According to Sky Nicky Cook is the only GB world champion

They aren't actually GOVERNING bodies though, are they?

They don't govern anything other than fights for their titles......

I could probably start up my own 'sanctioning body' and authorise world title fights, even though none of them would take place anywhere other than the carpark of the Broadway or Whistlestop pubs in LS11.

 

What about Hattons Ring belt?

 

Please note - this is the Brit forum.

Rather than resorting to General Forum tactics of STFU Noob, actually justify your thoughts.

Comprende?

 

Well said Beeston, everybody is entitled to their views.

Anybody that knows anthing about boxing history will know that the Ring Mag Belt is awarded by the Ring Magazine Publication so although it may have respect in boxing circles which is fair enough it isnt a legitimate World Title. The big three are WBC, IBF,WBA. Simple.
Doylexxx or whatever your name is are you officially an undisputed champ with the Ring Magazine alone?NO. Its not an officially governing body. Do you know what that means??

 

Wrong. If you knew anything about boxing history you'd know that champion is the "man who beats the man" or, failing that, beats the top contenders to become recognised as the champ. Thats how the Ring belt works unlike the AlphaBet boys who strip boxers of titles, have champions in retirement, interim champions and God knows what else to keep the sanctioning fees rolling in.

 

He started it..

 

How can sky claim Cook is the only world champion when 2 before the dec6 card there selling hatton vs malliganggi as a world title fight.

 

Nicky Cook is a decent enough boxer but he is NOT a world champion. That just devalues the meaning of "world champion".

 

Sorry, but I can't agree. The Ring "Title" is tantamount to a duckers charter. There are no mandatory defences and therefore the "champ" can fight any old bum without fear of losing his virtual strap......it is worse than an alphabet bauble

 

Its for RH IBO belt

Logically the only meaningful win would be against the linear "holder"

 

This has Warrens name all over it, he has a certain dislike for both Hatton and Calzaghe so it is not surprising he wants to put a spin on his upcoming show.

What else can he do, Khans chin has already been exposed and Cook - Foster is nothing more than British title fight there has to have some sort of angle to sell it. It is ppv after all...

 

Lack of mandatories are a big problem with The Ring belt but at least its trying to get back to the days of titles being won and lost in the ring, of there being a lineage of the title being passed from one champion to the next.

One of the things that attracted me to boxing years ago was the history aspect, that you could trace from John L to Ali or from Jack (nonpariel) Dempsey to Marvin Hagler. If we can at least TRY to get back to one "true" champion that wins and loses his title in the ring then the odd bit of ducking or sitting on the title (that doesn't go on too often and is not any worse than what Patterson did with Liston or what Dempsey did when he had 3 defences in 4 years) then its worth it IMHO. Most champions who fight "bums" get forced into the meaningful fights by public pressure before too long and ,lets be honest, are the mandatories put forward by the organizations that much better a lot of the time?

 

So that a former Hatton victim and a former Maliganaggi victim can contest the vacant title....gotta love the Alphabet Boys.

 

why should the ibf let hatton fight for a belt he has given up twice.

 

Is that how it works? They are sulking and thats a valid attitude for an organization to take? Strip their champion and have two lesser fighters fight for their belt out of petulance? Certainly puts any problems people may have with the Ring belt firmly in perspective.....;O)