Distinguished columnist Steve Kim exposes Ring Mag., lineal title

I will ask BigReg's question for him. "Who determines who #1 and #2 are?"

 

The Ring belt is just another alphabet title to at to the second tier of titles with the IBO and WBO.

 

the input from the wide array of boxing media that the ring consults for their rankings. = the best possible way to do so, with no money involved

 

you are out of your mind to compare the ring with the ibo.

Willie Pep
Sandy Saddler
Joe Louis
Sugar Ray Robinson
RJJ
Rocky Marciano
Kid Gavilan...

THOSE ARE RING CHAMPIONS

 

The Ring Belt, while not perfect, is FAR more credible than ANY of the corrupt sanctioning orgs - which should rightfully be IGNORED by real fans of the sport.

 

But it wasn't the ring that made them champions. If I make a belt and give it to all the best guys it doesn't make it a legit title

 

quoting Gary Shaw on the credibility of titles is just plain dumb.

Ring mag aint perfect and I wish they didnt sell to DLH, but as of right now they are ten times more respectable than any alphabet soup org.

 

b/c you dont have credibility.

The Ring has the credibility of:
*having awarded the belt for almost 100 years
*a system devoid of any money interests
*the input of a wide array of boxing media
*a plain system with easy rules
*visibility (their rankings published every week for everyone to see)


I dare you to find anyone/entity with that credibility

 

You speculate all the time. (People only talk about Ring and Lineal titles from what they hear on TV?) My reasoning, while speculation, has consistancy and is IMO eye opening. I take my reasoning over that of writers with agendas. Hell, the article is full of speculation, but you used it anyways.

I have already posted an article for you that showed that Casamayor was stripped before a purse bid was ever made. And he didn't fight anyone for a year because once he was stripped, his options became limited, since his mandatory was already busy now, and Freitas only wanted the fight to unify.

Hamed was stripped of his WBO title before he fought Barrera and the WBA stripped their champion before he fought Hamed. I don't care what the reason was, and it's irrelevant to my post in it's context. This was a prime example of the Lineal champion being better than the ABC champions, since you pointed out that flaw of the Lineal title.

Fact is, no one is disputing the Ring is setup that way. I am merely pointing out that the flaw has not caused any consistant problems. The ABC's are setup where you have to defend the titles in intervals, against whom they pick (who may not even be worthy of a title shot), but can be circumvented IF they choose for unknown, inconsistant reasons. That is just as flawed. Most strippings are justifed to you because it follows their rules. But since many don't agree with their rules, using it as a justification won't fly. How did stripping Casamayor who was trying to unify help boxing? This is the reason boxing fans disagree with them. No one cares that their rules state something that isn't beneficial.

As for the HW division, I wasn't referring to stripping, but their rules. It was simply badly worded. The BS "Champion Emeritus" ruling is a prime example of their rules holding up a division. Common sense says a fighter who has been out of boxing for 4 years should not be able to get an immediate title shot over a fighter who just won 2 eliminators.

 

I fixed one for you. BTW, where's PAC?

 

Considering you have this whole prejudice against The Ring rankings and it's titlists, I would have thought you would come up with a more respectable, consistent list.

Witter above Hatton? Hatton has never lost at 140lbs and beat the man. Witter's best win is over Harris, who ain't worth ****.

JMM over Pacquiao? Whether the decision is right or wrong, you cannot ignore it. Pacquiao beat Marquez. Therefore, Pacquiao is the man.

Campbell is still behind Casamayor too.