17 weight divisions but only 6 linear champs

[crold1]

Thanks...this is a topic I've bitched about MANY times. Don't get zoomed folks.

[-Swizzy-]

Ring's titles are not the same as lineal titles; they match with some but not all correct lines. Most of their vacant title fills have been okay but not all, and there are currently seven champs. They are kept in BoxingScene's quarterly ratings as well: http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/vi...boxing-ratings

And on the topic:

http://www.maxboxing.com/Cliff/Rold040908.asp

What About Ring?

Fans used to hearing more frequently about ‘real’ World champions on HBO and ESPN in recent years may be wondering why the lineages noted above don’t entirely line up with Ring Magazine since Ring is often the standard used by those media giants. That’s simple.

When Ring decided to start naming champions again, they elected to ignore some established history, including their own.

That’s a problem when considering that their policy is supposed to be about the notion that titles are won, and lost, only in the ring. In other words, Ring looks like it is all about restoring lineage to titles but, if there was an election that said they could just call a do-over on history, I missed it. While Ring left the game of tracing ‘the man who beat the man’ or at least the ‘man who became the man’ in the late 80’s, websites like the Cyber Boxing Zone (CBZ), and the magazine Boxing Illustrated well into the 90s, were still protecting Boxing’s history.

So, with renewed discussion at this site, and around the sport, about the merits of Ring’s championships, it’s time to take another look at how things have played out on this front. Loyal readers will find this subject old territory for me, but MaxBoxing readers not as familiar with my work can quickly be caught up on the specifics.

When Ring began recognizing champions again, sans alphabelts, earlier this decade, they did so by declaring, among others, the titles at 108, 112, 115, and 126 lbs. vacant and recognizing Roy Jones as Light Heavyweight champion. Jones was easy for most people to swallow because he was, well, Roy. However, his ‘undisputed’ title reign was built on sanctioning body recognition, stripped alphabelts, and occasionally top foes. They ignored the history passed from Hill to Dariusz Michalczewski.

They reasoned, paraphrasing, that the other divisions were in disarray and it would be too confusing to retroactively trace the lines so vacant won. Was that really the case? Well, let’s say it wouldn’t have taken much looking to be un-confused.

If any of you have the February 2008 issue of Ring handy, open it up to page 128 and you’ll see that Sot Chitalada and Barry McGuigan were, correctly, recognized as World champs at Flyweight and Featherweight respectively in March 1986. Those lines never broke, and they traced back farther than ’86. When Ring started noting champs again between 2001 and 2002, that would have meant Wonjongkam and Naseem Hamed.

Since becoming a recognizer of championships again, other problems have arisen with Ring. Among them are:

• Crowning Rosendo Alvarez at 108 while the lineage ran through Jorge Arce in a straight line from Michael Carbajal-Humberto Gonzalez;
• Ignoring the lineage at 115 lbs. that belonged to Masamori Tokuyama in a straight line to the Jiro Watanabe-Payao Poontarat fight in 1984;
• Crowning Paulie Ayala at 122 lbs. for his one clear win over Bones Adams in 2002 after three arguably bad decisions in a row for Ayala against Hugo Dianzo, Johnny Tapia and Bones Adams and with no other wins in the division. Ayala never defended his hollow crown; and let us not forget…
• The coronation of big brother Vitali Klitschko as Heavyweight champion for his first win over a currently rated Ring top ten fighter, ever, against Corrie Sanders in 2004. Much as he was loathsome to watch, John Ruiz’s rebound from the Roy Jones loss with wins over Hasim Rahman and Fres Oquendo were more meritorious than anything Klitscko had actually finished when he entered the ring with Sanders.

To their credit, they have been on the ball on other occasions. Their recognizing Jose Luis Castillo-Juan Lazcano as being for the then-vacant Lightweight title in 2004 appeared correct and was validated by an excellent series of fights that culminated in Castillo-Corrales I. Evidenced above, most of their titlists are accurate to date, so it's not as if they're way out of the ballpark there even if they did back into history rather than embracing it. Finally, through much of modern Boxing’s rich and unique history, Ring’s belts have been a constant from old pictures of Nat Fleischer and Ray Robinson to the casket of Apollo Creed. When a fighter proves to be his divisions true champion, having that belt there is a bonus and a cool aesthetic. But…

This Ring review is inspired in large part by Steve Kim’s piece here at Maxboxing on Monday. Steve and I don’t approach this issue from the same direction or even reach all the same conclusions, but for those like Steve who might feel no obligation to recognize Bernard Hopkins or Joel Casamayor as sole champions, Ring provides the role model. After all, if Ring can decide that legitimate lineage is discardable, then why can’t their placebo lineage at 175 or decision to recognize the weight-skewed Casamayor-Corrales III also be discarded by knowledgeable boxing people based on the results unfolding before them?

great post. you really exposed the ring rating's system but I still feel that their ratings are the most legit in boxing.

[crold1]

great post. you really exposed the ring rating's system but I still feel that their ratings are the most legit in boxing.

Their ratings are no better or worse than the one in Boxing Monthly and, personally, I prefer the ones I compile for this site which factor in a bunch of them

[-Swizzy-]

Their ratings are no better or worse than the one in Boxing Monthly and, personally, I prefer the ones I compile for this site which factor in a bunch of them

yeah but you only compile p4p ratings don't you? I haven't seen any ratings for each weight division on this site.

[The_Italian]

imho the junior weight divisions are fine, the number of alpha belts champs is the problem...

their should only be one champion per division ...

i agree...

Thats where the problem really is in boxing...

there are 4 titles per division...not counting other misc. unimportant "titles".

there really should be just ONE champion PER division...

and it should be lineal...

i mean to the more hardcore boxing fans we know who the champ is of each division whether they have a title or not...but with all these extra titles it causes (in my opinion) corruption among the sanctioning bodies and definately confuses the casual fan.

for example...

i've had people ask questions that dont really follow boxing when they see the introductions to a fight and a guy is standing there with 3 belts and they say something like, "the current WBC, WBO, IBF middleweight champion of the world" (or whatever) they ask, "how come theres more than one title?" or "he has 3 of them? he must be good"...

but we all know that you dont even NEED to have a title to be considered the best in that division...

just like when we saw paulie v. hatton this last saturday that is was to see who's the best at 140...title or no title.