Tweet
To me, this belt is the closest thing to fair as far as belts go. But i just posted in another thread something about the Ring belt that i thought was wrong.
First of all, a lot of the divisions right now don't have a champion if you look at their ratings. The main problem for this is because unlike the 4 Major ABC belts, The Ring does not force people to fight for their belt. As far as i know you can win the belt and then hold the Ring belt for as long as you want fighting as many bums as you like without having to face the best contender, no mandatory defenses or anything.
Surely it's not a real assessment of who is the lineal champion if someone can win the belt and not have to fight the nearest contender ever again.
A prime example of how it fails is the Welterweight division right now. If they made a mandatory defense of the Ring belt, say once a year, then we would have a better idea of who is the recognised Welterweight lineal champion. But instead we have Berto with the WBC, Mosley with the WBA, a pretty much Vacant IBF (who is Isaac Hlatshwayo??), Cotto with the WBO and a vacant Ring belt. All of which who are all not willing to fight each other. Not to mention two of the P4P best Pacquiao and Mayweather who don't hold belts.
It would sort out the men from the boys and would sort out ducking of each fighter as it would be a mandatory defense of/fight for the title against the No. 2/Top 2 in the ratings. After the two big fights coming up (providing the results go the way we think they will go) there will be Pac and Mayweather at No.1 and No. 2 in the ratings. The Ring could then sanction a fight between the two and that would sort it all out, rather than both of those fighters arguing about who gets the most money. After they fight there will be a champion of Welterweight and they could then fight Mosley or whoever is No. 2 after then.
Is this unreasonable or am i just rambling because i'm bored?
First of all, a lot of the divisions right now don't have a champion if you look at their ratings. The main problem for this is because unlike the 4 Major ABC belts, The Ring does not force people to fight for their belt. As far as i know you can win the belt and then hold the Ring belt for as long as you want fighting as many bums as you like without having to face the best contender, no mandatory defenses or anything.
Surely it's not a real assessment of who is the lineal champion if someone can win the belt and not have to fight the nearest contender ever again.
A prime example of how it fails is the Welterweight division right now. If they made a mandatory defense of the Ring belt, say once a year, then we would have a better idea of who is the recognised Welterweight lineal champion. But instead we have Berto with the WBC, Mosley with the WBA, a pretty much Vacant IBF (who is Isaac Hlatshwayo??), Cotto with the WBO and a vacant Ring belt. All of which who are all not willing to fight each other. Not to mention two of the P4P best Pacquiao and Mayweather who don't hold belts.
It would sort out the men from the boys and would sort out ducking of each fighter as it would be a mandatory defense of/fight for the title against the No. 2/Top 2 in the ratings. After the two big fights coming up (providing the results go the way we think they will go) there will be Pac and Mayweather at No.1 and No. 2 in the ratings. The Ring could then sanction a fight between the two and that would sort it all out, rather than both of those fighters arguing about who gets the most money. After they fight there will be a champion of Welterweight and they could then fight Mosley or whoever is No. 2 after then.
Is this unreasonable or am i just rambling because i'm bored?
.
Comment