The Ring Belt

[Fox McCloud]

I just realized I don't understand the way The Ring belt in each division works. Does The Ring have to deem each fight that their champion fights in to be for the title or what? I mean, say Joel Casamayor fights Zahir Raheem and loses, would Zahir Raheem be the champion? He is currently ranked like #7, so I doubt it, but I'd like to be sure anyway.

[raysan]

yes thats how it would work. thats what happend with Baldomir and how he got the ring title and same with Bernard. You get the ring title by beating the "man". The ring title is great because for the most part it can be traced back, and you can see who beat who to get to where its at now.

[Technical_Skill]

yes thats how it would work. thats what happend with Baldomir and how he got the ring title and same with Bernard. You get the ring title by beating the "man". The ring title is great because for the most part it can be traced back, and you can see who beat who to get to where its at now.

Yeah the ring belt is slightly flawed though because it doesnt always go to the best fighter, and it doesnt account for fighters ducking each other either.

[OptimusWolf]

Those are flaws that are nigh on impossible to iron out without changing the whole structure of the sport. The Ring belt is an unbiased rankings system without financial motivation. It rewards fighters for fighting other ranked opponents and not for paper belts or mandatory defences. That is why i will not recognise a champion unless he holds the ring belt. If he is #1 challenger and the champ never gives him a shot it gets complicated i suppose.

But look at Calzaghe v Kessler, Champ versus the #1 contender - exactly the sort of fight that should be made.

I don't count guys with paper belts as anything other than contenders. Wlad isn't heavyweight champion in my eyes, and Floyd has one sd against another contender at 154.

[eazy_mas]

Those are flaws that are nigh on impossible to iron out without changing the whole structure of the sport. The Ring belt is an unbiased rankings system without financial motivation. It rewards fighters for fighting other ranked opponents and not for paper belts or mandatory defences. That is why i will not recognise a champion unless he holds the ring belt. If he is #1 challenger and the champ never gives him a shot it gets complicated i suppose.

But look at Calzaghe v Kessler, Champ versus the #1 contender - exactly the sort of fight that should be made.

I don't count guys with paper belts as anything other than contenders. Wlad isn't heavyweight champion in my eyes, and Floyd has one sd against another contender at 154.

why isnt there any Ring Belt HW ?

I think it should be Wlad but Wlad is ranked like 1 and there champion spot is vacant

[OptimusWolf]

Because for the ing belt to be assigned to someone (after Lewis retired) the no.1 guy must fight either #2 or #3. The winner will be the new champ i think. That hasn't happened as yet (Peter wasn't no.2 when they fought).

[eazy_mas]

Because for the ing belt to be assigned to someone (after Lewis retired) the no.1 guy must fight either #2 or #3. The winner will be the new champ i think. That hasn't happened as yet (Peter wasn't no.2 when they fought).

but Wlad is the man to beat so he must be the champion.

Same as Hatton is the man to beat at 140 and Mayweather is the man to beat at 147

[OptimusWolf]

Being the man to beat isn't enough, read the criteria listed above; and why should wlad necessarily be the man to beat? I know his performances have been spectacular against solid opposition but he hasn't unified the belts, he hasn't rematched Peter.

I'm a big Wlad fan, but I don't think you can just crown a champion based on how good they look in the ring beating contenders. there has to be a system, and IMO the ring's is pretty solid.

Note also the IBO who supposedly rank based on a computer system only, it will be interesting to see how that works out.

[eazy_mas]

Being the man to beat isn't enough, read the criteria listed above; and why should wlad necessarily be the man to beat? I know his performances have been spectacular against solid opposition but he hasn't unified the belts, he hasn't rematched Peter.

I'm a big Wlad fan, but I don't think you can just crown a champion based on how good they look in the ring beating contenders. there has to be a system, and IMO the ring's is pretty solid.

Note also the IBO who supposedly rank based on a computer system only, it will be interesting to see how that works out.

http://www.thering-online.com/ringpages/ratings2.html Agu 7th

here is the ratign but even though Wlad didnt unified the belt but if anyone beats him he is the big shot.

some division are wrong like the lieghtweight it should br Juan Diaz is the man in that division.

some guy lost there last fight and still number 1

[squealpiggy]

The Ring Belt can only be won or lost in the ring. The magazine will not strip fighters for not fighting "their" contender like the alphabets, and this is one major flaw of the system of the sanctioning bodies: They strip fighters of the belts for going after the biggest opposition ie other beltholders. Their contender lists are often for sale.). The Ring belt is the property of the champion who beat the former Ring champion until he is beaten in a title fight. And it doesn't matter if the title fight is a tune-up against a nobody or a unifying mega fight, if the champion gets beaten in a title fight then the Ring championship changes hands. And that's how it should be.

The belts are only vacated by a fighter retiring or making a permanent change in weight division, and a vacant belt can only be awarded in a title fight between the number one and number two in the division, except in some circumstances in which the belt can be awarded in a title fight between number one and number three (as was the case in the Calzaghe - Lacy fight).