Ring mock 140 test They have Khan the winner out of 8

Thats why I don't use there rankings anymore.

 

Bute at number 1 isn't a bad call, he's one or 2

Bika had the fight won when DQ'd. Theres a very good case for not dropping him on the back of that result

Alavarez is too high, not a big deal.

Marquez hasn't lost the belt in the ring and hasn't relinquished it either so all The Ring is doing is enforcing their own rules correctly.

With the possible exception of Alvarez (not the first or last time an unbeaten prospect is ranked a little too high) none of those points to GBP/ Ring magazine conspiracy theory let alone calling into doubt the validity of the championship.

 

I’m not sure of the Ring bias thing. I think some of their writers are idiots, I think the standards of their journalism can be pretty sloppy too, but generally I’ve not seen them overly favour GBP fighters.

In the cases you list, Rob, I think there’s a fair argument for most of them:

Bute number 1 at SMW has been co-promoted by GBP

He’s undefeated and been at world-level for a long time. Whether he deserves the top spot is debateable, but he’s on a level with Ward and Froch at least.

Sakio Bika number 6 at SMW despite his DQ loss

I think he got dropped a spot for that – he was at 5 before. But he didn’t actually lose to Mendy other than for technical reasons. He’d battered the guy, so it’d be unfair to drop him when he didn’t lose the actual fighting bit of the contest.

Saul Alvarez number 10 at LMW

Yeah, that’s stupid.

Marquez champion at LW despite not fighting there for over a year

The Ring’s policy is that you don’t lose the title out of the ring, unless you retire or change weightclass. The fight with Mayweather was obviously a one-off to WW, and his next fight was at LW.

Also, Ring TV has been super-critical of David Haye – a GBP fighter. Doesn’t fit the profile, surely?

They’ve been clear that they feel Mayweather’s not interested in fighting Pacquaio, and they were highly critical of Oscar’s decision to fight Manny too.

I think people want there to be a conspiracy when, really, it’s just that they wear their biases pretty openly. Except Doug Fischer – the guy’s a legend.

 

No Pacquaio isn't LWW champ anymore, hasn't been for a while now. Somebody was saying since he indicated he was going to fight Margarito, not sure when, but he has been stripped for a while.

 

Great post Ishy. If I'd have seen it before I wrote mine out I could have saved myself 5 minutes and just quoted yours!!:good

 

Mate, we were on the same page!

 

I've been suspicious of the Ring magazine ever since I read the editorial from before the Oscar/Pacquaio fight where they were fawning over what an amazing fight this was.

They do seem to be a mouthpiece for promoting GBP, I think anyway.

 

Fair enough Marquez never lost the title but he should have to defend it at least once a year.

The ring rankings and titles could really mean something if they were done properly.

 

Yep, if those are the biggest problems with The Ring rankings then they must be doing a damn good job.

 

I think they're pretty good, generally. I only disagree with the P4P stuff (as I always do in principle). Sometimes they'll do something stultifyingly stupid (like Mayweather coming back at no.2 on the WW rankings for beating Marquez), but generally - they're ok.

 

Or what Rob? Strip him, have a vacant title and be accused of favouring some other fighter? The Ring rules are simple, they don't strip champs. If they had of stripped JMM you've have more of an argument that their titles are bent as it is its a null point in the GBP/ Ring conspiracy.

People say a weakness of the Ring titles is that they don't enforce mandatories but to enforce mandatories would mean they would have to strip champions which leaves then open to all sorts of charges.

Its not a perfect system but, given the choice, its better to keep the linearity of a championship (where possible) than try to enforce mandos, strip champs and lose that linearity IMHO.

 

Nor can I off the top of my head, nonetheless it is now something I will always have in the back of my mind. Some people seem to consider it some magical award that's completely free from bias or prejudice, being owned by a promotional company rather than being independent means that fundamentally it is not. tbh I never thought it meant anything anyway, look at the heavyweights, people have started referring to Wlad Klitschko as the lineal champion when he hasn't unified or fought the other best guy in the division just because a magazine gave him a trinket.

 

That's the point, I guess - it's about who beat The Man, not about who paid their sanctioning fee.

 

Even though the actual fight between Khan Vs Bradley wouldn't play out like they said it, that was fun to read.

KING KHAN.

 

Its certainly something to keep in mind but until I see proof of "fixing" I regard the belt as being genuine.

The Wlad issue is a tricky one. The lineal champ, Lewis, retired and is not coming back. The Ring rules state that if the title is vacant a fight between the number 1 and number 2 ranked guys in the division will be for the title.

The 1 and 2 ranked HWs will never fight each other so The Ring polled its ratings contributors (they did not just make the decision themselves) as to whether a fight between the number 1 and number 3 guys in the division could be for the Ring title. The vote passed.

Some people agree with the way the vote went, others don't but it was all done above board, in a proper fashion and for genuine reasons (not wanting a vacant HW title for the next 5+ years until Vitali retires when there is clearly a number 1 guy in the division.).