Quit Complaining About Alphabets, Just Ignore Them

[Dave Rado]

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?

As hammerhiem said:

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..

Furthermore, Marquez then won The Ring belt and immediately defended against the #2, Juan Diaz.

[JakeNDaBox]

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.

I could be wrong, but I don't believe Santa Cruz was #3 when Casa signed to fight him. I'm pretty sure he was elevated to that spot AFTER their fight. I know that all three Diaz' were ranked ahead of him at the time (or at least prior to October '07 when Juan fought and beat Julio), and Nate was also ranked ahead of him. SC was moved up after the Casa fight.

But the greater issue was that for as long as Casa was their champ, he blatantly ignored the #1 contender. He never looked in Juan Diaz' direction, and strung along Nate for three months before passing on that fight despite Nate agreeing to a 50/50 purse bid, one where Casa would've made more than he actually wound up with for the Marquez fight.

In that regard, I agree with Terry 100%. If we're going to fully embrace one champ per division, then that one champ better for damn sure defend against the VERY best challenger at least once a year. Yet The Ring champions actually have a history of NOT making that happen.

[JakeNDaBox]

As hammerhiem said:

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..

Furthermore, Marquez then won The Ring belt and immediately defended against the #2, Juan Diaz.

Lightweight ended up playing out in the end. Nate's inability to squeeze down to 135 one last time went a long way in Marquez-Diaz being the fight to put an end to all of the division's drama.

But as mentioned in my earlier post, not only was the title previously not being defended against the division's best, but became the very prime example of the flaws that come with The Ring title. It's a shame because its prior claimants (Chico Corrales (RIP) and Jose Luis Castillo) went a long way in making it the lightweight division they very definition of the best facing the best.

[Dave Rado]

Lightweight ended up playing out in the end. Nate's inability to squeeze down to 135 one last time went a long way in Marquez-Diaz being the fight to put an end to all of the division's drama.

But as mentioned in my earlier post, not only was the title previously not being defended against the division's best, but became the very prime example of the flaws that come with The Ring title. It's a shame because its prior claimants (Chico Corrales (RIP) and Jose Luis Castillo) went a long way in making it the lightweight division they very definition of the best facing the best.

Don't you think that the fact that The Ring title isn't promoted anywhere near as seriously in the mainstream media as the alphabet belts are had something to do with this? You're criticising Casa because prior to JMM he fought his alphabet mandatories instead of fighting the best contender in the division (I don't think he should be criticised for fighting the P4P #2). I would say the cause of that problem was primarily the alphabet organisations and their corrupt rankings. The Ring title isn't perfect but it's better than four sanctioning bodies that don't even rate each others' fighters, and whose rankings are laughable.

If The Ring title had been given proper prominence in the mainstream media, public pressure would sooner or later have forced Casa to fight the real contenders, IMO, just as it eventually forced Spinks to fight Tyson, which he'd probably never have done if The Ring title hadn't existed.

And in any case I'm not advocating that the alphabets be scrapped (which is a completely unrealistic goal in any case), merely that the media should acknowledge The lineal champion as the world champion and the belt holders as belt holders.

Do you think it's right that the mainstream media describes Kotelnik rather than Hatton as the world Jnr Welterweight champion?

[MJ406]

Do you think it's right that the mainstream media describes Kotelnik rather than Hatton as the world Jnr Welterweight champion?[/QUOTE]

that's not entirely true.

yes Kotelnik is given distinction as a belt holder (the WBA) but Brian Kenny and others who do Boxing on ESPN and other outlets (Showtime and HBO as well I believe)

describe the current title situation and differentiate between holding a title and being the man (which is the example you posted, the diff between Kotelnik and Hatton)

and I've seen on Friday Night Fights before whenever analyzing a division, the Ring's rankings are used, and Kenny/whoever is commentating

make the distinction very clear about who is the best vs who holds the Alphabet belts.

Im not speaking about all of the media, but the boxing specific commentators on Showtime and ESPN do talk about Lineal Titles and differentiate between being lineal vs holding an Alphabet belt.

[Dave Rado]

that's not entirely true.

yes Kotelnik is given distinction as a belt holder (the WBA) but Brian Kenny and others who do Boxing on ESPN and other outlets (Showtime and HBO as well I believe).

See my earlier post and the specific examples I gave:

The biggest problem IMO is the mainstream media, e.g. boxing correspondents for the national newspapers or broadcasters, who have no interest in or understanding of the Ring or lineal titles.

See here for example:

Ricky Hatton is the current light welterweight kingpin, has been for years in fact, yet there are others within the 140 division who are currently laying claim to being ‘the champion’. At present Timothy Bradley parades the WBC and WBO baubles, Juan Urango punches under the IBF banner, whilst the aforementioned Kotelnik holds his trousers up with a little black number sponsored by the WBA. During the recent Holt-Bradley telecast, Showtime managed to identify all of these men as champions, with Ricky Hatton harvesting nary a mention and here lies a major problem. Whilst Ricky has proven himself the best light welterweight in the world, in the ring where it counts, what exactly is it that these men champion?

If even Showtime think paper belt holder = world champion, and Ring/lineal title holder = also ran, what hope is there?

Mainstream newspaper coverage is at least as bad. Here's a recent example from the so-called boxing correspondent of the British newspaper The Independent:

As Britain's only universally recognised world champion (Hatton has an IBO belt, but that is just a piece of boxing bling) Froch understandably feels slighted. "British TV has shown some farcical fights in the past, but to snub one of this magnitude is a disgrace."

The fact that Hatton is Britain's only lineal and Ring world champion and that Froch is only ranked #6 at his weight doesn't register with this so-called "boxing correspondent".

As you'll see if you follow the link and look at the comments section, I've tried to educate the author of the piece, but I doubt he reads the comments. The Independent is a print newspaper really, the website is just a secondary media for them (like the New York Times or Washington Post in the States).

It's all very well for hardcore fans to say that The Ring belt is what really matters, but until the mainstream media does likewise, the alphabet organisations will still run the sport.

Most boxers don't fight for The Ring belt, currently, they fight for paper titles, which is why so many Ring titles are vacant; and the mainstream media is largely to blame, IMO.

Regarding OnePunch's post, I agree that there are no simple answers, and that if there were no mandatories, that would create a new set of problems. However, if the media simply gave precedence to The Ring/lineal titles and mentioned the alphabet titles in proper context (not ever calling the belt holders world champions unless they are lineal champions, for instance, and calling lineal champions world champions regardless of whether they hold alphabet titles or not), then I think the non-hardcore public would have a much better sense of what's really what, and The Ring/lineal title would then be much more sought after than it is at the moment, which would be much healthier for the sport.

[OnePunch]

If The Ring title had been given proper prominence in the mainstream media, public pressure would sooner or later have forced Casa to fight the real contenders, IMO, just as it eventually forced Spinks to fight Tyson, which he'd probably never have done if The Ring title hadn't existed.

"Public pressure" and 50 cents still wont get you on the subway. There are a hundred examples of "public pressure" not amounting to a hill of beans. I know "public pressure" sure hasnt made Pac-JMM 3 a reality, thats for sure.

Actually, show me ONE example of a fight that got made due to "public pressure". It sure never made Floyd fight Margo, or Cotto, or anyone else for that matter. I'll let you in on a secret. THEY DONT CARE. Pac doesnt give one squat about who the "public" wants him to fight. It's all about what will make him the most money, or advance the agenda. Unfortunately once certain fighters reach a certain economic level, they couldnt care less what the public wants. They dont feel they owe you anything, and will just fight whoever they feel like fighting, or whoever their promoter tells them represents the most money. Thats just how it is, and putting these guys on an "honor system" to fight the best just doesnt work.

[OnePunch]

The Ring title isn't perfect but it's better than four sanctioning bodies that don't even rate each others' fighters, and whose rankings are laughable.

you know, I didnt understand that policy for the longest time, but i finally "got" it a few years ago. There is no point whatsoever in one sanctioning body ranking another sanctioning body champion. Those fights get made through unifications, not mandatories. Look at it like this. Lets say the IBF champion is Joe Smith, and he has a mandatory due. The #1 contender is WBO champ John Doe. Well John Doe doesnt have a WBO mandatory due for another 6 months, and doesnt want to fight Smith yet, cause the money isnt right, or theres no tv date available, or whatever. You cant strip Smith if Doe doesnt want the fight. So Smith would skip Doe and fight the next highest ranked contender, so the fight wouldnt get made anyways. Both the IBF and the WBO have rules that PERMIT a unification bout to take PRIORITY over a mandatory defense, so it is extremely rare that a mando would get in the way of a unification, if those guys REALLY wanted to do it. In most instances where it doesnt get made, they didnt want it anyways and just use the mando as an excuse.

The point is, there is no reason to clog up the rankings with fighters who dont need that ranking to make the fight, or have no intention of fighting that guy anyways. The WBO champ doesnt need a #1 ranking to fight the IBF champ. The fight could get made as a unification. And if you are say the IBF, and Mike Johnson just fought a WBO #1 eliminator, why would you bother ranking him, when you know he is gonna wait around for his WBO title shot? (The most recent example I can think of where a #1 ranked contender risked his ranking in a tough fight was when Tarver fought Eric Harding the 2nd time back in 2002) It just doesnt usually happen. Most times they wont even risk it against a dummy, much less in a tough fight.

[Dave Rado]

I know "public pressure" sure hasnt made Pac-JMM 3 a reality, thats for sure.

It may yet do, and his last fights against Hatton and DLH were at least as popular with the public as that would have been. If it does happen it sure as hell won't be because of the mandatory system - it'll be because it's a fight the public want to see. Pac has said several times recently that he'll gladly fight JMM at 140.

Actually, show me ONE example of a fight that got made due to "public pressure".

I already gave you Tyson-Spinks.

Another is Pavlik-Abraham, which Arum wanted to duck, but which looks like happening now due to public pressure. The mandatory system would never have made that happen.

It's all about what will make him the most money

They won't make the most money if the public don't want to see the fight.

[Dave Rado]

The point is, there is no reason to clog up the rankings with fighters who dont need that ranking to make the fight, or have no intention of fighting that guy anyways.

I don't think it would clog them up, it would make them more credible, and I bet unifications would become more common.