The way I see it, only they award a belt, rank every fighter and don't strip champions. Best we have by a mile
its the ultimate free market system which has problems and advantages its good that we don't have bull**** title fights but we also have to wait a long time for fights.ideal i would like if they incentivised their titles and defenses.i like the fact they don't charge a fee and that usually their champs have to fight quality opposition before getting their title
The Ring doesn't sanction fights and thats why its the most legit title out there. Its not about getting paid for them, its about there publication recognizing achievements.
The Ring belt is the only legit belt to me these days. As far as I'm concerned the Ring champ = The champ. As for the #1 vs #3, I only support that if the #2 was legitimately injured/out for a long period of time. Not just because the #1 and 2 don't want to fight each other.
I fully agree with this. If the ring ok's it with justification I have no real problem with it. I mean like you say, best we have.
I could not disagree with you more. It's only one guy that holds up the fight. If #2 is unwilling to make a fight with #1, and #1 goes and beats the next best guy and The Ring sees fit to crown him the champ, that's perfectly fine with me.
Hopkins, Taylor, and Pavlik showed us how to establish and maintain a lineage. BHop unified the 4 major belts. Jermain beat him, and then beat him again in the rematch. When Taylor fought Pavlic, he was still the undisputed middleweight champion of the world in the eyes of everyone who has any sense at all. Kelly established himself as the NUMBER ONE contender, and no on could argue against his ranking. He went on to stop Jermain, and then score a clear decision in the rematch. That's one thing I hated about Martinez becoming the "champ." I knew he would **** up the lineage.
To be fair, the fuk up started once taylor rematched hopkins and then failed to rematch wright. 2 belts went there and then. Martinez got stripped for fighting williams, a man he'd previously lost to at the weight, then got stripped for putting food on his table (hbo made it clear it was to be dzin or noone) I agree tho it annoys me how since hopkins we've had ten years and two changes of hand yet every belt has been stripped apart from the ring. Same when tyson beat spinks to unify every claim then within 6 years foreman had no belts left to his name. I would like to see martinez fight sturm and geale however. Pirog should fight martinez.
I like the question. while by true definition the answer should be no, the "coincidence" that if a fighter in a division has the Ring, that fighter is about always the MAN in that division.
Not sure it is coincidence however, I think most people go off the ring ratings anyway, so unless there in co old lineage that conflicts (which there isn't at present) then the ring champ is as good as anything out there. Considering they don't strip fighters I think it'll remain as the main belt until they cease publication again which hopefully they wont!