Which list of champions do you agree with most?

Is there really a difference between being the number one ranked guy in a division with no champion, and the actual champion? I don't think there is. As long as they think they are the best fighter in that weight class, that's all that matters. Saying someone is a "champion" just formalises that opinion.

Anyway, The Ring is better than any other. It's champions and ratings are far more accurate than any other.

 

I definately disagree and think alot of people will as well. I'd rather have the champ spot vacant than having for example David Diaz as champ

 

Yes. How can their list of champions be so much better than say the WBC when their list of champions doesn't even include the best fighter? Or any fighter for that manner?

 

But it still is the best fighter. Being ranked number one, with no champion, or just the champion are essentially the same fighter. The Ring think they are the best fighter in the world.

The Ring have stated many times they think Wlad is the best heavyweight. However, their criteria for being a champion reqiures him to beat Peter, again. They still think he is the best heavyweight, so what does it really matter?