The Ring Belt, Do We Really Recognized It?

[loui_ludwig]

Do we? Is it legit?

I am bringing this topic since there was a post about it here due to the Pac-Marquez 2 result.

When Pac beat MAB, Pac got the Ring featherweight title. Pac also has won 2 titles in 2 weight division. When Pac is mentioned as a 3x division champ, critics say he is only 2. Those 2 are the IBF and WBC and they do not include the Ring belt. If it is, then you can consider Pac a 4 division champ after his close win over JMM.

We make fun and critize the big 4: WBC, WBA, IBF, and WBO. If a fighter wins an alphabet title, we consider them champions. If they win the Ring belt, we don't really accept that fighter as a champion.

[Silencers]

I consider the guy who holds the Ring belt the champion of the division. A titlist is a fighter who holds one of the sanctioning bodies title.

[raysan]

The Ring title legitimizes you as a champion in my eyes, its the one I pay most attention to.

[2501]

so now that the ring scored it for Marquez and publically stated that, NOW the Ring title is meaningless. alright.

[Thread Stealer]

Do we? Is it legit?

I am bringing this topic since there was a post about it here due to the Pac-Marquez 2 result.

When Pac beat MAB, Pac got the Ring featherweight title. Pac also has won 2 titles in 2 weight division. When Pac is mentioned as a 3x division champ, critics say he is only 2. Those 2 are the IBF and WBC and they do not include the Ring belt. If it is, then you can consider Pac a 4 division champ after his close win over JMM.

We make fun and critize the big 4: WBC, WBA, IBF, and WBO. If a fighter wins an alphabet title, we consider them champions. If they win the Ring belt, we don't really accept that fighter as a champion.

The Ring didn't even have their policy in place when Pacquiao won his belts at 112 and 122.

They had it up until the late 80s, they didn't have it for awhile, and they re-did it back in 2002.

Pacquiao won a title at 112 in the late 90s and a title at 122 in 2001 over Ledwaba.

Furthermore, it simply depends on whom says it. Some people don't recognize the WBO so they say DLH is a 4 division titleholder instead of 6. Some people only go by linear champs and use "beltholders", and still consider Floyd Patterson the youngest HW champ ever and not Mike Tyson because when Tyson beat Michael Spinks for the linear title, he was older then Patterson was when he won the vacant title against Archie Moore.

[Mr. Ryan]

I have a hard time justifying in my mind a boxing promoter owning The Ring Magazine. It's no different than if Bob Arum or Don King bought the publication. Not to say that Oscar De La Hoya is either of those guys because I don't know him or any of the two aforementioned promoters but in principle it is the same concept.

I have always held The Ring title in the highest of regards. I believe in the media and it's zeal for truth, and I felt that The Ring was the only uncorrupted belt. It didn't operate like a sanctioning body, it didn't collect fees, and most important it had real champions. Well, maybe except for Vitali Klitschko.

What made The Ring belt so great was how unofficial it was. When The Ring becomes involved in politics is when it's time to reassess one's opinion of it's legitimacy.

Now what a great idea would be to have the BWAA (Boxing Writers' Association of America) come up with a consensus champion in every division. They're pretty good about excluding promoters and those with ulterior motives.

In reality, a title belt means very little when you follow boxing closely. You know who the champions are and don't need a belt to recognize them. It's in the fruit that they bear.

Regardless of how I view the belt, I will always love reading it's articles. It's still the best 5 bucks on newstands.

[HeartAttack]

The Ring didn't even have their policy in place when Pacquiao won his belts at 112 and 122.

They had it up until the late 80s, they didn't have it for awhile, and they re-did it back in 2002.

Pacquiao won a title at 112 in the late 90s and a title at 122 in 2001 over Ledwaba.

Furthermore, it simply depends on whom says it. Some people don't recognize the WBO so they say DLH is a 4 division titleholder instead of 6. Some people only go by linear champs and use "beltholders", and still consider Floyd Patterson the youngest HW champ ever and not Mike Tyson because when Tyson beat Michael Spinks for the linear title, he was older then Patterson was when he won the vacant title against Archie Moore.

Once again I am in-line with thread here. As for Pacquiao getting his RING belt it was vacant up until this past Saturday night. Unlike Ryan I have no problem with a promoter owning The RING as long as they keep it objective and let Nigel do his thing. As soon as sanctioning fees are added and GoldenBoy interferes in any way, then the objectivity is lost and so is the legitmacy of The Ring title. I myself has always considered the RING belt holder the champion in the division. Just like I consider Joel Casamayor the champ in the lightweights even if he didn't defeat Jose Armando Santa Cruz or if he isn't the best lightweight in the world. And if a division has no RING champion, then there is no champion in the division, just top contenders. As for the alphabet straps, they serve their purpose, their holders if not being the RING champion, are the division's top contenders. That is the sole purpose of sanctioning titles, to identify for us the top contenders in any given division.

[Mr. Ryan]

Once again I am in-line with thread here. As for Pacquiao getting his RING belt it was vacant up until this past Saturday night. Unlike Ryan I have no problem with a promoter owning The RING as long as they keep it objective and let Nigel do his thing. As soon as sanctioning fees are added and GoldenBoy interferes in any way, then the objectivity is lost and so is the legitmacy of The Ring title. I myself has always considered the RING belt holder the champion in the division. Just like I consider Joel Casamayor the champ in the lightweights even if he didn't defeat Jose Armando Santa Cruz or if he isn't the best lightweight in the world. And if a division has no RING champion, then there is no champion in the division, just top contenders. As for the alphabet straps, they serve their purpose, their holders if not being the RING champion, are the division's top contenders. That is the sole purpose of sanctioning titles, to identify for us the top contenders in any given division.

If Don King or Bob Arum owned The Ring, would you feel the same way?

No matter how you look at it, 2/1 is still the same as 4/2, no matter how you slice it.

[HeartAttack]

If Don King or Bob Arum owned The Ring, would you feel the same way?

No matter how you look at it, 2/1 is still the same as 4/2, no matter how you slice it.

I said as long as Goldenboy lets Nigel run it and not interfere in the matters of ranking then I'm cool with it. but as soon as they even try to suggest any changes to standards or ratings, thats it, they ****ed up. Do I believe that GoldenBoy can be more objective than Arum or DK? Yes. But I wouldn't have a problem with them owning it under the same restrictions. I do like your idea of BWAA IF The Ring fails to continue to be objective. But BPP said they are requiring sanctioning fees, and if this is true, then its done for me.

[squealpiggy]

so now that the ring scored it for Marquez and publically stated that, NOW the Ring title is meaningless. alright.

Well if the Ring disagreed with the official score and therefore didn't award the title then the ring title would be meaningless, because they would be allowing editorial subjectivity to get in the way of their awarding titles which would be against their own policy. The Ring title will cease to have meaning the moment Golden Boy try interfering with editorial policy. Oscar De La Hoya is a pretty stute businessman and knows what makes th Ring successful. Both King and Arum have shown a willingness to kill the golden goose for short-term gain so I think that they would be more likely to **** things up.