222379 Bullies, 4190 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 11 to 18 of 18
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. atomicpoet is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    876

    Posted On:
    3/14/2013 11:30am


     Style: Western Boxing, Tai Chi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Krijgsman View Post
    I came to combat sports through MMA more than boxing, and all the organizations and **** in boxing confuse me mightily and seem incredibly corrupt. Its sad, since boxing is so bad-ass.
    The only sanctioning body I care about is the IBO, and only because they use computerized rankings.

    Other than that, I pay organizations no heed.


    Quote Originally Posted by lordbd
    Chad Dawson as a true champion? Didn't he lose to Pascal and Ward and barely squeak past Hopkins?
    This is true, so let me explain why Dawson is a true champion.

    In 2010, Jean Pascal and Chad Dawson were regarded unanimously as the #1 and #2 at light heavyweight. Therefore, the lineal championship was up for grabs. Pascal beat Dawson thereby becoming the lineal and true champion.

    (Consequently, since this was before RING Magazine's editorial team was sacked by Golden Boy, the RING belt was also up for grabs. As recently as 2012, the RING belt was synonymous with the lineal championship.)

    Then in 2011, Bernard Hopkins beat Jean Pascal and became the lineal champion at light heavyweight.

    Hopkins then fought Dawson, and Dawson barely beat Hopkins. This win, nevertheless, made him the lineal champion.

    Dawson decided afterwards that he wanted to become the lineal champion at super middleweight too, so he moved down and fought Andre Ward. Ward beat Dawson ensuring that he'd remain champion at super middleweight.

    Because Ward-Dawson was at super middleweight, not light heavyweight, Dawson remains champion at light heavyweight.
  2. ChuckWepner is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Chicago / Michigan
    Posts
    391

    Posted On:
    3/14/2013 11:39am


     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by atomicpoet View Post
    This used to be the case. Until recently, the RING belt was synonymous with being the lineal champion.

    But then Golden Boy Promotions bought out RING Magazine, fired the staff, and lowered their standards. Now they award the RING belt to any two fighters ranked within #1-5 in the RING Rankings.
    This is not accurate. If there is an existing champion, he keeps the belt unless someone beats him, or he is idle for over 18 months, or he leaves the weight class, or he tests positive for banned substances. If a champ is stripped, moves up, or retires, and the title is vacant, then #1 and #2 fight for the belt. If #1 and #2 don't fight, then Ring has the option of recognizing the winner of a fight among two top 5 contenders as the belt holder.

    Only the last part is new, and while it does open the door to occasional temporary weaker champions, it is arguably better than frequent, lengthy vacancies. Given how often lower weight titlists move out of weight class, the ideal of the lineal belt holder is not achievable anyway.

    And just who decides who should be ranked? One man. That's right, one man named Chuck Giampa who's most famous for screwing up his ShoBox debut in epic fashion.
    Chuck Giampa was a very well-known and widely respected boxing judge for decades before he turned out not to be a successful announcer. He does not set the rankings alone but rather he does so in consultation with the Ring Editorial Board.

    This is a major step backwards from having a ranking panel.

    Sounds like a mess, right? Well fear not!

    The old RING team, along with several esteemed journalists, have re-organized and created the Transnational Boxing Ratings — a ratings body that has enacted the old RING standards for designating lineal champions. If you're curious about who's on the Transnational Boxing Rating Board, here's a list of all the current members.

    By the way, I do think titles have value but I think it should be assumed that pro boxing only has 5 real champions:

    • Chad Dawson
    • Andre Ward
    • Sergio Martinez
    • Nonito Donaire
    • Toshiyuki Igarashi


    Everyone else with a world title is simply a titlist, not a champion.
    We'll see whether the new group becomes accepted by the two crucial groups: the fans and the fighters. As of now, the Ring belts are still the most legitimate belts.

    BTW, what grounds do you have for rejecting the legitimacy of the Ring belts of champions who the TBRB hasn't yet recognized? If someone has defended a belt that was legitimate before the recent changes without losing, do the policies of the magazine delegitimize his belt?

    No, the WBA Super belt is also red, white, blue, and gold.
    I didn't say that the Ring belt was the only one in those colors. If I say that the only true US flag is red, white, and blue, would you respond, "No, the French flag is too"?
    Last edited by ChuckWepner; 3/14/2013 11:49am at .
  3. atomicpoet is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    876

    Posted On:
    3/14/2013 11:50am


     Style: Western Boxing, Tai Chi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Azatdawn View Post
    You think neither Vitali nor Wladimir Klitschko are champions?
    Both men are world titlists. However, I personally believe championship status should be inarguable, so I hesitate to say that either man is the true champion.

    Either way, both men have a lineal championship claim.

    Vitali claimed the lineal championship in 2004 when he defeated Corrie Sanders. However, he retired in 2005 and did not return to action until 2008 when he claimed the WBC title from Samuel Peter.

    From this point onwards, things get fuzzy. Was Vitali Klitschko still lineal champion, or should we pay heed to his retirement? Remember Jack Dempsey didn't fight between 1923-1926 yet Dempsey is unanimously considered the lineal champion during that period.

    If you think Vitali's retirement counts, then it's hard to say that Vitali was the clear #1 or #2 between 2008-2009. Sultan Ibragimov clearly worked his way up to #2 and faced off against clear #1 Wladimir Klitschko.

    Assuming that Wladimir Klitschko and Sultan Ibragimov were #1 and #2 respectfully, one could conceivably say that Wladimir is the lineal champion since he won his fight against against Ibragimov. This was RING Magazine's argument for awarding Wladimir the RING belt.

    However, even if both fighters have a lineal championship claim, it doesn't really matter. Both fighters are the best. They will never fight each other because they're brothers nor should they.

    I therefore believe that this era is the only era where a heavyweight champion doesn't really matter. When Vitali retires, Wladimir will become the universally acknowledged lineal champion anyway.
  4. atomicpoet is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    876

    Posted On:
    3/14/2013 12:07pm


     Style: Western Boxing, Tai Chi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by ChuckWepner View Post
    If #1 and #2 don't fight, then Ring has the option of recognizing the winner of a fight among two top 5 contenders as the belt holder.
    And in what conditions do you think RING Magazine will recognize two of the top 5 contenders? And don't you think there's a conflict of interest owing to the fact that RING Magazine is owned by Golden Boy Promotions?

    Quote Originally Posted by ChuckWepner View Post
    Given how often lower weight titlists move out of weight class, the ideal of the lineal belt holder is not achievable anyway.
    This is not true. The flyweight division has had a lineal champion since 2000. Pongsaklek Wonjongkam was the lineal champion twice: once after defeating Malcolm Tunacao, and once after defeating Koki Kameda.


    Quote Originally Posted by ChuckWepner View Post
    Chuck Giampa was a very well-known and widely respected boxing judge for decades before he turned out not to be a successful announcer. He does not set the rankings alone but rather he does so in consultation with the Ring Editorial Board.
    Doug Fischer has gone on record as saying that the current RING rankings are really just Chuck Giampa's ratings. He's also stated that the majority of the RING advisory panel disagreed with Adrien Broner being ranked #5 on the P4P list, but Giampa overruled them anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChuckWepner View Post
    We'll see whether the new group becomes accepted by the two crucial groups: the fans and the fighters. As of now, the Ring belts are still the most legitimate belts.
    There's been massive backlash against Golden Boy essentially destroying RING Magazine's reputation. The moment they fired Nigel Collins as editor-in-chief was coincidentally also the moment that they lowered their standards.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChuckWepner View Post
    BTW, what grounds do you have for rejecting the legitimacy of the Ring belts of champions who the TBRB hasn't yet recognized?
    Let's take a look at the featherweight division. They put the RING belt on the line for Mikey Garcia vs. Orlando Salido.

    There's just one problem with that. According to RING Magazine's own ratings Chris John was the #1 featherweight. In fact, Chris John's been the #1 featherweight since beating Juan Manuel Marquez back in 2006.

    How can the winner of Garcia-Salido be the champion when RING Magazine ignores their own #1-ranked featherweight?

    Quote Originally Posted by ChuckWepner View Post
    If someone has defended a belt that was legitimate before the recent changes without losing, do the policies of the magazine delegitimize his belt?
    No, because the standards for them winning the belt was that the #1 fought the #2.
  5. Azatdawn is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Lower Franconia
    Posts
    969

    Posted On:
    3/14/2013 12:40pm


     Style: Thaiboxing; MMA nb

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by atomicpoet View Post
    Explanation.
    Interesting perspective, thanks.
  6. Eddie Hardon is offline

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,483

    Posted On:
    3/15/2013 11:33am


     Style: Trad Ju Jitsu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I still religiously (every month) buy The Ring and have been for 30 years or more. The catalyst was when I was 13 years old and the neighbours moved out and left every edition of The Ring from 1950 to 1960. I read the lot. Sadly, my brothers and sisters drew pictures all of them (all were younger than me) and tore them sooo our Mum threw them in the rubbish bin. Blimey.

    Anyway, I also remember the 1980s when The Ring Ratings were subborned because the compiler was accepting Bribes over a protracted period. It look a long time to recover from that.

    I thought it was about the best looking belt hence my recommendation of The Lonsdale Belt. It really is the best in boxing and you have to win 3 times to own one outright, for example, winning the British Championship and 2 successful defences.

    By the way, Damino - hahaha - awarded the WAA Belt at the time that Tyson was his rampaging best and WORLD champ. Even now it's amusing.
  7. ChuckWepner is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Chicago / Michigan
    Posts
    391

    Posted On:
    3/15/2013 4:35pm


     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by atomicpoet View Post
    And in what conditions do you think RING Magazine will recognize two of the top 5 contenders? And don't you think there's a conflict of interest owing to the fact that RING Magazine is owned by Golden Boy Promotions?
    There's no question that there is a major potential for conflict of interest. I agree that the situation sucks, but the Ring belts are still more legit than the alphabet soup organization belts for a litany of reasons, especially including how they choose mandatories, the bogus reasons for which they strip titles, the fact that their rankings are often obviously wildly at odds with real-world records of fighters, the fact that their rankings are tainted by fees, and the bizarre ways that some of them hold being recognized by other sanctioning bodies against fighters in their own rankings (not to mention all the more particular scandals.

    I agree that the TBRB *ought* to be taken very seriously, given its membership, and I hope that it (or something similar) can play a role like The Ring has. As of now, though, it doesn't yet. And it won't until fighters in general care at least as much about winning the recognition of the TBRB as champion as they do about the belts from The Ring and the sanctioning bodies (and this is conveyed to the fans).

    For now, the Ring belts are the most legit we have.

    This is not true. The flyweight division has had a lineal champion since 2000. Pongsaklek Wonjongkam was the lineal champion twice: once after defeating Malcolm Tunacao, and once after defeating Koki Kameda.
    My point isn't that there is never a temporary "lineal" (in an extended or weaker sense) champion. My point is that the ideal of the lineal champion, that the champion is the man who beat the man who beat the man ... , is never truly achieved, because champions retire without losing their title, leave their championship weight classes permanently, get stripped, etc. Having #1 fight #2 to fill a vacancy is already not having a true or ideal lineal champion.

    Because there are so many weight classes now, movement between classes is inevitable, with accompanying vacant titles. And given how complicated it has become to make fights between top fighters in many cases, #1 vs #2 fights are often not workable, especially since Ring (or TBRB for that matter) has no financial or legal means to pressure fighters into taking a fight if their promoter or the sanctioning bodies are pushing them in another direction. So, you had better have a very high tolerance for vacant championships if you want to insist on #1 vs. #2.

    Doug Fischer has gone on record as saying that the current RING rankings are really just Chuck Giampa's ratings. He's also stated that the majority of the RING advisory panel disagreed with Adrien Broner being ranked #5 on the P4P list, but Giampa overruled them anyway.
    These 2 claims contradict each other. If Giampa "really just" does them by himself, how does he have to "overrule" others involved in ranking?

    Again, though, I agree that eliminating the outside ranking panel sucks and damages the credibility of the belts.

    Let's take a look at the featherweight division. They put the RING belt on the line for Mikey Garcia vs. Orlando Salido.

    There's just one problem with that. According to RING Magazine's own ratings Chris John was the #1 featherweight. In fact, Chris John's been the #1 featherweight since beating Juan Manuel Marquez back in 2006.

    How can the winner of Garcia-Salido be the champion when RING Magazine ignores their own #1-ranked featherweight?
    Yeah, that's a particularly bad one. John is a future Hall of Famer. Garcia is an excellent fighter, but it's very hard to justify his leap-frogging John.
  8. lordbd is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Shelton, CT
    Posts
    878

    Posted On:
    3/16/2013 1:36am


     Style: Western Boxing/Iron Palm

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Because Ward-Dawson was at super middleweight, not light heavyweight, Dawson remains champion at light heavyweight.
    Wouldnt Dawson have vacated his title to compete for a title at a different weight? Or do the Ring titles not work that way?
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.