Ring has really put the boot into Hatton this month

Examples? Admittedly their title hasn't always followed the true lineage but that can always be debated anyway. On the whole they've recognised the best fighter as champ and they have, at least, developed a championship policy they have stuck to. The only amendment they made was to scrap the part that makes a fighter champ for unifying the three main alphabet titles.

 

So you don't even know the history of their latest championship? Another internet noob pretending to be the expert. Thanks for wasting my time.

 

Excuse me? Are you referring to their light heavyweight championship? Seems to me you're terrified of getting into a proper debate and are looking for an easy get out by using the tired "n00b" term.

 

Should, no. Will, probably.

 

Whatever you've been smoking today, I'll have some of it!!!

 

if gatti gets in, then hatton is a lock its that simple...hatton is more accomplished then gatti for christ sakes

and gatti will only get in on merits of being in classic fights, and he lost to worse oppostion then hatton did....

i personally think hatton will be voted in first ballot....

 

I don't think that's correct. I think it was in 2001 where they laid out their fresh set of championship criteria and it was to unify the three main belts, for 1 and 2 to fight or, on occasion, for 1 and 3 to fight. Hopkins, Jones, Tszyu and Lewis were their champions at this time.

They recently scrapped the "big three" rule because it gave them too much credence. To just glibly remark at them as "a joke" is a little unfair and unhelpful in my opinion. What about the litany of joke decisions the alphabets have made over the years?

 

There's really no need for the patronising manner Terry, especially as you haven't read my post correctly. The old championship policy stated you need all three alphabet titles, as I clearly stated. The heavyweight championship, I concede, was an error on their part but, overall, I feel they are at least trying to do something to help the much maligned situation. By all means engage on an intellectual level Terry, but please don't dismiss my opinion as "a joke" just because you don't agree with it.

 

Ring doesnt seem to have much love for British fighters unless Brian Doogan is writing the piece

 

I'm loath to get into semantics but I said "manner" not "tone" and you did say my attempt to justify The Ring's actions were a joke.

Anyway, you seem full of negativity for The Ring but what do you deem to be the solution? Are you defending the alphabets here?

It seems to me you're clinging to the Vitali scenario as the touchstone for all that's "wrong" with the organisation but you're not coming up with too many other examples. May I offer the Roy Jones scenario?

I do find your accusations of racism a touch rum though, that's a rather glib remark with little to validate it besides your own haughtily expressed opinion.

 

You really believe you're speaking from a position of authority don't you? A boxing column on the Internet isn't a platform from which to scoff haughtily at us mere mortals. You came at me aggressively from the start, I'd been perfectly reasonable throughout the thread until you came in, yet you still wanted to make an argument out of this rather than a discussion.

I like the way you used the Roy Jones example, that I proffered, as an opening to patronise me. Surely the inference from my mentioning of it was that I'm well aware of the flaw in that particular title reign. As for them not facing each other, neither were too keen to travel to make the match. Shame, we all missed out there.

The Vitali situation was bad. Ruiz and Byrd at that point both had strong claims. All I will say is that The Ring were most probably following their own championship policy and that they were rated one and two. I haven't the inclination to look it up but Sanders would have gone up the rankings on the back of his KO of Wlad.

Not sure what you're asking me to keep up with so I'll dismiss that remark as, yet another, attempt to belittle me. Doesn't bother me Terry, you seem to be the one taking this personally.

I've no agenda here. I do enjoy reading The Ring though and I think that what they're trying to do is clarify the title picture. When you say "not trying to defend them" I'm not entirely sure what you mean. They have their own rankings and declare fighters as champions. Admittedly there are flaws but, on the whole, I think the person they declare champ is, usually, the best in the division.

I'd be interested to get your views on the Wladimir situation. I've gone back and forth over whether I think declaring him as champ was the right thing to do. Personally, I'd always prefer to see WBC/WBA/IBF unification in order to establish new lineage but nobody's saying The Ring ultimately decide who is linear champ. There will always be a debate.

Buffer? Well he's paid to hype these things up isn't he? I don't think he's part of some mass conspiracy but I do find it interesting you alluded to some criticism of Barrera for throwing some of his belts away. You can look at it two ways can't you? At that time people were at their height of disdain for the alphabets, that disdain has now subsided into apathy.

I don't think I've been a parasite. I was having an adult discussion with that other poster until he went off in a strop and now I'm talking to you. The Ring title is good because they don't strip people, the downside is they don't enforce mandatories. I think their rankings are good as well. They're not influenced by the need to raise sanctioning fees. The downside is that they have no power.

A sanctioning body can be a good thing if it's run the right way but the "big three" have, continually, shown us that they cannot do it. I think the WBC have the best rankings and the IBF follow their policy most strictly, hence the strippings. The WBA are really in my bad books these days and I found it interesting that Sulaiman's nephew broke ranks by openly criticising the WBA for their multi champion system.

Will you not concede that, with the Lederman thing, you may just be jumping to conclusions a little bit? Lennox has been criticised, rightly or wrongly, by many quarters for his perceived attitude. The HBO team ridiculed the Klitschkos on many occasions. Max Kellerman, particularly, has made numerous derogatory remarks about Wladimir and was asking him some very antagonistic questions following the Ibragimov debacle.

 

:good

Nail on the head.

Hall of fame is not the same as all time P4P or whatever list you want to make. Hall of fame is what it says on the tin. Regardless of record Hatton will (and should) be in there.

For what it's worth I think they are a little over critical and appear to gloss right over the Tszyu acheivement!

 

I love you dan-b

 

dan-b this is the reason I admitted my lies in the Cotto thread. Didn't want you thinking I was serious. TOP POST ! TOP POSTER !

 

I hate all this hall of fame and ATG bollocks.

Hatton is a 2 weight world champion he deserves respect. Looking at the names that are in there I think he deserves his slot.