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

bailey do you beleive erdei is the champ at 175

 

The Ring made a mistake with the LHW title in the 90's for sure. In my opinion Erdrei should have been champ at 175 but not anymore as he hasn't fought thee for nearly 2 years.
If there was only 1 title than Erdrei as ex-champ would get a chance at Pascal.

 

If the Ring wasn't owned by a promoter,it would have a lot more legitimacy.It was a terrific magazine for a very long time,but since GBP took it over,it may as well be an alphabet organization.

 

If there's one thing boxing needs- it's not another title

 

Its the opposite dude, there are no sanction fees or other funny business. We will never be rid of the alphabet titles unfortunately because if every champ binned them, there are guys who would cheerfully accept them as a tool to gain more purse money.

IMO if i were to pick a ABC title i would pick the less prestigious IBO, in theory their ratings are best (although most big players are not bothered, they already have enough mandatory fights, i known the IBO belts are normally considered an extra for unified fights or a lightly regarded trinket for up and comers).

Anyway to make a point, my Grandfather who was never a big boxing fan could until the early eightys name most of boxings champs, now you would have to an autistic fanatic to name every man that called himself world champ.

Im summary clarity i.e. the Ring Belt is a good thing!

 

The IBO belts are very similar to Ring belts in that you get given one but you can defend it against anyone you like. They will not force you to fight anyone you don't want to fight. In my opinion that's a bad thing.

Take the heavyweight division for example. If there was only one title - the Ring title - the champion would be Wlad Klitschko. Say the most gifted boxer of all time comes along. He's quicker than a prime Cassius Clay, hits harder than prime Mike Tyson, etc... Let's say Wlad doesn't want to fight him, which I suspect would be the case, then he'd never get to be a world champion. Can you image? I think that's terrible. If the Ring actually want their belt to mean more than the others they need to start forcing their champs to fight the best.

 

He should have been, as should Michalczewski. Their LHW resumes are impressive, but thats another story.

The Ring belt did wrong, and thats what I noted

 

I don't think the ring title should be looked at as another official title. I think it should be looked like The Title for The Champion.

 

A better question would be.

"Should the WBA title be counted as an official title?" - considering they have 3 champions in some divisions.

 

Well put:good

 

How was Sanders rated #3 to fight Vitali? You think because of one upset win, after virtual retirement he's seriously the 3rd best fighter in the division?

Or do you think the Ring saw an opportunity to capitalise on the public interest in Vitaly after the Lewis fight?

Is Audley a voluntary defence or a mandatory defence?

How many mandatory defences do Ring belt holders have to make?

Vitali and Wlad don't get ranked by the WBA because they hold other belts. I'm sure you know that, and are just twisting things to suit your argument.

Under the ring belts current rules, Vitali could fight me, my 60 year old father and then my 5 year old son in the next 3 fights, and they'd be able to do absolutely nothing about it.



The ABC's have a huge range of belts below them, so winning an Oceania title might guarantee you a certain ranking, or a NABF belt or whatever. Sort of a second tier if you like, that help the rankings take some sort of order.

The Ring has nothing like that in place. In fact, the only point of reference the Ring belt actually has, is the ABC belts!


Simple question is,
could the Ring belt survive without the ABCs? No, of course not.
Could the ABC's survive without the Ring belt? Of course. They have in the past, and they are now.

 

Boxing News could create its own title belt & it'd be more credible than The Ring's belt.

 

Isn't that the whole point though? How can the WBA be a credible sanctioning body when they don't rank the two best fighters in the division because they hold other belts. The alphabets continue to not recognise other champions to the detriment of the sport.

 

I've been away for a while so I'll answer now...


Because the ABC's rankings aren't ranking the best fighters in the world from 1 - 50 (or whatever number).

They are ranking, in order, THEIR rankings to get a shot at the champ.

There is no point ranking the other belt holders. They already have belts. If the 2 want to fight, it's a unification bout, and another belt holder isn't going to waste their time working their way up the rankings of a different organisation.

Also, the ranking body doesn't have any power or influence over the other belt holders. The other belt holders have their own obligations to the org whose belt they hold.

The belt may also have associations with regional belts. So, the WBC might have a WBC Pacific-Oceania belt (or something). If you win that, you might be guaranteed a top 15 ranking at worst. You might be offered a top 10 spot for holding an "America's" belt or whatever.


That's why one fighter might be number 3 with one ABC, and 23 with the other.

Take David Tua very recently. He was high in the WBO rankings, because he targetted fighters and belts that obviously rated high on their criteria. Those may not have had any bearing on the WBA or WBC for example, as the fighters/belts may not have any bearing on them.


It's confusing, and **** at times, but there is logic to it.

 

It is a title owned by GBP but it's more fair and less bureaucratic than the other corrupt POS titles.