Do you consider The Ring Maganize title belt

The fact that Oscar is a FORMER boxer shouldn't be any real concern, imo. That he's a CURRENT PROMOTER though...

 

still...give one example of poor ring rankings favouring golden boy?

 

Most hold it in higher regard than the alphabet titles. I don't. :conf

 

BUTT! you've got my boy tapia in your avatar (and generally you're one of my favourite posters) why??

 

Nothing I remember ever thinking was insane and blatant. It would all be speculation, J. But I have been looking at the p4p list and wondering why Shane Mosley is ranked above Fernando Montiel, for instance.

 

Well...it's a magazine, not a sanctioning body. It's got some tradition behind it, but IMO not as much as "the green belt" or the WBA or even IBF. The WBO is about on par with the Ring, IMO, just due to it having a more shallow tradition (and generally not having the highest quality of champions of the four).

It's impressive that a magazine's made-up "world title" has commanded so much respect in the world - and certainly if you go by "the champion makes the belt", they've had some good ones. At the end of the day, though - imperfect as they may be, the sanctioning bodies exist for a reason. Theirs are the only champions I recognize as "champions" - and even most alphabet titlists aren't necessarily all "champions". Having multiple alphabet belts (or one belt plus the Ring belt) can make a good case for someone. A boxer who has just the Ring belt and nothing else? That's not a champion, IMO. With no system of determining contendership (other than the arbitrary opinion of some journalists) and without things like mandatories it just isn't legit.

 

In today world its the only real Championship, now that the other belts have several champions at one weight class. The other sactioning bodies have sullied the meaning of a Championship Title belt.

 

:good

 

A magazine that's been around since about 1930. I think it lost some credibility when De La Hoya bought the Ring a few years because that creates a conflict of interest but he seems to have left that alone to the writers/editors.

 

Hopkins absurdly high P4P, even after losing.

 

So diluting the waters even more is the answer? What exactly legitimizes it, in your view?

It seems a lot of people are quick to uphold the Ring belt just because it's an alternative to the evils of the ABC's. That just isn't good enough for me.

 

Like many have said before regarding this topic, the Ring isn't perfect but they are so much better than any single sanctioning body. You never win the Ring belt by beating some chump that some sanctioning body set up.

 

It's the worst system...except for all the others.

 

Nine times out of ten that chump earned his way up the rankings, whether it was against household names or not. Fighters pay their dues, get ranked, and fight for a title. It's a time honored tradition.

We may not always find some contenders to be worthy, but they're hardly ever just plucked out of thin air.

How is a group of writers determining a challenger's worth any less arbitrary than having a hierarchy of rankings based on beating those ahead of you to advance?

 

The Ring magazine has some accountability to its subscribers, who holds the sanctioning bodies accountable?