Was It Ever Possible To Win a Ring Magazine Belt Without Owning a Major Title?

Why the importance of a ring magazine belt? I read a copy a couple of months back.It wasn't even a good read.

 

I think you've answered your own question. The simple answer is No.
I don't see that any of the previously posted replies to this thread have answered your question.

If I'm wrong, please, someone, correct me, but I don't remember the Ring ever actually giving a belt to someone who wasn't a "major titleholder."

I have always considered the pre-1970 "junior" titleholders as worthy champions. I know that for years Fleischer didn't recognize them.

 

Ring didn't have champions during most (if not all) of the 1990's. Stanley Weston, of World Boxing, International Boxing, KO, etc., bought the dead Ring magazine in late 1989. His family of magazines stopped recognizing champions in 1977 or so. They just did a 1-10 (or 1-12) and if someone held an organizational title, they noted it. For example: 1. Larry Holmes (WBC Champion), 2. Mike Weaver (WBA Champion), 3. Gerry Cooney, and so on. So when Ring joined his roster of magazines, it adopted the "no champions" policy. So they didn't officially recognize Shannon Briggs as a champion, although when the Lewis-Briggs fight was announced (and criticized) they noted in an editorial that Briggs could be looked at as heavyweight champion because of his victory over Foreman.

If I recall correctly, Ring started their "Ring Championship Policy" in the very early 2000's.

Going into the Tyson-Spinks fight, Ring did recognize Spinks as champion. I don't have a source for this, but I do recall reading in a magazine that even Tyson's management regarded Spinks as the real champion despite Tyson's holding all three organizational belt.

 

Good god! Please tell me you’re joking.

 

If Ring doesn't recognize a champion in a division, they usually rate the alphabet champions near the top of their ratings. So it is extremely rare where Ring rates two boxers #1 and #2 in a division, and all the champs in the division are rated below those two boxers.

There have been a lot of instances where someone won a belt and was also recognized as the Ring champ, and then whatever alphabet belt that boxer held was stripped or vacated, and the fighter subsequently just defended the Ring title.

But I don't recall an instance in modern boxing where two boxers fought for the VACANT Ring belt and both of the top two Ring contenders were beltless going in or an alphabet belt wasn't also on the line and in play when those two guys square off.

But as long as the fighters are rated #1 and #2 by Ring, there is no reason they can't become Ring champ with no other belt up for grabs.

(Just rambling: The only reason Ring ratings are still mentioned is they are the only ratings body that includes the names of the other champions in their listings. I don't know why one of the alphabet orgs, like the WBC, just doesn't include other org's champs among their contender listings. How difficult would it be for the WBC, for instance, to just rate Anthony Joshua the top contender? He is, after all. They'd likely become the most legit ratings body immediately. Except for listing other champs, their ratings usually include the same contenders as Ring in many divisions.)

 

If memory serves, the practice of not ranking each other's champions started in 1978 when the WBC stripped Leon Spinks for not fighting Ken Norton. It seemed to devolve into a prissy, "We're not even going to rank Spinks for what he did to us."

WBA: "Oh yeah? Well we're not going to rank ANY WBC champion."
WBC: "Really! Well then, we're not going to rank ANY WBA champion."

And so it began.
And to think, the year before when Carlos Monzon retired, both the WBC and the WBA agreed that Rodrigo Valdez and Bennie Brisco were #1 and #2 contenders and would fight for both of their vacant titles.

 

I don't want to give them any ideas, and I guess there wouldn't be any money in it, but I'm half expecting one of the sanctioning bodies (to be followed by the others, of course) to strip boxers of the past and declare other fighters to have been their champion. For example, the WBO announcing that it has retroactively stripped Floyd Patterson of his title in late June of 1960 for opting to face Johansson in a third fight instead of signing to fight Sonny Liston and awarded the winner of the July Sonny Liston - Zora Folley (Liston, of course) bout its' title.

 

The WBC and IBF did that in 2003 when Antonio Tarver and Montell Griffin fought each other for both of those vacant light heavyweight titles, too (after Roy Jones beat John Ruiz for the WBA heavyweight belt). The orgs assumed Jones would remain at heavyweight. Then Jones moved back down.

 

Joel Cassamayor had only the ring magazine belt after getting stripped of the WBC at LW. He made 2 successful defenses of it until losing to Marquez.

Calzaghe vs Hopkins was just for the ring belt at LHW.

So was Pacquiao vs Hatton and Pacquaio vs Barrera.

 

Many a boxer have become champion of the world primarily holding
Lineal and ring world honors without holding a sanctioning belt.

Sugar ray robinson won the middleweight world crown solely holding lineal + ring world championships on 4 separate occasions in 50s at a time NBA + NYSAC
Were in exile post war.

Randy turpin never received a sanctioning belt after beating robinson.
Lineal and ring.

British boxer walter McGowan beat salvatore burruni in 1966 and was crowned the flyweight champion of the world
Winning only lineal + ring world honors.

McGowan never held either sanctioning titles of WBA or WBC during career.

Freddie mills became the lightheavy champion of world without receiving a sanctioning belt either
Winning lineal + Ring.

More recently juan Marquez beat Joel casomayor for lineal and ring at 135
Marquez crowned a world champion without receiving a sanctioning belt. 2008

Pacquiao beat barrera for only lineal + Ring.

At lightheavy joe calzaghe became a 2 divisional world champion
Beating hopkins winning solely the Ring magazine championship.

 

ring title was 1 vs 2/3 for a long time, i think it changed about when i didn't care.

given alphabet stripping etc it must have happened a few times.

 

After barrera beat naz
The IBO was instantly vacated

Barrera entered the fight with WBC champion morales as the lineal featherweight world champion.

Barrera beat Morales and instantly vacated the WBC.

And reigned as the featherweight champion of the world without holding a sanctioning belt
Made lineal + Ring world defences without a sanctioning vs morales
tapia, kelly, Pacquiao

 

In the past with only 8 Weights and 1 Champion in each, American Contenders were often State or Regional Champions and Foreign Contenders were 'usually' National Title Holders...

so there was a criteria & support chain so to speak, in most cases, in steps toward "the Title", there were also exceptions of course, though few from outside of America.

Not sure now with all the alphabet & mickey mouse belts and weight divisions in recent decades, but certainly in the past there was a bit of an expected pedigree generally speaking.

 

Ring initially attached their championship to the universally recognized no1.
NBA + NYSAC also slapped thier vacant championships to dempey existing lineal world claim.

At heavyweight Dempsey was the 1st recognized ring champion.

During the 20s all way through to 80s ring supported the universally acclaimed no1 within majority consensus

But there became a divide between lineal + Ring championships because of rings multiple changes in policy regards to strips and criteria involving vacant positions.
Post 2002
Ring would accept a no1 vs a no5 for a vacant championship

And the policy change of awarding thier championship to a fighter without entering a ring.