The Vacant "Ring" HW Title

**DA1CATAS** · 04-21-2007, 09:30 AM

They have to ****in fight.. Show a dominate force. Valuev is out.. Vwaldimir looks like the only chance... but if brewster knocks him out its all up in the ait again.

Maybe chris byrd will get it lol... did anyone else see his return on WED. night fights this week?

**Fighting Cougar** · 04-21-2007, 10:21 AM

So they gonna give it to the winner of maskaev's next fight or something like that.

**Guest** · 04-21-2007, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by BostonGuy

The last hw to hold the "Ring" title was former WBC champ Vitali Klitscko and when he retired due to injury, by default he vacated the title... Since then(about 2+ years) the Ring hasn't crowned a hw champion and doesn't seem to be in the process of doing so now.

So, my questions are, why hasn't the Ring crowned a new champ? What will it take for one of the many current champs to win this title? And does this title bring any legitimacy to the champion who holds it even though not unified?

By the RING's rules, in order to crown a new champion the #1 fighter in the division has to face the #2 or #3 fighter. W. Klitschko is #1, Sam Peter is #2, and Maskaev is #3 and none of them have fought each other since Vitali retired...

**JAHamilton77** · 04-21-2007, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by $iN

By the RING's rules, in order to crown a new champion the #1 fighter in the division has to face the #2 or #3 fighter. W. Klitschko is #1, Sam Peter is #2, and Maskaev is #3 and none of them have fought each other since Vitali retired...

Exactly
Ring isnt a sanctioning body who can mandate fights, they just set out a set of guidlines of what you have to do to be named their champion, and when someone meets these they get the belt.

Also worth mentioning is if people will remember back Ring caught alot of flack for having Vitali the champion in the first place, as many felt they violated their own tenants in making this so.

**crold1** · 04-21-2007, 10:35 AM

Right now, they will only recognize the winner of Peter-Klit II. Klit Maskaev would not fill the slot. That has already been stated by them.

**RAESAAD** · 04-21-2007, 10:36 AM

IMO Lennox was the last to truly earn the ring title......

**Derranged_** · 04-21-2007, 10:45 AM

I think that the ring should consider revising its rules to include a figher who unifies two or more of the 4 major titles. I mean if Klitschko were to unify the IBF-WBO or WBA titles right now, I think that's enough to earn him the ring title...

Aside from their rules, does the "Ring" title really mean anything?

**RAESAAD** · 04-21-2007, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by BostonGuy

I think that the ring should consider revising its rules to include a figher who unifies two or more of the 4 major titles. I mean if Klitschko were to unify the IBF-WBO or WBA titles right now, I think that's enough to earn him the ring title...

Aside from their rules, does the "Ring" title really mean anything?

Personally I recognize what Ring says more so than the alphabet ****ers.Ring is pretty fair overall IMO......they have flaws like any others but they are better.

**crold1** · 04-21-2007, 11:01 AM

Depends on whom you ask BG. It means little in most of Europe, but in the U.S. lots of fighters recognize it as a personal achievment. When Mark Johnson fought Fernando Montiel, he asked Ring if that meant he had their belt and Ricky Hatton's camp informed Ring personally that they were not leaving the 140 class after Collazo. Fighters know it doesn't mean much $-wise yet, but it does mean they will be called the 'real' champ on ESPN and that helps cache.

As to unification, as a member of the Ring Ratings Advisory board (and frequent critic of certain aspects of their system), I disagree with you. I think the alphabet body rankings are garbage of the stinkiest kind. Winning those belts means little in practical terms becvause their ratings are incomprehensible. Wlad is #1 to the vacant title because he has beaten three legit top ten guys in his last four; he'd be #1 without the IBF.

That said, I personally don't think peter is the key. If he beat Briggs, and Briggs specifically, I'd say he is THE man. Not because Briggs is so meritorious or anything but because Wlad's last loss, in a bout that Wlad fought for a 'world' title, traces straight through Briggs. With the run he's on, a win over Briggs would clear up any lingering doubt and give him yet another scalp. If Briggs had no belt, he'd still be the man who beat the man who beat Wlad. Wlad could very well have Brewster and Briggs wins before the end of 07. That would make it ridiciulous not to call him the true World champ, especially since he beat Peter 9-3 even with knockdowns.

The Vacant "Ring" HW Title