Should The Ring Mag Vacate the Titles held by their Inactive(1 yr) Champions?

I think it wasn't until he confirmed that the fight with RJJ would be at 175lb, or he couldn't have held the two belts at the same time.

 

Though the alphabet bodies are too quick to strip champions for BS reasons, like not fighting certain mandatories, I think the Ring go too much the other way and that can be just as bad.

For example, I think Tarver should have been stripped of his LHW belts when he took 18 months off to shoot Rocky V. None of the subsequent LHW Ring champs ever fought for another belt and there has been a lack of clarity in the division since.

Setting a limit on inactivity would help.

 

Claderon is not fighting once a year last year was the most inactive because the large cut of his head and still fought 2 times, the kid fight 3 or 4 times a year, check boxrec.

 

no,does anyone honestly think izzy should be stripped?

 

No,depends on the situation.

 

No but there is a difference between can't fight and won't fight. They could always make exceptions for injured fighters but under existing rules someone could hold a title for 30 years if they never officially retire.

 

li'l asero, buddy, "The Ring Title" is not a title. It's a prize, given by a magazine. Hence, it cannot be vacated or withdrawn or what not. If it were a title, the fighter holding the title would have to defend it at regular intervals against a mandatory challenger chosen by the sanctioning body in question. But..."The Ring" is not a sanctioning body. It's just a boxing magazine...

:hi:

 

I disagree on the izzy scenario. Vasquez gave fans a masterpeice of a trilogy and defended the honor of the ring belt 3 times against by far
a better fighter than anyone in the weight class. He deserves a well
earned rest and rehab, but has every intention of defending against the next available and viable contender or moving up and voluntarily vacating.
This is much different than the casa scenario.

 

Though that may have been true at one time, these days it's a prize that comes with a belt and can be won or lost in the ring the same as any other title.

The IBO don't force mandatories either, is that a 'prize' or a 'title'?

 

Crazy enough, that is correct. Like you said above too, while the Ring makes efforts to "right" the "wrongs" of the ABC's, sometimes they do go too far in the opposite direction. They are TOO strong on the whole NEVER stip a Champ ideal, IMO.

The part at the back where fans can "write in", there were folks goin' mad for a good while over Casa still holding his belt, even though the Ring THEMSELVES had Casa losing badly to Santa Cruz.

I personally think the Ring Belt is great!! and it's very rare you would find a fighter holding that strap that is not VERY, VERY good in thier division. Where as sometimes, one of the 4 Title holders can seem to be "weak".

 

It's a prize...they don't have mandatories, do they? No mandatories = no title; just a prize, whether it's "won" in the ring or not. You can win the prize by beating "the best" and then carry on fighting non-top 10 opposition for the next 5 years and they cannot "strip you" of the prize, according to their rules, or force you to fight a top contender or the next best man...ever...

...so...it's a prize...

...the WBO title can be a prize too, once you win it, because if you had the right promoter, you would never have to fight Top 10 opposition ever again, once you won it...and it would all be legal and above board, according to WBO rules.

:conf

What if "The Ring" Champ keeps fighting bums for year after year, and one of these bums beats him, because he becomes really old and shot? Does he not become Ring Champ? Yes, he does...and then, he can carry on fighting bums himself, and he still remains Ring Champ...(this is the problem with having no mandatories...)

The IBF and the WBC, for example, have eliminators to select the mandatory challenger from top ranked fighters...so...at least once a year you have to face someone who is reasonably good. The fact that these belts are sought after means that promissing prospects want to compete for them, so there's a bit of competition at the top of the rankings...top contenders or top prospects fight each other to become mandatory challenger, so the Champ gets tested, at least once a year...

 

I agree that Ring champs are usually stronger than ABC ones but the point is that their system is still flawed and will be abused when the opportunity arises.

Going back to Tarver at LHW, he won the ring title fair and square but he wasn't inactive because he was injured, he got a better paid job for a while. Since he returned everyone who has fought for the Ring LHW title has been mid-thirties or older and have all moved up in weight to fight for the title - every single one of them..... Is that a real World Championship?

I guess too many rules and it becomes the same as the rest but there must be a happy medium somewhere.

 

I actually agree with the spirit of what you're saying. I was just playing devils advocate by pointing out that it is recognized as a title now and that the IBO, who see themselves as a sanctioning body have the same rule about mandatories - they say that TV money should gaurd against 'champions' fighting successive bums, if you ask me that isn't always the case.

I think the Ring champ worked better when they just differentiated between the belt holders and tried to judge who the 'real' champ was, instead of awarding their own belt - Just my opinion.

 

Izzy. the last is the 2008 Fight of the year.

 

Absolutely!