How highly do you value the Ring title?

Less and less. This "#1 vs #3" bull**** is killing it.

In my book, it should be "#1 vs #2, or sometimes #1 vs #2 and #3"

 

It's not an official belt so I can't rate it above the rest. But logically it usually goes to ones that deserve it the most, that can't be denied.

You can overlook the rest all you want but officially they're the ones that matter and get fighters noted down/remembered as official champions or former champions.

 

Above any other title but it seems to be losing it's credibility slowly.

 

It looks cool!
(+ it's the belt Rocky Balboa had)

 

The WBA are degrading the ring title by having the wba super title lookin gjust like it.

 

this. :deal

 

Rarely is 1 vs. 3 for the title. They did it with Wlad, but Vitali was no.2. In that situation I believe it's fair to do 1 vs. 3. They were going to do it for Dawson vs. Pascal but Johnson was no.2 and of course Johnson has already lost to Dawson twice. I do have problems with the Ring belt, but the occasional 1 vs 3 for the title isn't one of them. I think they do a good job with that.

 

This. It's clearly the most accurate reflection of what's going on in each division yet seems to be getting more and more political.

 

the problem with the ring is theres no mandatorys. a fighter can become champion and just fight bums once every 18 months and nothing changes. the ring puts an emphasis on lineage rather than the champions fighting the best. a simple rule of having to fight a top 10 guy once a year would make it more credible.

add to this that there rules don't make sense and can be changed, there rankings can be very strange and its rarley refrenced by the media, fighters and promoters.

Eastside has its own rankings which our better than the Ring (i would say it as I help to run them) you can find them here

[url]http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=224146[/url]

 

He also held WBA, WBC and IBF (but those were only shown in his last movie)

 

Yes but what officially made Casamayor the top man at 135?, winning the WBC title previously even if it dropped off, the fact that he never lost THAT belt made him the official top guy. Marquez also won the WBO title after beating Diaz, that made his case stronger as the top guy.

Hatton's case is identical. He beat Kostya Tszyu who was formerly the unified champion who dropped his belts due to inactivity. Unifying and winning those belts is what made him officially the top guy. Not to forget that he had the IBF title from that fight and also went on to win the WBA.

To make it simple, it's after winning the official belts that eventually brings out a "lineal" champion in one. So without those belts that title wasn't going to exist.

 

Well even though there are some issues about #1 VS #3 we can't deny that their rules are the most fair comparing it to other bodies. Even if they don't have any authority, we see fighters wearing them with pride often wearing the ring belt and letting the slaves carry the others (when unified). That means that fighters value them too, right?