Distinguished columnist Steve Kim exposes Ring Mag., lineal title

thats your defense? :tired

address this. . .

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

 

If this is you original problem, then who did you have the dispute with that caused such a thread. I certainly never said this.

And what is the "Good reason" that the ABC orgs don't rate other champions? Because it would conflict with the other orgs and their rules? Hell, they often don't even rank the same fighters nearly the same way.

 

Course it does, of the 5 major ranking organisations, Ring has been established to have the most accurate rankings as even you would have to agree as your list basically is The Rings list. The only thing that IMO surpasses the ring champs are the unified champs but usually the unified champs are ring champs. No organisation is perfect like it has been said, therefore we can only go by what is closest to perfect from all the biggest organisations, that is the ring. Therefore their champ is more acclaimed than any of the ABC's single champ.

 

I think they're all just as bad as the other (Ring, Lineal, ABCs).

Which sucks, cause "subjectivity" should NOT be apart of determining who is the "man". It's basically up to the fans to decide which champ is the real champ, and a lot of fans usually clash with their opinions.

Only way I can see this getting better is 1 title and 1 set of rankings. Which just ain't happenin'

 

If your argument is that ring mag rankings are equally as bad as the alpha soup . . . then you only need to look at the fact that alpha soups dont even rank champs from another alpha soup. Ring mag does not ignore fighters ranked in another magazine or espn . . . that point alone makes their rankings much better. There are plenty of others as well.

 

+1 bad point for the ABCs.

But can that not be countered by the fact that a RING champ can only lose his title in the ring. May sound like a good thing, but also allows old, semi-retired and shot fighters to hold certain divisions hostage (by simply fighting other old, semi-retired and shot fighters for the RING belt).

Also, does the RING actually enforce mandatories? That'd be a +1 bad point for the RING, if they don't (which I'm almost 100% sure they do NOT).

 

not =

plus, the #1 ranking is the "lineal champ" if they dropped them for fighting bums . .. then it wouldnt be a "lineal champ".

when this happens, we can simply look at their #1 contender as the "best" fighter, even though hes not the linear champ.

But like I said, its not perfect. . . no subjective ranking is perfect - but its MUCH close than any ABC.

 

I disagree, it's counter-productive to NOT rank them.

 

No, not at all.

That is a great scenario lol...

Your concerns could be used in any scenario with any mandatory. Why is it an issue with other champions? Because of the money? Split it down the middle and leave it at that.

 

You posted your rankings and those rankings closely match those of "the ring" more so than any other single ABC belt. So if their not the closest to perfection who is? WBO, WBC(the belt that doesnt even have Cunningham top 10?), IBF, WBA? None of their rankings or list of champions can compare with the RIng. The Ring has the best rankings, their champions are the most acclaimed. The Ring is able to unbiasley rank their champions across the orgs, whereas single orgs can only rank fighters in their orgs.

You addressed the problem with the ring's system, however that has been acknowledged by every single poster here. The difference is, even with those problems, Ring still has better rankings than any single ABC org, therefore if they have the best rankings = the best champions. You keep arguing they have faults, OK, fine, np, understood. However when it all comes down to the boil, of the 5 biggest orgs, despite their problem, they still have again, the best list of champs.