I agree, the Ring has atleast some sort of guidline which it follows, and its rules follow a more traditional route, which makes sense to everyone. But it does seem to be flawed though - Is Hopkins the champ or not? Also I think its wrong that a promotional outfit owns it. Nothing good can come out of that.
Agreed. The Ring belt, while not perfect, is far superior - both because their rankings are less corrupt, and their championship policy more fair and rational. I am glad that ESPN has gotten foresquare behind the Ring belt, and refers, appropriately, to the alphabet titles as "trinkets."
I agree that the sanctioning organizations have made a mess of the world championship scene....we've discussed that many times....I was assuming that it kind of goes without saying. What I was attempting to point out, was that after doing a little research, I came to the conclusion that the WBC super featherweight title has emerged as the most most difficult title to obtain and to retain....which is interesting considering that there have been quite a few great fighters and approximately 68 belts in 17 weight classes in the 45 years since the "ABC" organizations have existed.
I use to think the Ring belt was the best, but then I was discussing this with a friend of mine and when I looked at the Ring ratings to justify my defense of them I found out Hopkins was rated number one challenger I believe at light heavy, before ever having even fought in the division (this was before the Tarver fight)..wtf..???