The "Ring Title" should count as an "official title."

The Ring is the only title I really count.

 

Yes it should count as official. I only consider a Ring titlist as a proper CHAMPION.

All others are just beltholders.

 

technically it's not an official title but it is far more prestigious than all the other alphabet titles.

 

This is correct.

 

I have seen this before and will keep the same opinion--you guys should read up a little

Back in the 70's I think it was "The Ring" was involved with DON KING in ranking riggings for a tourney promoted by King.

Now they are owned by a boxing promotional company--hmm--I wonder if it will happen again.

 

Ring is far from perfect but I absolutely consider them more important than the sanctioning bodies' titles 99% of the time. I agree. More meaningful to me. And more often than not, denote linear champions than any other title, I think.

 

This.

...or this.

 

Who decides what an official title is? Not so long ago the WBO wouldn't have been considered official.

 

i guess when these alphabet title had gather enough clout that boxing fans, writers and historians regard it as a major one. before wbo was not a major alphabet sanctioning body but after some well known boxers had hold their belts, it is now regarded as a major sanctioning body.

 

the ring belt gets as much credit as the abc belts.

for me, personally, the only championship i respect is the linear champ.

i am a big believer of linearity, it is the beauty of the sport.

with me, i believe if 1 and 3 fight then the winner is the lineal champ. however i fully understand those who insist it is only awarded to the winner of 1 and 2.

 

Yeah, because it just shows one ultimate champ per division.

The Ring shall be more official than the alphabet **** belts, anyway. Why would there be more than one word champion - doesn't make sense. World champ means there is one world champion - not 2 and surely not 3.

The Ring is legit and their champions are legit, I just agree with their rankings.

 

A magazine article I read in a boxing mag a few years back, mentioned that the Ring LHW title dissappeared in the 80s and reappeared in the 90s, where it just awarded its title belt to Roy Jones. But it said that if the Ring policy of, you have to beat the man to be the man had of been followed, then the belt should have been awarded to Michalczewski for his victory over V Hill who was the man, if you followed the history line from the previously removed belt from the 80s.

With that in mind it shows you how bias the Ring were and not legit, so I will say no

 

they don't a set system in place and just hand it out here and there...it's more of a popularity contest

 

The Ring title is the only one that counts.

The Ring Champ is The Champ and the rest are just belt holders.

 

they clearly have a system in place and they have rankings and give reason for them