Ring has really put the boot into Hatton this month

Bradley had just struggled with Witter in a split decision win. Witter and Ndou are roughly the same level of fighter over 12 rounds (witness their contest which was a MD win for Witter). Why is one a bigger achievement than the other? The only reason I can think of is that Bradley was a 9-1 underdog, whilst Malignaggi had handily outboxed Ndou last time and was expected to do so again (he did break his hand in the fight I think). If we are judging them both by the same standards and not looking at Bradley's win in a "9-1 underdog didn't he do well" rose tinted shade then there is not a lot to choose.

 

Its the fact that McGuigan was clearly inducted for (mostly) non boxing achievements, showing that HOF is not just about inducting the great boxers but also boxers that impacted the sport in other ways.

As soon as that door was opened for Barry Mac then it becomes harder to exclude fighters like Gatti and Hatton who were nowhere near ATGs but did have that big impact on boxing.

 

This thread is mental. Hatton would have knocked mayweather out had it not been for Joe Cortez and dont even get me started on Floyd 'Joy' Mayweather ruining his chance against Pac. Hatton is on of the best figthers of our generation. A lock in 2014 !!

 

Sad about the way he died, but that would really be taking the ****

 

Did The Ring also mention Hatton was their fighter of the year for 2005? Not that anyone respects their opinion mind you.

 

What do you mean "their opinion"? They have several contributors, all of which have free reign to express their own opinion. Get a grip, The Ring are well respected and are, at least, attempting to deal with the alphabet situation. They coined the term infact.

 

By creating their own shitty alphabet belt? Brilliant.

 

Elaborate on that glib remark, if you can.

 

Does it need spelling out? They created their own title belt and were stupid & arrogant enough to actually believe people would suddenly forget over 100 years of boxing tradition in favour of the opinion of some mediocre magazine who clearly have their own agenda. The Ring messed up whatever they may have been able to do with the "alphabet situation" as soon as they started.

 

Boxing tradition? What's traditional about the WBC and WBA almost never agreeing on who is "champion"? What's traditional about the WBA's "super champions" that actually dilutes their own history? The alphabets serve a purpose but they're almost unrecognisable from the organisations they used to be in the 70's and 80's. They're there for one reason only and that's to collect sanctioning fees. If the WBA cared about boxing they wouldn't have stripped Lennox Lewis so that John Ruiz could win their belt.

What's The Ring's agenda in your opinion?

 

huh? The champion has always been decided when the title claimants, or top available contenders meet. Nothing else.

 

And that's different to The Ring's policy how exactly? The Ring don't strip their champion for not fighting some spurious number one contender. Don't forget, the WBC had Hopkins face Hakker, the WBA had him face Daniels and the IBF had him face Allen (twice). There are countless other examples of their myopic approach to boxing which has nothing to do with the good of the sport.

 

****ing love penguins me !

 

The Ring's policy was to immediately ignore whoever the recognised champion is and just hand their belt to whoever they choose to.