Distinguished columnist Steve Kim exposes Ring Mag., lineal title

The likely scenario would be Chagaev KNOWING a fight w/ Wlad, regardless of WHO'S belt is on the line, or maybe both, would garner him MORE MONEY then fighting anyone else, and he'd be fighting the guy most see as thr best HW.

I can't recall money being as much of an issure with some of these Euro fighters as it is with US fighters, in terms of making or breaking a fight. If Wlad WAS the mando to Chagaev, and felt low balled in an offer, they could simply foregoe his shot and keep his belt. Nothing new.

 

More to it than that. Either way, I am not saying that they are always relevant. I am saying that the situation of a champion fighting no one within the Ring rankings isn't prevalent enough for to continually be used against them. It is something sounds bad if it happens....but doesn't happen in a high enough ratio to justify it's constant use against them here.

 

Hops aint exactly at the age to fight 3 or 4 times a year. At the time Winky was one of the best fights for him to make.

Its like this, you can pick apart this and that and make some good points but the fact remains as of right now ring mag rankings are FAR better than any ABC belt.

ABC's have been known to strip fighters too easily - ring mag makes it harder to strip their linear champs. I prefer the latter.

 

I'm definately not on the side of the ABC's.

But I do have a problem with the RING, just the same.

They're (ABCs/RING/"so and so" title) almost the root of all evil in boxing, these days. (So many different belts and titles to win... which I know stems from the ABCs first, but still)

 

I'm with you on this. Ring's 'No stripping policy' needs to be looked at and fixed.

 

I agree thats its not perfect, nothing will be perfect when it comes to these rankings but . . .

Do you not agree that ring mag rankings is FAR better than any ABC ranking?

 

Yes, usually.

 

Well perhaps Ring's flaw needs to be looked at and tinkered with. But it's flaw appears to be far easier to fix than the ABC orgs multiple flaws. Which BTW are magnified by the fact there are 4 of them.

 

ahhh, progress.

And I agree there are some problems with rings rankings as well. . . example - when A blatant robbery like Casa-Santa Cruz happens they should either award the true winner (Santa Cruz) or vacate the title.

But all in all the sport is better off the more we ignore ABCs and defer to ring rankings.

 

Umm...who? I am damn near positive that Hatton was a voluntary defense. And his title was not on the line against De La Hoya. If Hatton WAS a mandatory....lol, well then more corruption. He became mandatory HOW?

If Klitscho doesn't want to take parity, and they can't force him, he forgoes his shot. But at least if ranked we have a SHOT at getting them to the negotiating table without someone worried about being stripped.

 

They are, but the Ring is also assisting the problem their belt was supposed to rectify. How can you tell "casual fans" with a straight face that Hopkins is the "legitimate" light heavyweight champ, given his semi-retired status, the weight of his current and recent opposition, and the almost certain fact that he will not face any of the top 3 lightheavies in the world this year?

I'm a Hopkins fan, but honestly, I'd rather see the Ring Belt being awarded to whoever wins the 175 lb. mini-tourney starting this weekend. It would be a much more relevant use of the "title".

 

Its not just from your list, its the general concensus list to go by. Your list is just an example. As it is, this is a discussion about "the man" or "the best" at the division, in which case there is no crowned Ring champ or ABC champ, then the ranked no.1 takes the crown as "the best" of the division. I think you'll see the results will differ now more Ring fighters are included.