Why doesnt Wlad hold the "Ring" belt at Heavy?

He beat America's #1 contender in Brock.

He the people's #1 contender in Peter.

He hasnt beat the Ring's #1 contender on there terms so i guess they wont allow him the priveldge of wearing there ugly little belt.

 

To fill a vacancy in The Ring, a #1 contender has to face a #2 contender or in some instances (#1 Vitali-#3 Sanders), a #3 contender.

Wlad hasn't been in any fights in which it has happened, so he's not The Ring champ at HW.

 

Peter wasn't #2 when Wlad beat him and for that matter, Wlad wasn't #1.

They are entirely different fighters now. A belt isn't awared on past wins and accomplishments.

 

You're right and I agree with you. My sole point is that Ring is absolutely correct that you should have to beat the champ to get the belt. It's no popularity contest.

 

Yeah it's a mess.I forgot to mention his destruction of Byrd who was considered the #1 HW at the time i believe.

 

Which is how Wlad got to be #1 I think. If Byrd himself had ever fought the #2 guy, he would have been champ and been able to pass it on to Wlad.

We all know Wlad is the best HW in the world, but rules are rules and if they break them for him, where does it stop?

 

It'd be worse if they just handed out a belt because Wlads' winning a popularity contest, atleast the ABCs try to have some sort of excuse for a fight first. When the hell did ring become the authority on boxing anyway? No more credibility than any other rag with its own opinions/set of rankings. Get ten of ESB's most solid/savvy posters to come up with a set of rankings and it'd have the same amount of credibility (and they'd probably say the same thing, Wlad's the top guy but he ain't the champ, there isn't one yet).

 

I think Ring belt do not work always in the same as linear champion.
For example Joe C is Ring champion cause he demolished US star
Lacy but he isn't linear cause he and Lacy were not #1 and #2.

Beating Peter gave Wald #1 spot. Beside that he beat Byrd who was top#3
at a time, and he beat also Williamson, Austin, Brock (top one contender)
and Brewster.

I think the current top ranked fighters (Maskaev, Chagaev, Ibragimov, Peter)
are on similar level of Byrd/Peter/Brock/Brewster/Austin at the time when
Wlad fought them.

The only thing which may be against Wlat to be rated #1 is he did not unify other belt.
So I would rather call Wlad a peoples champion now instead Ring champion.

Beside that Ring champion status is degraded a lot.

 

We're doing that lol....

 

Screw Ring, go ESB!! :bbb

 

No one knows why Joe Calzaghe is Ring champion. They invoked their "special circumstances" clause, which is written there in black and white mind you, but doesn't say what they entail. #1 vs #3 can fight under special circumstances. Lacy was #3 by Ring.

As for Wlad, he became #1 when he beat Byrd, not Peter. And Peter had been dropped because he lost to Wlad, and had to work back up by beating Toney, while others lost in front of him. (Brewster, Liakovich, etc). The only reason Wlad isn't Ring Champ is because he has not fought #2 (Peter) since he became #2 and Wlad was #1. When they fought, they were both out of the top 5 I believe.

It has nothing to do with the other belts.

 

So you mean that if Wlad beat Peter right now for the second time
then he become rightfully Ring champion even if he do not fight
any other beltholder (Maskaev, Ibragimov, Chagaev)?

Is Peter's status at the current time higher because: he lost to
Wlad and beat twice blown up and fat James Toney ... two time
title contender and conqueror of Holyfield?

Is the line Holyfield -> Toney -> Peter more valuable than any one of these:
Lewis - > Vitaly -> Rahman -> Maskaev
Wlad -> Brewster -> Liakhovitch -> Briggs -> Ibragimov
Ruiz -> Valuev -> Chagaev

?

 

The answer to your question is yes, if Wlad beat Peter tomorrow, or vice versa, the winner would become Ring champion.

It's not about the ABC lines, it's simply about the rankings Ring has. ABC has nothing to do with ABC titles or their lineage, though they are the best ways in general to recognize the champion.

In the 130 division, Pacman is the #1 rated fighter, he has NO belt. So it's not about the belts.

I am just telling you the rules.

 

So what credibility have Ring belt if they decided to put Peter at #2
after he lost to Wlad who wasn't in top#5 at that time and beat twice
blown up Toney with VERY close margin?

So losing to outside top#5 guy and beating twice guy who lost all he could at HW makes you #2?

Other question, will winner of Wlad/Peter be also linear champion?

 

Dude...it's quite sinmple. He hasn't met the criteria they require. Don't start this "Anti-non American" **** if you don't even know the criteria.