Why is the ring belt not on the line???

Droppin' truth bombs. Klitschko-Chagaev shouldn't have been for the belt and neither should this. The winner of this fight should fight Mosley for Ring/lineal title. Sorry but he is the clear #2.

 

Margarito was caught trying use illegal pads in his wraps, trying to cheat if you will.

Look man, you already have your mind set and I will not be convincing you nor will you change my logic which makes sense, so lets end it here. We are just recycling the same posts over and over.

 

The rules of the Ring belt are that if 1 and 2 cannot face each other for some reason such as 1 beating 2 before or in this case 1 and 2 are brothers, then 1 and 3 are allowed to fight for the Ring belt.

If this was not done then the Ring would be breaking its own rules.

 

this is almost the same scenario back then at 130 when #1 ranked pac fought #3 ranked barrera and it was not for the ring title.

 

I know what the term means homie. But the "ring belt" for the most part is meant to show who is the lineal champion. Yes it is becoming less than perfect with all these ABC titles and such but they are still in my opinion more meaningful than the other titles.

 

In my opinion PAC should be 2 and Shane #1. Cotto should be at 3 or 4.

 

To determine the ring champion #1 and #2 must fight eachother, if the title is vacant. Hard to understand? I know there are some cases where #1 and #3 is also good, but that would be discrediting to Mosley. Winner of Pac/Floyd vs winner of Mosley/Berto will do it.

 

This was an unfortunate moment where the Ring just decided to crown Jones when the lineage could be easily traced back to DM. I think they got into the bandwagon of RJJ. He might be the best LHW out there but if they awarded the championship to DM then Jones might have an incentive to fight DM, settling some major complaints on Jones legacy.

 

not really...they did say #1 vs #3 in SOME CASES...IF CHAGEV-KLITCHKO WAS FOR THE RING TITLE AT HW I DON'T SEE WHY THIS DOESN'T MEET THE EXPECTATIONS TO MAKE IT THE RING BELT ON THE LINE...THEY GOT PAC LISTED 1 AND FLOYD AT 3...

 

In some special instances, in case of a vacant title the Ring will let #1 and #3 fight for the title.

One example is when #1 Vitali Klitschko beat #3 Corrie Sanders to win the Ring belt at heavy.

I don't see why they wouldn't do it in this case especially since they had Floyd at #2 before the Cotto fight, which means they had him at a level equal to or better than Mosley.

Floyd's a very strong #3 with a case for #2 based on being the lineal champ emeritus by retiring and coming back.

If I were a betting man, I think Ring enforces this obscure rule.

 

Come fight time...it will be.

 

Maybe. But i believe in earning your place. And even before Mayweather retired a lot were complaining of not facing WW. Those same contenders toiled and eliminated each other during his retirement. He came back, fought an unranked lightweight then his next fight is for lineal championship against a guy with just 2 fights at WW? Not even the lineal WW champion? That is unfair for those who toiled when the WW scene was still muddled.

Mosley has a very strong claim since his loss to Cotto was very close, and Marg's win over Cotto was very convincing. These are the guys who fought some kind of round robin. No way is it justified to bypass Mosley.