Distinguished columnist Steve Kim exposes Ring Mag., lineal title

these are pretty much all horrible points.

Ring mag cant force a fighter to fight another fighter, blaming them for Dawson or Campbel not getting their shot is just dumb.

Saying ring mag is just as bad as the alphabet soup orgs is even dumber, if anyone cant see that much then fukc it I dont have the patience to teach ******s right now.


Having said that, the ring mag is not perfect and DLH purchasing it is disturbing . . . even though nothing shady has happened yet - seems like a matter of time for the other shoe to drop there. As of right now Ring Mag rankings are waaaaay better than any alphabet soup.

 

Ring:
HW - Klitschko
CW - Haye but you count him as left and next to him is Haye
LHW - Hopkins
SMW - Calzaghe
MW-Pavlik
JMW - Forrest
WW - Mayweather
JWW - Hatton (Witter no.2)
LW - Casamayor (Campbell no.2)
SFW - Pac (JMM no.2)
FW - Guerrero



Cant be arsed with the rest. But as you can see, your recognised champs are the Ring's recognised champs and if they arent, they are no lower than 2. Now compare that with ABC rankings and see which rankings you agree with more. You rate Cunningham as best a CW yet WBC doesnt even have him top 10...if I was a boxing fan and considered WBC the belt to have am I suppose to really believe that Cunningham isnt even top 10 CW in the world?

If you were to refer a fan to an organisation to see who the champs are for each division, would you refer them to WBC, IBF, WBO or WBA. Or The Ring?


C'mon m8. Where is the logic.

 

Hmm.....seems to me you have a dillema here. Either you think the ABC orgs which your defending made a mistake OR you think that they had some consistant logic behind it, which in turn, conflicts with this argument entirely.

 

maybe you shoulda posted the quotes that best made your case.

point is Ring mag is not perfect but is far better than alphabet soup orgs. I doubt you will find many to disagree with that much.

 

Their rules is not perfect but neither are the ABC's and I would say that atleast the RIng's rules are more consistent and produces better ranks.

I know the ABC's dont rank champs off other orgs which is precisely my point. If we were to look unto a reliable source or point someone in the direction of a realiable source of boxing rankings, The Ring Rankings would easily look 10* more legit than any other ABC rankings out there. For this reason, their rankings is considered the most sensible and therefore the ring champ is usually 90% of the time, right on the money. They are not the enforcers but they seem to be the unofficial official POV of the people unifying all orgs into one.

And oh, I got the rankings from their site: http://www.thering-online.com/ringpages/ratings2.html

So unless thats outdated, I dont see how my list could be incorrect.

 

Well, "respected" columnist Dan Rafael and "legendary" trainer Emanuel Steward would disagree. Just kidding.

 

But being a better fighter doesn't make you "the man". Someone may like to argue that Willie Nelson is better than Floyd Mayweather. Now, even if he was (Which he actually isn't before some **** quotes me as ayign so), would Nelson be "the man"? Of course not.

The title of "the man" is given to the fighter who has proved himself worthy of that honour. It's not given to the best fighter.

Calzaghe no longer fighters at 168lbs, yet you have him as "the man" there. In fact, Pacquiao may indeed have his next fight at 130lbs, when it is 99.9% certain that Calzaghe's next fight will be outside of the supermiddleweight division.

 

Yes, you did say it. Semantics again? Are you trying to say that it wasn't verbatum and therefore invalid?

Your first point isn't relevant. Some say he priced himself out, as in your article. Point is, he wasn't supposed to be stripped and what happened thereafter has no bearing.

2) There are alot fighters who "duck" other fighters. JMM wasn't very well known now was he. Seems to me Mayweather is in a similar circumstance right now with Cotto, but you don't feel the need to make such an argument there. Specualation anyways. Here's what we DO know. Hamed won 3 of the 4 major titles. He beat the other title holder as well. He was lineal and certainly viewed as the best (anyone can go back in hindsight and say someone else is).

3) There are what, 18 Ring champions (Give or take a few, since some division have no champion)? How many holding up divisions? So no, it hasn't.

4) They still pick who they fight againt. And since more than one org exists, and they also have mandatories at different times for their champions, the process becomes muddled and the opponents limited at times.

5) You are talking about their rules again. And again, those are trumped by their "special circumstances" clauses which are inconsistant and have no real meaning that can be discerned. You can point out what rule caused a stripping, but that is quite obviously not the essence of what we are talking about here now is it? How does it help the sport to have these rules in their current form when there is subjectivity clauses allow for such corrupt actions which have already been pointed out?

6) Because Diaz hadn't done more than Freitas had. And Freitas was being forced to wait behind someone who had already had his shot. Besides, they were fully prepared to make Sam Peter wait at HW for a fighter who had already had his chance.