Now that it's been in circulation for a long uninterrupted periods and all the unrecognised lineages of the past have now come to an end(erdei retired and pascal v hopkins was the top two guys). should we recognise the ring champion as the lineal champion? Most notably with wlad klitschko, what right do we as fans have to say they're wrong about it? In the past it's been easier because they stopped awarding belts but the lineage still followed from their original awarding of a belt or from their original rankings. If the ring rule that wlad is a champion how can we disagree? Disagreeing with roy being lhw because the ring didn't award their belt is one thing, but now that all the old confusion causing lineages have ended, I think i'm just gonna follow the rings champions. After all it is the bible of boxing. Thoughts? Disagree, agree?
It would be better for the sport if everyone recognised the Ring champ as the main man. It could end up going that way if the alphabets keep making arses of themselves. Personally i'd like just the WBC and WBA being the two main belts once again, i know it would be better if there was just one champ, but i think two is ok because then you get tasty unification matches. But the Ring belt is a good idea, and their ratings are just has valid has any of the others. Probably more so...infact definately more so.
I completely agree. The ring went a bit wonky in the 80's and stopped awarding the belt which led to confusion when those lineage's still existed and they tried creating new ones (most notably at lhw, at the other divisions the right man eventually picked up the lineage: hoya, floyd, lewis, etc.) But when erdei retired that was the last of the conflicting lineages. If the ring decree that chag v wlad is for the ring title i'm not gonna argue. Their rules do state it can be 1 v 3 and their ratings are the best we have. That being said the wbc/wba method is ideal providing they don't strip people. You have two clear leading contender's gearing towards a unification. But yeah the ring should be the only belt boxers care about imo.
If we can't get back to just the WBC and WBA which is very likely, then the Ring belt is the way to go. Since it was re-introduced like you said, it has become more and more recognised and valid. I think has time goes on it will just get stronger and more prestigious.
Yeah I agree, people still used their rankings to declare new champs (curry v mcrory, chavez v taylor, hill v maske, norris v pevan etc.) Other lineages could still be traced through also. It did mess up when it failed to award dm and instead awarded jones but that mess ended when erdei retired and hopkins beat pascal. By my reckoning no other lineage is disputed so I don't really see why wlad's should be. The ring champ is "the man"
I think more often and not it will be the case, but I also think there are clear cases where fans should be happy to exercise their own judgment (as with Wlad and Margarito-Mosley). You ask what right do we have, but what right does The Ring have to automatically have that status? Additionally, while their rankings at the top for most divisions are accurate, for some they're an absolute mess. I simply cannot agree with anyone who thinks that Cintron-Cotto should start a new lineage at junior middleweight. Also, lots of people still consider Erdei the lineal champ at 175. Just as The Ring should not have the last word by default on who is and isn't a lineal champion, so too should it not have the only say on what criteria apply for declaring titles vacant.
Yes I agree. They're the bible of boxing for a reason and aside a brief hiatus they've been spot on. Wlad is clearly the king he doesn't have to beat up family to prove that! Vitali getting the belt v sanders is a bit more dubious but I suppose he had flattened the man who'd dominated byrd previously so I can live with it. But wlad, hopkins, winner of ward/froch, martinez, marquez, pong, segura there'll top dogs and I don't really see an argument against it considering the climate of boxing atm.
Yeah you make some good points here. It's for these reasons why it never had much credibility has a legitimate belt. It was what it was, recognition from the legendary magazine, which was a nice prize in it's own way but not the be all and end all. When you say what gives them certain rights, then this is the fundamental problem with boxing again. No belts rankings are perfect, and all are totally different from each others, through promoters and money. I wouldn't like to see the old belts lose relevance (WBA, WBC), but there already seem to be in a way, with their joke rankings and silver, diamond and whatever belts. If the Ring is a way to a fairer ranking system, and better fights then maybe it could be the future. But like you say some of thier rankings are questionable too. It can only be a good thing that their belt is out there, with some people now seeing it has just has credible as a world title, if it gets larger recognition as a genuine belt, it might force the others to sort their politics out, or even be pushed out of the sport. But that is wishful thinking, because things never seem to get better with this sport, only worse. An international governing body would be the answer to most of boxings problems.
Well the lineal championship was traditionally the ring championship until it ceased publication. Once it came back it didn't pick up the lineage and instead tried creating a new one, that was wrong. The mess is over now tho, erdei announced his retirement and left the division, so he has no real claim. Regarding the mosley situation, I wouldn't have argued either way but mosley had lost to cotto so I can see why he was ranked below him. Wlad-chag is exceptional circumstance because the number 2 will not fight the number 1. And regarding criteria, every fan has opinions of course. But these does have to be a body sanctioning these things and ring is the only belt that doesn't strip. I think the winner of rhode alvarez might jump to number 2 and overtake cintron but the division is so fractured there is no right and wrong imo.
This is the way I see it - until we as fans can establish something tangible that is recognized by the fighters themselves, we have to respect the ring's decisions on this **** because they have the only belts and rankings that are even remotely legitimate. They're close enough anyway that any argument about their rankings seems petty and cynical.
This is a very good thread. Good posts all around. While it may not be the ideal way to do it, it is the best available. And while the Ring Rankings might not be to everyone's taste, they don't have the same conflicts of interest that the alphabet orgs do.( At least not so many)
Agreed. There's no use pining for the days of one title, or undisputed champs holding all the belt, those days are over. These days as soon as a guy unifies he either gets stripped or made "super" champion, it's an impossible situation. There have been a couple of occaisions where the Ring champion wasn't the best guy in the division, when Casamayor held onto the title depsite obviously declining(which is the way it should be until he actually loses it but it was obvious Juan Diaz was better than him at the time), but they almost always have more credible champions than any of the bodies.
You know something is wrong with the current system when sanctioning bodies can, and have, recognized at least three world champions per division. Ring Magazine isn't perfect, and there are points of disagreement in their ratings. But...since they cut across partisan lines, and rate fighters who happen to hold titles from all four sanctioning bodies...And, since they only recognize one fighter per division as being champion, it automatically becomes more legitimate than organizations that have at points included the dead among their ratings. :deal