts that were held in foreign countries and tell me how many were broadcast. You will see immediately that hardly any. Maybe a dozen in 3 decades. There were hundred if not thousands of broadcasts in the USA during that time and that small percentage explains why some of those fighters werent carried. But lets look closer at your examples of supposed Ring champions fights that were carried:

Duran: His fights with Thompson, Robertson, Suzuki, and Lampkin werent. All held outside of the United States. His bout with Ken Buchanan was but that was held in the New York. His title bout with Dejesus was broadcast in the USA but thats because interest had already been generated here by his non title bout in New York with Dejesus which was broadcast nationally here. When Duran starts fighting in the USA his championships start getting shown here.

You use Mando Ramos. Not a single one of Mando Ramos' bouts were televised nationally. Every single bout that was televised in the USA of Ramos was a local Los Angeles production. Those I specifically referenced that were filmed on 16mm and sent to SOME parts of the country (particularly the west coast like Seattle) to shown on a delay basis. This does not support your argument.

Ismael Laguna had one bout that was nationally televised in the USA. His bout with Ken Buchanan, why? Because it was from the Garden. His bout with Mando Ramos was broadcast by a local LA station.

Suzuki wasnt shown because Suzuki fought in Japan. His one bout in the USA was against Dejesus and that was only shown on the Spanish speaking network and broadcast to Latin America.

Jose Napoles: Again: Lewis, Backus, Lopez, Griffith, Charles, Pruitt, Menetrey, etc none of those were broadcast on national television. Some where broadcast locally, not many, some were broadcast by spanish networks (Which also werent national) but again. This doesnt support your point.

Stracey: His bout with Napoles was shown on closed circuit and Im not even sure it was shown in the USA at all even on closed circuit.

Im not sure what point you are trying to make with Palomino. He was recognized by Ring as champion and almost all of Palomino's televised bouts were on the local LA station KTLA as were some of Cueves bouts, although most were shown via the local spanish network and carried south of the border. I cant think of a single Cueves fight that broadcast nationally during his title reign besides Hearns.

The bottom line is with these guys most people didnt care. You are talking about largely foreign fighters who werent as marketable and mostly fought overseas and you are trying to say that this guy got national coverage because of the Ring and this guy didnt because he was only recognized by an ABC body and thats not true. In most of your examples most of these guys didnt get that much national attention whether they were recognized by the Ring or not. I gave you solid examples, several, whereby the networks did in fact pay attention to the ratings and did in fact ignore the Ring and its proven by their own productions and the decisions they made. You cannot draw a conclusion for your argument by taking a japanese fighter that nobody ever saw in the United States who fought at LW and only fought in Japan and say "TV wasnt interested in him because the Ring didnt recognize him." Gee, ya think maybe it had something to do with the fact that Nobody in the United States had ever seen the guy fight, nobody could understand a word he said, he didnt look like them, and in order to show his fights against opponents nobody had ever heard about theyd have to fly a film crew to Japan and keep them there for half a week. Ya think maybe that had something to do with it, far more than Ring magazine saying we dont recognize this guy? LOL.

 

Clearly that wasnt the point. If Robinson was the money man and recognized as champion by Ring why did the networks rush to cover Fullmer?? In fact they covered more Fullmer fights during this period than Robinson? Why? Because Fullmer was fighting title fights which is all they cared about.

Gil Clancy didnt advise THE NETWORKS, he worked with CBS, a network, and CBS wasnt the ONLY network that broadcast Rodrigo Valdez fights in the USA. As Ive illustrated with Foster, with Ellis, with Frazier, with Valdez, with Robinson, with Pender, with Fullmer, etc these werent unique situations. It was a regular occurrence that the title was fractured and that the networks didnt care as long as they got to air marquee dates. The Ring had no influence on that. Its absolute bull**** that the "New York guys and Media" were involved in some stupid ass conspiracy to take control of Monzon's title. Monzon was stripped specifically because he had ducked his #1 contender period. One that title was vacant the networks pounced because they wanted to be able to broadcast title fights. Simple as that.

And you are wrong. The Ring almost no inflluence whatsoever in what fights were broadcast period. Period. Its as simple as that. You havent even given a single example outside of that Tournament, which truly was a single unique situation as opposed to the half dozen or more Ive illustrated, that prove your point. None.

In that single instance. Period. You literally went out of your way to say that the networks went out of their to avoid calling Ellis and Frazier champions because the Ring didnt recognize them. YOU SAID THAT. I didnt put those words in your mouth. You were absolutely 100% incorrect. Anybody can go watch those fights and see that for themselves. You are also pretending, apparently, that networks hung on what was printed in the Ring and made programming decisions based on that. This happened during that tournament. It absolutely did not at any other time. If you think ABC, CBS, or NBC picked up air dates by what was in Ring Magazine, or better yet thought "oops we better not show this on TV because Ring doesnt think its a title fight" you need your head examined. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the absolutely ignored the Ring if they were even aware of their ratings in that detail whenever it suited them. Period.

Because Alex Wallau who had been taken in by the Ring ratings said so? Big ****ing deal! You cant even argue the alphabet ratings meant more to the man on the street (an easier case to make) than they did to the networks after that scandal because as Ive already illustrated the NBA/WBA ratings were posted every bit as regularly in newspapers around the country as they were in the much smaller circulation of Ring magazine. Not to mention competitors like Boxing Illustrated (which actually had a higher readership and ended up buying out Ring eventually) also posted its own ratings and the WBA ratings. At best you can say people and Alex Wallau had less faith in Ring ratings after the scandal. But trying to say that somehow effected network television is ridiculous. The alphabets were already gaining steady influence through targeting specific fighters as champions and aligning themselves with networks and promoters. The result is seen today.

No, you took one isolated instance and read this incorrect quote on boxrec: "As a result of The Ring's loss of credibility, the television networks had no choice but to rely on the ratings of the [url]WBA[/url] and [url]WBC[/url], thus increasing the power and influence of the sanctioning bodies." And ran with it. Yeah, I can use google too but the difference is I dont have to rely on Boxrec's bull**** information in this instance. I know the networks didnt RELY on Ring ratings. Its ludicrous to suggest that. Just as its ludicrous to suggest, as you did, that NOBODY paid any attention to the ABC's prior to 1977 and that the networks went out of their way to avoid calling Ellis and Frazier champion because the Ring said so. LOL.

 

No, you misunderstood me to start ... and you keep trying to push the argument back to your initial misunderstanding.

Boxing was televised on national television roughly three times a week every week for decades. Thousands upon thousands of fights between champs and contenders.

You saying ... "See, they televised an NBA fight here, so you're wrong" ... doesn't prove your point.

When they announced the ratings of two contenders during those thousands of broadcasts over those years, whose ratings were they citing? When they introduced fighters in attendance before bouts, and they said this fighter is the number three contender in the heavyweight division ... whose ratings were they citing?

In the thousands of other matches that weren't one of the couple NBA/WBA bouts you mentioned, whose ratings were they using when they said someone was a ranked contender or a champion?

Answer: RING Magazine.

Because those are the boxing ratings the national broadcasters tended to rely on BEFORE the RING scandal. I know that because the guys who programmed boxing for TV have told us that.

After the RING scandal, the announcers would say "Here's the NUMBER THREE WBC contender. Here's the contender rated number FOUR by the WBC, number three by the WBA and number ONE by the IBF."

 

NO I DIDN'T.

I've read magazine interviews over the last 40 years by boxing commentators and executives (like Gil Clancy and Ferdie Pacheco and Alex Wallau and Howard Cosell and Seth Abraham) and boxing writers, and authors of boxing books who have all written about or been interviewed extensively and discussed how RING ratings influenced network boxing programming before the RING scandal and how CBS and NBC and ABC all began to focus on the sanctioning body ratings for programming after that.

I didn't go to goddamn boxrec.

F8ck you.

I'm tired of arguing this with you.

You saw my post and mistakenly thought I was praising RING ratings, when I wasn't, and instead of just accepting that you mistook what I wrote ... you're now saying that me and everyone whose written about this for 40 years ... even those men who actually said RING ratings influenced their boxing programming ... are all lying.

Well, suck it up. Yes, it's true ... the RING ratings AT ONE TIME influenced what fighters got national television air time ... until the RING staffers started taking bribes for ratings ... and then their ratings didn't influence who appeared on national television.

It happened. Deal with it.

Gotta go. You're giving me a headache.

 

I've often wonderd who the actual boxing Ratings resources-newspapers and TV fights (telecasts) used?
Newspapers 9 out of ten were old NBA now WBA. Then Ring, who I would have to admit were great under Nat Fleischer, who took pride of them. No Nat Loubet payoff United States Tournament BS! I cannot get an answer were Hof Boxing Register goes about their ratings, Case in point Henry Clark was ranked by both WBA/RING when he fought Sonny Liston, yet he's not a top ten contender on Listons BR record, Jose Luis Garcia ranked by no one when he ko'd Ken Norton, yet on Norton's Boxing register record he's a ranked contender!? WBC was not used much until 1975, and then they kinda took over, Newspaper publications anyway.

 

Where is max baer's name? And how in the hell did fittzsimmons get on there