How highly do you value the Ring title?

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by richie leon, Aug 11, 2010.


  1. Liston3

    Liston3 Active Member Full Member

    1,340
    60
    Jul 30, 2005
    I definitly value it a helluva lot more than the alphabet titles.
     
  2. klion22

    klion22 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    22,781
    355
    Aug 4, 2007
    It has flaws but i give the Ring belt so much more importance over any ABC belt.
     
  3. klion22

    klion22 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    22,781
    355
    Aug 4, 2007
    Only problem with your logic is that the Ring has been around since 1922. You can't stay around that long unless if you are legit and do things the right way.
     
  4. Monte Fisto

    Monte Fisto Active Member Full Member

    602
    1
    Oct 15, 2009
    its the only one whos rankings make sense and arent political BS
     
  5. El Cepillo

    El Cepillo Baddest Man on the Planet Full Member

    17,221
    4
    Aug 29, 2008
    Alphabet belts are for title holders.

    The Ring belt is for Champions.
     
  6. mrbassie

    mrbassie Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,206
    16
    Oct 18, 2004
    I don't really pay any attention to it. I can make up my own mind as to who I think the top guy in a division is. Also, if they really wanted to clean up some of the mess in boxing they should have just picked one belt and not recognised any of the others. If they're so confident that everyone should accept their opinion as fact.
     
  7. Toontoon

    Toontoon Boxing Junkie banned

    8,177
    1
    Jan 8, 2010
    Here's an old article from Maxboxing that some might find interesting...

    ...........

    What About Ring?

    Fans used to hearing more frequently about ‘real’ World champions on HBO and ESPN in recent years may be wondering why the lineages noted above don’t entirely line up with Ring Magazine since Ring is often the standard used by those media giants. That’s simple.

    When Ring decided to start naming champions again, they elected to ignore some established history, including their own.

    That’s a problem when considering that their policy is supposed to be about the notion that titles are won, and lost, only in the ring. In other words, Ring looks like it is all about restoring lineage to titles but, if there was an election that said they could just call a do-over on history, I missed it. While Ring left the game of tracing ‘the man who beat the man’ or at least the ‘man who became the man’ in the late 80’s, websites like the Cyber Boxing Zone (CBZ), and the magazine Boxing Illustrated well into the 90s, were still protecting Boxing’s history.

    So, with renewed discussion at this site, and around the sport, about the merits of Ring’s championships, it’s time to take another look at how things have played out on this front. Loyal readers will find this subject old territory for me, but MaxBoxing readers not as familiar with my work can quickly be caught up on the specifics.

    When Ring began recognizing champions again, sans alphabelts, earlier this decade, they did so by declaring, among others, the titles at 108, 112, 115, and 126 lbs. vacant and recognizing Roy Jones as Light Heavyweight champion. Jones was easy for most people to swallow because he was, well, Roy. However, his ‘undisputed’ title reign was built on sanctioning body recognition, stripped alphabelts, and occasionally top foes. They ignored the history passed from Hill to Dariusz Michalczewski.

    They reasoned, paraphrasing, that the other divisions were in disarray and it would be too confusing to retroactively trace the lines so vacant won. Was that really the case? Well, let’s say it wouldn’t have taken much looking to be un-confused.

    If any of you have the February 2008 issue of Ring handy, open it up to page 128 and you’ll see that Sot Chitalada and Barry McGuigan were, correctly, recognized as World champs at Flyweight and Featherweight respectively in March 1986. Those lines never broke, and they traced back farther than ’86. When Ring started noting champs again between 2001 and 2002, that would have meant Wonjongkam and Naseem Hamed.

    Since becoming a recognizer of championships again, other problems have arisen with Ring. Among them are:

    • Crowning Rosendo Alvarez at 108 while the lineage ran through Jorge Arce in a straight line from Michael Carbajal-Humberto Gonzalez;
    • Ignoring the lineage at 115 lbs. that belonged to Masamori Tokuyama in a straight line to the Jiro Watanabe-Payao Poontarat fight in 1984;
    • Crowning Paulie Ayala at 122 lbs. for his one clear win over Bones Adams in 2002 after three arguably bad decisions in a row for Ayala against Hugo Dianzo, Johnny Tapia and Bones Adams and with no other wins in the division. Ayala never defended his hollow crown; and let us not forget…
    • The coronation of big brother Vitali Klitschko as Heavyweight champion for his first win over a currently rated Ring top ten fighter, ever, against Corrie Sanders in 2004. Much as he was loathsome to watch, John Ruiz’s rebound from the Roy Jones loss with wins over Hasim Rahman and Fres Oquendo were more meritorious than anything Klitscko had actually finished when he entered the ring with Sanders.

    To their credit, they have been on the ball on other occasions. Their recognizing Jose Luis Castillo-Juan Lazcano as being for the then-vacant Lightweight title in 2004 appeared correct and was validated by an excellent series of fights that culminated in Castillo-Corrales I. Evidenced above, most of their titlists are accurate to date, so it's not as if they're way out of the ballpark there even if they did back into history rather than embracing it. Finally, through much of modern Boxing’s rich and unique history, Ring’s belts have been a constant from old pictures of Nat Fleischer and Ray Robinson to the casket of Apollo Creed. When a fighter proves to be his divisions true champion, having that belt there is a bonus and a cool aesthetic. But…

    This Ring review is inspired in large part by Steve Kim’s piece here at Maxboxing on Monday. Steve and I don’t approach this issue from the same direction or even reach all the same conclusions, but for those like Steve who might feel no obligation to recognize Bernard Hopkins or Joel Casamayor as sole champions, Ring provides the role model. After all, if Ring can decide that legitimate lineage is discardable, then why can’t their placebo lineage at 175 or decision to recognize the weight-skewed Casamayor-Corrales III also be discarded by knowledgeable boxing people based on the results unfolding before them?
     
  8. Jennifer Love Hewitt

    Jennifer Love Hewitt Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,850
    2,149
    Jul 19, 2004
    that.
     
  9. richie leon

    richie leon Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,512
    1
    Jan 21, 2008
    Well that's an excellent, thorough article. But if you break it down to 1 simple sentence, all it really says is: the Ring's championship policy is imperfect. And i already knew that when i started this thread.

    That's why the poll option that's most favourable towards the Ring doesn't say: the Ring title is the one and only perfect title, but rather: the Ring title is the most legitimate title in boxing, meaning that it appoints champions in a more fair and justifiable way than any of the official sanctioning bodies. And who, outside of Jose Sulaiman and mofo's like him would really argue with that?

    I know that the guys at the Ring have taken some liberties that maybe they shouldn't have taken. But for the most part, i think even their more questionable choices were defendable. For example, it was questionable of them to award their lightheavyweight belt to Roy Jones when they started out. But it was clear that he was the best 175-pounder in the world to anybody objective. So was that really so awful? That they called the best p4p fighter in the world the champ of his division when in truth somebody else was the linear champion? I don't think that comes close to being as bad as the most questionable decision that, say, the WBA has made.

    Bottom line: the Ring's championship policy is not perfect, and mistakes have been made in how it has been executed. But it's still a big, fat shitload better than any other policy around in this game.
     
  10. Vitor Belfort

    Vitor Belfort Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    18,334
    3
    Dec 17, 2008
    It's the best title in boxing. You can only get it by beating the best.
     
  11. Toontoon

    Toontoon Boxing Junkie banned

    8,177
    1
    Jan 8, 2010
    If the ring title is so important, why do people keep on about Mayweather fighting Baldomir for the ring title instead of Margarito?
     
  12. richie leon

    richie leon Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,512
    1
    Jan 21, 2008
    Because Margarito was considered a more dangerous opponent. Baldomir was clearly a very poor champ, but that doesn't take away anything from the Ring title in my eyes. That lineage traced back to the de la Hoya-Trinidad fight and really can't be disputed. The best guy in the division not being the champion is something that's happened many times in the history of boxing. Jake LaMotta, Sonny Liston and Marvin Hagler were considered the best in their division years before they actually won the title, just to name a few.
     
  13. Windigo

    Windigo Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,131
    3
    Jun 22, 2009
    This content is protected
     
  14. spud1

    spud1 HAWK TIME!!!! Full Member

    10,667
    3
    May 8, 2010
    ideally they would scrap the others and keep rig title but they should at least get vrid of the interim super ad silver titles its making the sport look like a anybody can be champion someday sport:lol:
     
  15. richie leon

    richie leon Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,512
    1
    Jan 21, 2008
    That's really a great point. I guess the main thing that keeps the sanctioning body bandits relevant is that old saying: "if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth"!