Quit Complaining About Alphabets, Just Ignore Them

[P.WILL]

Ring Belt is where its at

[OnePunch]

co-sign. the only belt that really matters is the RING belt because u hav to actually earn it. its not just givin to u by default or just for the hell of it. u hav to fight the best to get it

But the major problem with the Ring belt is that the "champ" can fight whomever he chooses. There are no mandatory defenses. You could be ranked #1 in the Ring ratings and sit there for 10 years without ever getting your title shot, if the so-called "champ" didnt want to fight you, or if you were with the wrong promoter. One need look no further than the lightweight division for an example. Casamayor "won" the Ring title in late 2006, and signed with Golden Boy. Since then, in EVERY fight for that title BOTH sides of the fight were with Golden boy, and NONE were against anyone ranked #1. So Ring rankings mean absolutely nothing, because if you're not with the promoter who controls the title, or not someone the "champ" is willing to fight, then you are out of luck because you are NEVER getting your title shot.

The problem is that most people dont seem to mind if the #1, #2, or #3 Ring contender gets skipped over, as long as the "champ" picks someone who the public perceives as a "good fight". Example, Katsidis. Does going life and death with Czar Anostot REALLY earn you the shot at the lineal championship? Even when there were far more deserving guys that should have gotten the shot? But nobody says anything because its perceived as a good fight, regardless that the #1, #2, #3 and so on get skipped over and over again. And thats the big problem with Ring. If you're not a tv superstar, or not with the same promoter the champ is, you may sit at #1 for 20 years before you get your shot.

[vitali1999]

Ho ho ho !

Get real people, the alphabet boys arent going anywhere. There is to much money to be made, its politics in boxing man. The organizations and the promoters control boxing not the fighters. Case in point, look at Vitali, he has to go to the sport for arbirtration just to avoid a double mandatory.

[hammerhiem]

Casamayor "won" the Ring title in late 2006, and signed with Golden Boy. Since then, in EVERY fight for that title BOTH sides of the fight were with Golden boy, and NONE were against anyone ranked #1.

Not sure where you are going with this...

Casamayor won the Belt off Corales, beat the No3 in the division then beat the No8 in the division before losing to the P4P No2.

The No2 during this time was Juan Diaz who just lost to JMM in a worse fashion than Casamayor did.

[vitali1999]

hahhaaha

By Jake Donovan - It never fails. The moment a sanctioning body appeases a promoter's request to make available a title for any given fight, someone in the media is soon to follow, pitching a ***** about how the alphabets have ruined our beloved sport.

In such articles, the following are never found to be at fault, or certainly not the focal point of said rant: promoters, fighters, managers or publicists.

All of the aforementioned are every bit as guilty as the titles they praise and promote for whatever relevance the sanctioning bodies retain these days. Yet it's the heads of the major sanctioning bodies who can never escape the crosshairs. [details]

Quit Complaining About Alphabets, Just Ignore Them

Get real **** head, ignoring them isnt going to make them go away. You tell us not to feed into the hype of the Alphabets, but thats exactly what your doing.

[Dave Rado]

Not sure where you are going with this...

Casamayor won the Belt off Corales, beat the No3 in the division then beat the No8 in the division before losing to the P4P No2.

The No2 during this time was Juan Diaz who just lost to JMM in a worse fashion than Casamayor did.

He gave a bad example, but the principle that some contenders with the "wrong" promoter might wait many years to get a title shot if there were only a Ring belt and nothing else is probably true, IMO - and in the past, that frequently happened - look at Archie Moore and Ezzard Charles. Or more recently, look at Paul Williams, who had to move up divisions in order to get a meaningful fight because the top fighters in his own division wouldn't fight him. And no one expects the Hatton-Pacquiao winner to defend the lineal title against any of the top contenders in the division, such as Bradley - which is unfortunate. (And before Bradley and Malignaggi, Witter was rated the #1 contender for quite a long time but couldn't get a shot).

In terms of which is the lesser of two evils, though, I'd far rather see the occasional contender having to wait a relatively long time for a title shot than see people like Kessler and Sturm fighting one journeyman mandatory after another after another, and never fighting any of the top 10 fighters in their divisions, which is what the alphabet soup encourages. And non-hardcore fans need to know who the real world champion is in order for boxing to become a mainstream sport again, rather than just a business. If it's a sport then by definition it is impossible for there to be more than one world champion in a division at a given time.

As I said before, I think the answer would be for the mainstream media to acknowledge The Ring/lineal title as the only world title, while also acknowledging the alphabet titles as alphabet titles but as nothing more. They have a place and can't be got rid of, but the media needs to stop calling them world championships, when they are nothing of the sort, and needs to start calling the Ring title holder the world champion.

But how to educate the journalists about this is a vexed question that I can't think of an answer to.

[JakeNDaBox]

In the end, I think you and I are basically on the same page. My issue is with guys like Dan Rafael, who in dedicating two paragraphs to a fight recap will waste one of them bitching about the title that's at stake. It's a waste of time, and along the same mentality of The Ring, that it has to be said as if it's some great mystery.

The problem these days is that both sides seem to take an obtuse stance. Guys like those at The Ring view EVERY alphabet title as a paper title, when in fact more than a few have been well-earned and in fact indicative of who's the best in the division.

then you have the other side, where those who view the IBF, WBA and WBC as "the real" titles, accept every last version of them.

I certainly don't mean any disrespect to any fighter in omitting the sanctioning bodies from my reports. I'd just rather focus on a good fight. It's obvious that the title at stake is often what makes said fight (for example, Lou DiBella was never looking Carl Froch's way for Jermain Taylor if Froch didn't have a major title). But if writers can't get through something as routine as a post-fight report without stumbling over their own agenda with every keystroke, then they really need to find better ways to focus their energy.

Interesting take Jake, but titles ARE important to 99% of the fighters out there. Ever notice how it's only AFTER a fighter reaches a certain "economic" level that they start talking about how titles "don't matter" anymore? And believe me, without titles, all you would have is the most recognizable 3 or 4 names in each division fighting each other over and over again. The hard working, quality fighters who just dont happen to have a huge following would NEVER get a chance at the big time. Sure, as of late the sanctioning bodies have made defending themselves quite difficult with their absurd actions, but without mandatory defense requirements we possibly would never have gotten Jones-Tarver, Taylor-Pavlik, Diaz-Campbell, Berto-Collazo, or a hundred other good fights that only got made because the "champ" didnt want to give up the title for not facing their #1 contender. Guys like Josh Clottey, Ali Funeka, Chris John, Celestino Caballero, Jorge Linares, etc. would NEVER get to the level they have, without a ranking or a title, because sometimes a title or a #1 ranking is the only leverage a lesser-known guy has to force a fight with the champ (or the big-name).
But I think you could add context by just renaming the belts. Since most of the time its difficult, even with a high ranking, to get a shot at a champion unless you happen to be signed with the same promoter as that champion (or can bring enough $$ to the table that they cant pass it up). Since fighters are most often fighting someone within the same promotional umbrella (unless its a mega-fight or a mandatory), you could just have the Golden Boy title, the Top Rank title, the Universum title, the Gary Shaw title, and so on and so forth. And then occasionally you get a super fight between the Golden Boy champ and the Top Rank champ (i.e. Hatton vs. Pacquiao, etc.) Actually, thats basically what we have already.
And as for going back to "one champ per division", well that just wont work anymore. Guys just dont fight as much as they did back then. Fighting 2 or 3 times a year (instead of 8 or 10 back in the day) would mean it would take someone close to 4 years from the time they get ranked to getting a title shot. And most likely nobody in the top 10 would want to fight each other, because then they would start that timetable all over again should they take a loss. The ratings would be at a standstill. And the reason guys dont fight as much anymore is because everyone relies on tv, and there just arent enough dates available for everyone. But whose fault is that? Is it the fighters fault for having too high of purse demands? Is it the promoters fault for not wanting to risk a live gate and only take the guaranteed tv money? Is it the fans fault because they dont come out to the shows enough to make promoters confident enough to go without tv? Take your pick.....

[OnePunch]

the media needs to stop calling them world championships, when they are nothing of the sort, and needs to start calling the Ring title holder the world champion.

How can you call a title that NEVER HAS TO BE DEFENDED against the #1 contender (or #2, #3, #4, etc.) the "real" championship?

To win the Super Bowl, the NFC champs have to beat the AFC Champs. They dont get to just say "even though Pittsburgh is the AFC Champs, we're gonna play the Patriots instead because they bring more money to the dance".

Imagine what a laughingstock the NFL would become if every year the super bowl was the Cowboys vs. the Patriots, because they bring the most money.

To win the World Series, the AL champs have to beat the NL champs. They cant ignore the Rays and choose to play the Yankees because they do better ratings.

A world title that never has to be defended against the top contender is NOT a world title, it's just a trophy.

[OnePunch]

He gave a bad example, but the principle that some contenders with the "wrong" promoter might wait many years to get a title shot

How is that a bad example? The fighters ranked by Ring at #1, #2, and #3 at 135 have been skipped over since 2006 (3 years!), so that fights within the same promotional umbrella could be made instead. As a boxing fan, why dont you have a problem with that?

[Dave Rado]

How can you call a title that NEVER HAS TO BE DEFENDED against the #1 contender (or #2, #3, #4, etc.) the "real" championship?

Kessler hasn't defended his Ring belt against any of the top 10 contenders because he keeps fighting alphabet mandatories against journeymen. If The Ring title had greater prominence relative to the alphabet titles, Kessler would be far more likely to have been fighting top 10 fighters.