The Ring - Legit Championship or Overrated Belt?

The best have to beat the best to win it. If only the four governing bodies acted in the same way.

 

Legit Championship, the Ring Champions have been number 1 in their weight classes, or have beaten the best in the weight class

u wont have former WBO champ Enzo Macrinelli, former WBA champ Gavin Rees, or WBC champ Beyer being Ring Champions

 

its a legit championship but it does have flaws, like having no mandatories.

someone could easily hold it for hostage by winning it then fighting absolute bums for the next couple of years and still be the champion

 

Good looking trinket.
That & the WBC are the best looking belt's in boxing, IMO.

 

Good point, but then they all have their flaws.

 

Having mandatories IS a flaw. In the history of boxing, many champions didn't fight the best or #1 contenders. Jack Dempsey went years without even defending his title and never defended it against Harry Wills. He beat the champ though, so he was the champ. Now do I think champions should go years without defending? No, of course not. Do I think they should duck the best out there? Obviously not. But they should never be forced to defend.

Another problem with mandatories is that most of the time, they are garbage. Morrade Hakkar was Bernard Hopkins' mandatory. Do you see where I'm going with this? The Ring championship is great just the way it is, and it is the one true championship in boxing.

 

and why is that?
someone given them the opportunity to win that title why should they not do the same for others?

the ranking system is a big flaw but its better that a champion is forced to fight someone of a low calibur than not fight anyone at all for example.james braddock

 

I said they shouldn't be forced. I didn't say they shouldn't give title shots. Did I say that or did you just not read my whole post. I had already given a good example in Jack Dempsey, so you didn't even have to mention Jim Braddock. Though, we could name champions who were inactive all day long. That isn't the point here. What Ring champion remains that inactive today? I mean 2-3 years inactive. No one. So don't be paranoid.

 

For me the ring belt denotes the true champion.

You dont get it on a plate as you do so many alphabet belts the only way you can become the champ is to either beat the champ or beat the no2/3 assuming your ranked 1.

I agree that it does have its flaws, the fact that a championship can effectivley be put on ice should a fighter decide to fight a few fights in another divisions etc. Obviously the fact that there are no mandatories meaning that champions can fight whoever they want for as long as they want and still be the champion is also a problem, but lets be honest theres quite a few WBO and WBA champions who have been doing that for years.

On the whole the Ring is the true and legit belt in my opinion.

 

Whats the difference?

 

The Ring belt is the the legitmate championship, for the true champion of the division.

 

Ok... I see you aren't too bright here. Forced means without choice. Right? Are you still with me here? To give a title shot, basically this means you are making a choice with your own free will. Do you understand now or should I continue this? I don't want to argue here. I refuse to enter a battle of wits with an unarmed combatant.

 

you would change your tune if they pulled it off though i bet:good