Magazine’s Mandate Has a Hollow “Ring”

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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]