Magazine’s Mandate Has a Hollow “Ring”

[BIGPOPPAPUMP]

By Lyle Fitzsimmons - Wladimir Klitschko won a fight on June 20.

And in doing so, the talented Ukrainian defended both his myriad heavyweight title belts and his essentially universal recognition as the division’s top fighter for the seventh straight time.

This time around, however, there was a little more to it.

Along with the blessings of the IBF, IBO and WBO, Klitschko’s win generated simultaneous notice from a righteous media and fan base somehow blind to all claimants not deemed worthy in advance by the folks at Sports & Entertainment Publications, LLC.

More specifically, the California-based company’s flagship magazine entity – The Ring.

In business with fluctuating success since a 1922 origin, Ring has long been identified by both a brazenly reverential “Bible of Boxing” tagline and its occasional awarding of championship belts to “genuine world champions” of its choosing. [details]

[MANGLER]

Good read. Obviously no system can be perfect. But still, I'll take the ****in Ring belt/champion over any of the alphabet ****. Lets hope wee don't get a Ring champ who abuses the privilege of non strippage and never defends his belt against the most deservin challengers.

[120]

Very good read, it's been a while since i've read some article like this one instead of the calling out ****. There will always be a loophole to any system, so we can't do much about that. Now, IF in this case we can utilize Wladimir to post such a possible case that he would get the belt and barely fight to sustain it is beyond belief. I honestly think Wlad is too proud of himself not on ly as a sportsman but also as a champion. He WILL take any comers that attempt to take the belt away. The Ring has done a better job for the most part in comparison to the ABCs but ever since GBP bought it, i have been a been concern about it but so far so good.

[Dave Rado]

Good read. Obviously no system can be perfect. But still, I'll take the ****in Ring belt/champion over any of the alphabet ****.

Exactly. If you want an example of someone winning a belt and then remaning champion for many years without having a single meaningful defence, you only need to look at Zsolt Erdei and his WBO title. You don't need to look to The Ring for that.

Yes the alphabets and their mandatory system are a necessary evil. Yes they need to be reformed and the number of them reduced, rather than got rid of (although how this can be achieved is beyond me, but I agree that should be the aim). But until that happens, if you want to know who the concensus world champions are at each weight, and what the rankings of the top fighters are at each weight, The Ring's are by far the most credible in the sport. The alphabets' rankings and champions lack any credibility whatsoever. Who thinks Kotelnik has proved himself as the number 1 Light Welterweight in the world? Who thinks that Michael Jennings was the second best Welterweight in the world when he fought Cotto? Who thinks that Erdei is the best Light Heavyweight in boxing? Those sort of anomalies are just laughable.

And there is no evidence at all that The Ring's journalists have lost their journalistic integrity since the buy-out, or that their ratings have. Nigel Collins is fiercely protective of The Ring's journalistic integrity; and of its reputation for impartiality and expert analysis. To implicitly compare Collins with King and Arum in terms of corruption is ridiculous. The cynicism in the article is wholly unwarranted and unjustifiable.

[fitzbitz]

For the record...

...I never claimed, implicity or otherwise, that the journalists at the Ring are somehow influenced by Oscar De La Hoya.

What I did say was that Oscar referring to himself as a "10-time world champion" while trying simultaneously to claim to be the gold standard of championship legitimacy was double-speak. What I did say was that I doubt the magazine would be taken as seriously if it were owned by Don King or Bob Arum. And what I did say was that, if Ring takes the step to calling itself a sanctioning body, then a dangerous line has been crossed. Short of that happening, I don't question the credibility of the journalists at all. I know some of them and have no beef with their collective or individual integrity.

Ratings-wise, I also agree that theirs are top-notch. However, the piece wasn't about ratings. It was about the correct ways to fix a flawed system. To me, Ring is promising change but has no real mechanism with which to enforce it. I believe some sort of regulatory entity is needed to enforce matches with legitimate No. 1 contenders and timely title defenses, etc., and to my knowledge, Ring has no structure with which to do that. So, in the short run, it's a great idea that'll get people talking. But in the long run, I think it's a stop-gap that makes no real progress toward fundamentally correcting the issues at hand.

[Dave Rado]

Ratings-wise, I also agree that theirs are top-notch. However, the piece wasn't about ratings. It was about the correct ways to fix a flawed system. To me, Ring is promising change but has no real mechanism with which to enforce it. I believe some sort of regulatory entity is needed to enforce matches with legitimate No. 1 contenders and timely title defenses, etc., and to my knowledge, Ring has no structure with which to do that. So, in the short run, it's a great idea that'll get people talking. But in the long run, I think it's a stop-gap that makes no real progress toward fundamentally correcting the issues at hand.

I agree with all of the above, but IMO you've made your point in a more balanced way in the above paragraph than you did in the original piece.

I agree that The Ring's ratings and championship policy is no more than a stop gap, but it's a bloody good stop gap; and in terms of being able to say who the "real" champions are at each weight, or who the real #1 contenders are, when the championships are vacant, The Ring's ratings are easily the best game in town, despite their flaws.

I agree that a regulatory authority with a mandatory system is needed, and the alphabets are a necessary evil - I just wish someone could think of what could be done, practically speaking, to force them to be less evil, and to reduce their number (the sheer number of them is a big part of the problem). Until that happens, though, I think The Ring's ratings and champions have a very important function, and I wish that more mainstream journalists could be educated about their importance. In short, I think absolutists on either side are misguided:

On the one hand, many boxing journalists completely ignore The Ring's champions (including most journalists in the UK), and that's wrong. For example, many journalists claimed the Pacquiao was only fighting Hatton for his IBO title, ignoring the fact that Hatton was the lineal world champion at that time; and also claimed that Froch was Britain's only world champion at that time, despite the fact that The Ring and most other independent ratings rated Froch outside the top 5 at his weight prior to the Taylor fight, and even now don't rate him #1, whereas Hatton was a real world champion.

On the other hand, many fans and a few journalists, including those who work for The Ring, pretend that The Ring's championship policy can eventually replace the alphabets, and I agree with you that that is also completely wrong.

[BattlingNelson]

Nice to have some critisism of boxings bible. Still it's nothing that we've never heard before. Ring Magazine has never by itself claimed to be the saviour of boxing rankings and the legit coronater of world champions. That distinction is only given to them by the fans and let's face it: Although not perfect Ring Magazine presents a better and non-biased system than any of the alphabet boys brings to the table.

Boxingscene's own Cliff Rold has also spoken out against Ring Magazine and how the crown their champions especially in regards to linearity.

Ring Magazine does not provide the linear boxing champions. They provide Ring magazine champions.

[Dave Rado]

Ring Magazine does not provide the linear boxing champions. They provide Ring magazine champions.

With the exception of the Roy Jones anomaly, and of all of the Light Heavyweight anomalies that have resulted from that one, they do try to base their champions on who the lineal champion is, though.

When a championship becomes vacant, who is going to decide whether a given fight will create a new lineal champion or not? There is no body with the cast iron authority to do so. The Ring may be a flawed arbiter but IMO, it is the best arbiter in town. If you have no arbiter at all, then you effectively dispense with lineal champions completely, because once a championship becomes vacant, it would have to remain vacant forever, by definition. I for one don't want that to happen.

Most but not all serious boxing analysts accept the criteria used by The Ring, when a lineal championship is vacant: that a new champion can be created either when the top two fighters at that weight square off, or in exceptional circumstances, when the #1 and #3 fighters square off. Most, but not all, accepted The Ring's justification for considering the Wlad-Chagaev fight to meet the "exceptional circumstances" criteria. And most, but not all, accepted Wlad and Chagaev's ratings at #1 and #3.

The thing is, if you don't regard Wlad as the new lineal champion, on the grounds that you don't think The Ring has the right to make that decision, then how can a new lineal Heavyweight champion ever be created?

No system is perfect, but I think it's fair to say that, with the exception of the Light Heavyweight mess, The Ring's champions deserve respect precisely because they are at least based on principles of linearity - but not as an alternative to the alphabet organisations and their mandatories, but rather as an adjunct to them.

Wlad says that his Ring belt means far more to him than any of the alphabet titles, and IMO, that's how it should be. I just wish more boxers felt the same way as he does - if they did, we'd have a lot more #1 vs. #2 match-ups than we do, to fill vacant Ring titles.

[Walt Liquor]

I agree with all of the above, but IMO you've made your point in a more balanced way in the above paragraph than you did in the original piece.

I agree that The Ring's ratings and championship policy is no more than a stop gap, but it's a bloody good stop gap; and in terms of being able to say who the "real" champions are at each weight, or who the real #1 contenders are, when the championships are vacant, The Ring's ratings are easily the best game in town, despite their flaws.

I agree that a regulatory authority with a mandatory system is needed, and the alphabets are a necessary evil - I just wish someone could think of what could be done, practically speaking, to force them to be less evil, and to reduce their number (the sheer number of them is a big part of the problem). Until that happens, though, I think The Ring's ratings and champions have a very important function, and I wish that more mainstream journalists could be educated about their importance. In short, I think absolutists on either side are misguided:

On the one hand, many boxing journalists completely ignore The Ring's champions (including most journalists in the UK), and that's wrong. For example, many journalists claimed the Pacquiao was only fighting Hatton for his IBO title, ignoring the fact that Hatton was the lineal world champion at that time; and also claimed that Froch was Britain's only world champion at that time, despite the fact that The Ring and most other independent ratings rated Froch outside the top 5 at his weight prior to the Taylor fight, and even now don't rate him #1, whereas Hatton was a real world champion.

On the other hand, many fans and a few journalists, including those who work for The Ring, pretend that The Ring's championship policy can eventually replace the alphabets, and I agree with you that that is also completely wrong.

Is there a ring policy on inactivity?

Additionally, Lyle, I think the article comes across as a mean-spirited attack on the credibility of The Ring. Equating the ring rankings to Oscar's claim of 10 titles is striking a blow to the credibility of the ring. Oscar, 31 was a fighter trying to sell tickets. That's what you do when you are the PPV king and that's how he got there. The Ring's entire ranking system is built on its credibility, which Collins defends publicly in open forums. Which is something you conveniently left out of the article. Frankly, I think the entire article, including the headline, comes across as trying to discredit the Ring/golden Boy alliance- which is merely an ownership issue as there is no evidence of any favoritism toward any Golden Boy fighters (something else you didn't mention).

I think the point that you brought up about the only three ways to lose your title is what you should have started with. Instead you buried it under all of the fluff and claims by The Ring and Oscar. There is a problem in that you cannot lose the championship through inactivity (unless due to injury and your ability and intent to return is clear), and that there is no guideline for defenses. I don't see how they can force mandatories, because that's one of the roots of the alphabet problem, but luckily, Ring champions tend to behave like champions and don't usually follow the easy way out that you mentioned they could in your article.

[Dave Rado]

Is there a ring policy on inactivity?

They do tend to ask their champions if they intend to defend their titles, and so far their champions have always been honest about that. For instance, when Hatton fought Collazo for the WBA Welterweight title, The Ring asked him whether he intended to return to defend his Ring Jnr Welterweight belt, and he said he did, and was therefore allowed to keep his Ring belt. Whereas when Calzaghe fought Hopkins, although he initially kept both his Ring Super Middleweight and Light Heavyweight belts, he was asked by the Ring soon afterwards whether he would be returning to defend his Super Middleweight belt, and said no, and he gave up that belt at that point.

It's true that it isn't perfect, and that's why alphabets with their mandatories will always be needed, but as you say it works fairly well in practice.

And they do regularly demote non-champions in their ratings on the basis of inactivity.