Is the Ring title the only legit title?

The ring gave the title to balquiao when it belongs to Shane Mosley

 

:blood

Pacquiao is The Ring's Light Welterweight Champion.

Mosley has never even been a Light Welter because he jumped straight up to Welterweight from Lightweight back in 1999.

 

Ok, for starters, just because most of the writers felt Marquez won doesn't mean that they have the power to overturn the judges decision. None of the sactioning bodies (WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO, etc.) have ever even reversed a questionable decision. The most that they do is order a rematch. The WBC didn't even do that for Marquez-Pacquiao II. And I am not one of those people that thinks Marquez-Pacquiao II was questionable. I had Pacquiao winning, and I scored it twice. If the ring just named Marquez champion, they wouldve lost ALL credibilty. So there would be the fighter's record according to the judges and then another record according to the ring. One champion by the WBC and one by the ring....from one single fight.

The New York State Commissioner, William Muldoon, thought that Harry Greb won his second fight with Gene Tunney. He actually said that the decision was "unjustifiable". But he said they would stand by it. Why, because that is boxing. What is the purpose of having judges if the commission or writers can overturn it. William Muldoon also thought Harry Greb won his third and final fight against Tiger Flowers. Again, the decision stood.

You say that's the only reason the ring title isnt legit. Because of one fight? I don't know if you are a new fan of the sweet science, but if the judges give a decision, it stands. Unless, a banned substance is found to have been used by the winning fighter. Then the verdict is only changed to a no decision. Anyway, this lesson is free. Next time it will cost you.

 

Maybe I missed this, but when has the Ring went and stripped someone for political reasons?

The Belt organizations don't strip the judged winner of a fight. They can order a mandatory, but they don't strip the judged winner just because they disagree with the ruling. If they did, then what's the point of having judges? Every belt organization would have their own record for a fighter. Fighter A would have a 24-0 record with the WBC, while having a 23-1 with Ring, a 20-3-1 with the IBF, and so on.

 

For me, it is. They aren't perfect but they are the closest thing to a fair system at rewarding the best fighter in each division. I mean let's face it, all the alphabet belts are complete, 100% jokes.

 

No. And any remaining if they had little ligitimacy before were thrown out the window the moment it was bought by golden boy.

 

Thats just the thing with the Ring belt.......they dont appoint the refs or judges or sanction any of the fights that actually take place......

.....Ring is just a magazine, so they could put up as a champion anyone who they thought merited it.
If they wanted to do the Ring title justice, they would'nt put up as their Champion a fighter who by everyone of their own writers opinion lost the fight to Marquez.

The Ring ulitimately is another political entity just like HBO........pretenders as something they say speak up for what the fans want, but the reality being is that they are just as politically corrupt as anyone of the alphabet groups.......
Ultimately, "The Ring" is'nt necessarily going to do the right thing if it does'nt sell their magazine, and the advertisers dont pay to be on their magazine.


Seriously here, what meaning did that Ring belt have to Manny Pacquiao when everyone of the Ring writers had Marquez beating Pacquiao???

 

It's usually more legit, I feel. You could say the ring has the worst system except for all the others, I suppose.

 

the **** are you talking about man Pacquiao is the ring champion at 140 pounds.

for me the ring title is more significant than the other 4 but it has its weaknesses like Wlad vs Chagaev being for the ring title when Vitali was still in the rankings

 

I generally enjoy your sometimes radical and thought provoking ideas - and I even had Marquez winning that fight - but, it isn't the place of the writers to overrule official outcomes and arbitrarily alter their rankings to compensate for bad scoring. It would be nice, but it would be chaos.

 

in a way Marquez benefited from this by winning the Ring title at 135 off Casamayor who had gotten a real robbery decision off Santa Cruz.

 

Do you realise how ridiculous you sound on that?


Back on topic, in my opinion The Ring isn't legit. The body that governs it is corrupt, but then again so as other belts - but not on the degree of Ring.

 

World titles, whatever their makeup are for casuals to buy into the hype of a fighter. As boxing fans youshould watch everyone fight and make your own assessment to where they rank.

 

I understand that "The Ring" does'nt overrule the official judges......but thats just my point about their legitamacy.......if you're going to abide by what most of the public already knows are corrupt alphabet groups and commisions.......what good is it to have your own rankings if you're going to abide by a corrupt decision, and rank a fighter everyone at the magazine felt lost to the fighter ranked right below him in their ranking system?

For a ranking system to be legit in my view.....the rankiing system should be based with input from everyone of their writers and rank fighters according to how you view them.....not have a corrupt official judges tell you, that you should have one fighter ranked over the other.


......and I dont see where it would be chaos......its only a magazine and why would chaos ensue over their opinion of overruling a corrupt decision??? Its not like the fighters are getting paid over how a magazine would have them ranked.....

If anything, imo having a magazine like "The Ring" overrule a decision like Marquez-Pacquiao and having had put Marquez as their Ring Champion, would put pressure on boxing commisions and orginizations to straighten up and get these decisions right as to not be embarrassed by a magazine that will have the correct fighter ranked on top at months end!!!:deal

 

I dont remember who the other champions at 135 lbs was at the time of the Casa-Santa Cruz fight......but in a case like that......if not ranking Santa Cruz ahead of Casa.......certainly Casa did'nt deserve the #1 spot at that point.......
The Ring ranking system at that point with the coaberation of everyone at the Ring could have determined that both Casa's and Santa Cruz' efforts were so horrendous, they could have awarded the ring belt to someone else......say Juan Diaz, who I believe may have been one of the other champions at the time.

Personally, I did'nt consider JMM as the proven best at lightweight until he KO'd Juan Diaz......so to me it did'nt come at the Casamayor fight.