The RING devalues it´s Championship - another sign of it´s decline?

You have to take into consideration the fact that the magazine has been in existance since what, '22? By what previously existing standard are you compaing them to as a quality publication? There was no previously exsting template, and by and large, they serviced as a pretty reliable publication concerning boxing..I think a lot of objective historians would take umbrage to your view there, but it's pretty self eveident that they truly suck now. Prior to the Bert Sugar era there was a lot more verity to Ring's claim to being the Bible of Boxing, as it wasn't until decades after their inception that there was any real competition, and even after that they held their own pretty well.
BTW, I'm not taking issue with you on the matter of the Ring "belt"..a bit sanctimonious a concept if you ask me.There will never again be any "true championship belt"...

 

It would hold up, there's no rule in Ring's system, to stop number 2 taking number 4 or 5 for the Ring Championship while ducking number 1. It's a joke and it's been done to make money

 

Yeah, really, the belt was the primary intended target of my original attack (and the focus of the thread itself) so best we not sidetrack things any further with discussion of the mag whence it sprung from the loins of...and about which I don't really feel very strongly one way or the other and wouldn't have much argument to put up to everything you've said there besides. :yep :good

 

The Ring? Try the WRING. It's over.

This is a major blow to the boxing world. It wasn't just another bad decision in The Ring's history, it suggests something much worse that is/has been going on behind the scenes since Oscar moved it to his bathroom.

The Ring, despite periodic idiocy and that scandal in the 70s, has been around since the 1920s and was rightly recognized as the oldest, most authoritative, and in the seedy world of boxing, the least seedy of it's figures and institutions.

I think that it's history may have ended on May 3, 2012. It's gonna take a lot to convince otherwise.

 

Honestly, I think changes to the system have been due for a while. So I don't really have an issue with them, as such. To be honest, there have been too many cases where vacancies could have been filled because one and two were too busy playing games of chicken with one another (See Mayweather-Pac). So, having a bit of flexibility only makes sense, given that in many cases contenders one and two are titleholders in for sanctioning bodies that aren't necessarily keen on sanctioning unification bouts.

(Bear in mind, I'm also reading it that the number one contender still has to be involved in the bout designed to fill said vacancy, or at least has first crack at it. That's the way the policy used to be, and I see no reason why that would be changed.)

The only thing that I disagree with are the myriad of ways in which a champion could be stripped by the magazine. While I don't think anyone wants to see another Paulie Ayala-esque reign, I have to wonder if it might lead to champions being stripped of their belts too quickly in some cases.

But given the fact that I do consider Ring to be more legitimate than any of the four major sanctioning organizations...simply because they rate from all organizations and have yet to establish anything resembling a Diamond or Super champion...I still think that this tweak is actually welcome, imo.

 

Boxing News was the best boxing magazine I read......
I don´t know if I was lucky because I got one with many articles about the ATG HWs, but it was really a great read.....

 

:nod That would have seemed awesome...before Al Gore invented internets. :conf



Nah, j/k, it's definitely got an (overall) tradition of respectability. The magazine. Not the belt.

People flock to the belt out of contempt toward the Big 4, I think. To me that's just throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

:thumbsup

 

Their belt was just ok.

 

Agree with the majority of comments that this is rubbish. Here's from the opening of their justification for this decision:

Why is the onus on The Ring to declare a true champion in each division if the top guys are not in fact fighting each other? This decision, along with the move to write Huck out of the cruiserweight division as fast as possible in order to put a belt on the line for Cunningham-Hernandez*, indicates to me that The Ring belt is now simply about marketing and spreading The Ring's brand. It is no a longer a sincere effort to actually determine true champions or coincide with linearity** in any way, shape, or form.

*I'm sure we'll also see Golden Boy fighter Amir Khan competing for The Ring belt at 140, as Bradley will surely be declared a welterweight in no time. Although once again, these new rules allow the magazine to forgo that course of action altogether and simply declare that Khan-Peterson II is for The Ring belt even if Bradley is still considered part of the division.
*And yes, I know the magazine's champions clashed with linear champs in the recent past, most notably in the light heavyweight division, but that was nothing compared to the possibilities these new rules open up.

 

the promise of the ring belt was made people flock to it but a honour system in boxing was screwed from the get go.the magazine sadly won't be around for much longer i think due to falling quality and the slow death of print media.boxing news has been around longer, has a good website and its weekly maybe they should have a belt:yep

 

as i said, we'll have to see how it manifests

i.e. previously 1 v 3 could fight for the belt, but margo v mosley wasn't for the belt.

lineage is horribly overrated anyways

 

Personally, I couldn't give a ****. I'd rather go to the fights than fret about some 'world ratings' printed in a magazine.

But I don't follow the logic of the protests.
The RING compiles its own ratings, (in an ordinary subjective non-scientific manner), so it could always find a reason to bump one guy from number 5 to number 2 anyway .... regardless of "rules" i about vacant championships, it always boils down to who The Ring decides to rate as champion, as number 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 etc.
If the decision to recognize some guy as champion is based on where certain guys are rated, you have to shift the question to - why are those guys were rated where they are ?
And for that there can be any number of reasons.
Reasons why they should, reasons why they shouldn't (be rated).

And if you look back all the way to the 1920s, The Ring has always produced some curious and dubious ratings.
And most the guys on a top 10 list could be swapped around and look just as reasonable anyway.

So, it's a fuss over nothing, imo.