The Silliness of the Alphabet Gangs
Current WBA middleweight rankings
Super Champ-Sturm
World Champ-Golovkin
Interim Champ-N'Jikam
1. AVTANDIL KHURTSIDZE GEO
2. SEBASTIAN ZBIK GER
3. MATTHEW MACKLIN U.K
4. ANDY LEE (NABA) IRE
5. MARTIN MURRAY (WBA I/C) U.K
6. FERNANDO GUERRERO D.R.
7. DARREN BARKER U.K.
8. MATT KOROBOV RUS
9. KASSIM OUMA UGA
10. JULIEN MARIE SAINTE FRA
Current WBC Middleweight Rankings
Diamond belt Champ-Sergio Martinez
Champion-Julio Cesar Chavez jr
Marco Antonio Rubio (Mexico)
Sebastian Zbik (Germany)
Darren Barker (GB) BBB C/EBU
David Lemieux (Canada) INTL
Dionisio Miranda (Colombia) AMERICA
Peter Manfredo Jr. (US)
Andy Lee (Ireland) NABF
Billi Facundo Godoy (Argentina)
Koji Sato (Japan) OPBF
Domenico Spada (Italy)
David Medina (US)
Jorge Sebastian Heiland (Argentina)
Nobuhiro Ishida (Japan)
Osumanu Adama (Ghana)
Grzegorz Proksa (Poland)
IBF Middleweight Rankings
Champ-Daniel Gaele
Sebastian Sylvester Germany
Anthony Mundine Australia
Cory Spinks United States
Darren Barker United Kingdom
Peter Manfredo, Jr United States
Roman Karmazin Russian Federation
Benjamin Simon Germany
Sam Soliman Australia
Osumanu Adama United States
Noe Gonzalez Uruguay
WBO Middleweight Rankings
Champ-Dmitry Pirog
1 Gennady Martirosyan ARM
2 Andy Lee IRE
3 Maksym Bursak (Int-Cont) UKR
4 Mathew Macklin GB
5 Fernando Guerrero DR
6 Marco Antonio Rubio MEX
7 Daniel Jacobs USA
8 Darren Barker GB
9 Nobuhiro Ishida JPN
10 Sebastian Sylvester GER
Now as near as I can figure this means we currently have SEVEN men who can claim to be middleweight champion. Hell we only had seven middleweight champions in the two decades between 1968 and 1987! No WONDER the casual fan can't figure out what's what and throws up there hands.
We also have over THIRTY middleweights who can claim to be ranked by one or another of these joke organizations. Think about that next time you grow concerned about a fighter needing to make a "mandatory" defense.
These organizations are utter frauds, there belts are promotional tools, not signs of accomplishment and they should never be referred to except as sources of material for humor or ridicule.
Re: The Silliness of the Alphabet Gangs
I hope more boxers stand up and say they don't want to pay the fees to fight for these BS belts. We need just one belt per division in boxing. As a start they should get rid of the multiple belts in the same division from the same organization.
Re: The Silliness of the Alphabet Gangs
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MMASUX
I hope more boxers stand up and say they don't want to pay the fees to fight for these BS belts. We need just one belt per division in boxing. As a start they should get rid of the multiple belts in the same division from the same organization.
Yup. Sergio Martinez is the 160 king regardless of what any alphabet gang says.
And how long before Wald gets stripped by somebody for not fighting "THEIR" mandatory?
Then some other joker will be calling himself a heavyweight champ.
Somebody shoot me!
Re: The Silliness of the Alphabet Gangs
I stopped looking at the alphabet ratings 10 or so years ago
The Ring ratings are the only ones I go by now
Re: The Silliness of the Alphabet Gangs
To be fair to the IBO, they have a pretty solid way of ranking fighters.
The problem with all these straps is that they really have no way of defining themselves past the colour of their belts. I mean as we all know things weren't always so bad, it takes fighters and promoters alike to give fuel to this descending maddening of the boxing world. I mean really, it takes nothing to attempt to establish a new sanctioning body yet it takes fighters and promoters to give it credence.
Here's an idea? I'm not fully versed in the business of boxing but from my perspective, it's almost tragic irony that (for example) the IBF is only regarded as a mere promotional tool because if you look at say UFC (essentially a promotion AND a sanctioning body), which only forms and tiny, tiny part of the wider MMA market yet has managed to stand out through GREAT marketing and direction, you can see how the IBF (for example) could stand out past the colour of it's flashy-flash Red belt.
I'm not entirely comfortable with going by what a magazine says, I mean I have full respect for the magazine but it is just as corruptible as any sanctioning body. Their P4P rankings already have my disapproval, a mere popularity contest IMO.
Re: The Silliness of the Alphabet Gangs
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jimanuel Boogustus
To be fair to the IBO, they have a pretty solid way of ranking fighters.
The problem with all these straps is that they really have no way of defining themselves past the colour of their belts. I mean as we all know things weren't always so bad, it takes fighters and promoters alike to give fuel to this descending maddening of the boxing world. I mean really, it takes nothing to attempt to establish a new sanctioning body yet it takes fighters and promoters to give it credence.
Here's an idea? I'm not fully versed in the business of boxing but from my perspective, it's almost tragic irony that (for example) the IBF is only regarded as a mere promotional tool because if you look at say UFC (essentially a promotion AND a sanctioning body), which only forms and tiny, tiny part of the wider MMA market yet has managed to stand out through GREAT marketing and direction, you can see how the IBF (for example) could stand out past the colour of it's flashy-flash Red belt.
I'm not entirely comfortable with going by what a magazine says, I mean I have full respect for the magazine but it is just as corruptible as any sanctioning body. Their P4P rankings already have my disapproval, a mere popularity contest IMO.
The IBO? Really? They don't rank any of the "champions" in their rankings at all. Their 160 champ is some guy named Khurtzide from the Ukraine who has beaten, well, absolutely nobody I've ever heard of. I get the attraction of a computerized rankings (what boxrec does as well) but unless I can see the formula? I have no way of judging whether it makes any sense. I haven't seen the IBO formula (if you know where to find it I'd love to see it) and the boxrec one has some really arbitrary elements to it.
I fundamentally disgaree with the bold for several reasons
1) Ring Magazine only recognizes six champions at the moment. Wlad, BHOP, Sergio, JMM, Wonjonkam and Segura. Exclusivity is a plus in my view!
2) Ring has ZERO financial interests in who is a champion or that there are champions at at all. They don't make money by sanctioning fights. So they have no built in incentive to create BS champs.
3) While it is owned by Oscar, thus far there is ZERO reason to believe Golden Boy's financial interests have imposed a view on Ring's editorial content. It is something to keep an eye on. But they also have an awfully good advisory group.
4) How exactly are Ring's p4p rankings "a popularity contest?" Those decisions are made by the Ring editors same as other rankings. And p4p doesn't carry any real weight in any case nor do they infringe on Ring's divisional rankings.
Re: The Silliness of the Alphabet Gangs
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jimanuel Boogustus
To be fair to the IBO, they have a pretty solid way of ranking fighters.
The problem with all these straps is that they really have no way of defining themselves past the colour of their belts. I mean as we all know things weren't always so bad, it takes fighters and promoters alike to give fuel to this descending maddening of the boxing world. I mean really, it takes nothing to attempt to establish a new sanctioning body yet it takes fighters and promoters to give it credence.
Here's an idea? I'm not fully versed in the business of boxing but from my perspective, it's almost tragic irony that (for example) the IBF is only regarded as a mere promotional tool because if you look at say UFC (essentially a promotion AND a sanctioning body), which only forms and tiny, tiny part of the wider MMA market yet has managed to stand out through GREAT marketing and direction, you can see how the IBF (for example) could stand out past the colour of it's flashy-flash Red belt.
I'm not entirely comfortable with going by what a magazine says, I mean I have full respect for the magazine but it is just as corruptible as any sanctioning body. Their P4P rankings already have my disapproval, a mere popularity contest IMO.
Although not bombproof - some of the Ring's current ratings are out of kilter because they IGNORED their own boxing history - just compare those alphabet middleweight rankings with The Rings' current top 10?
Sergio Martinez
Felix Sturm
Daniel Geale
Paul Williams
Matthew Macklin
Sebastian Sylvester
Julio Cesar Chavez Jr.
Sebastian Zbik
Dmitry Pirog
Hassan N'Dam N'Jikam
Marco Antonio Rubio
This list is far more realistic than any above.
Re: The Silliness of the Alphabet Gangs
I'm not sure anyone apart from us boxing nerds take the Ring title seriously. Certainly not British broadcasters "educating" millions of casuals.
Get this - when Nathan Cleverly defended the WBO light-heavyweight title, which he didn't even win in the ring, against Aleksy Kuziemski (yes.. who?), Ian Darke proudly hailed him as Wales FIRST ever light-heavyweight world champion.
Yet Joe Calzaghe, who beat Hopkins for The Ring lightheavy title, was sitting in the studio. And had already mentioned that night how proud he was to become a TWO weight world champion.
So for Darke/Sky the Ring title certainly didn't mean a thing. Even though Calzaghe had beaten a man that was universally recognised as no.1 at the time. Madness.
Re: The Silliness of the Alphabet Gangs
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
1) Ring Magazine only recognizes six champions at the moment. Wlad, BHOP, Sergio, JMM, Wonjonkam and Segura. Exclusivity is a plus in my view!
I never knew that! Actually, that is a great idea which makes a LOT of sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
2) Ring has ZERO financial interests in who is a champion or that there are champions at at all. They don't make money by sanctioning fights. So they have no built in incentive to create BS champs.
3) While it is owned by Oscar, thus far there is ZERO reason to believe Golden Boy's financial interests have imposed a view on Ring's editorial content. It is something to keep an eye on. But they also have an awfully good advisory group.
Again, I'm merely saying that I am uncomfortable with the idea of using a magazine which is just as corruptible (not corrupt) as any other body. I have no problem with the Magazine at this present moment but If the ring magazine comes to represent the overall ruling opinion of boxing then that is a huge worry for me simply because the Ring Magazine is still at a safe distance from boxing and so there really is no way of knowing if their could or would be any financial/ promotional interests.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
4) How exactly are Ring's p4p rankings "a popularity contest?"
Simply because they are far to subjective with no definitive criteria to be even remotely credible. The fact that a semi-shot fighter like Marquez is still ranked no.4 yet Robert Guerrero isn't even in the top 10 kinda speaks for it's self.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
And p4p doesn't carry any real weight in any case nor do they infringe on Ring's divisional rankings.
I think that P4P 'carries weight' were promoting a fighter is concerned. Fighters seem to REALLY give a shit where they are ranked. And as far as I can see, it just seems to be a fancy collection of champions. Nothing to do with celebrating skill that transcends weightclass.
If the Ring becomes boxing's overall ruling opinion, then this becomes a concern for me.
Re: The Silliness of the Alphabet Gangs
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jimanuel Boogustus
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
1) Ring Magazine only recognizes six champions at the moment. Wlad, BHOP, Sergio, JMM, Wonjonkam and Segura. Exclusivity is a plus in my view!
I never knew that! Actually, that is a great idea which makes a LOT of sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
2) Ring has ZERO financial interests in who is a champion or that there are champions at at all. They don't make money by sanctioning fights. So they have no built in incentive to create BS champs.
3) While it is owned by Oscar, thus far there is ZERO reason to believe Golden Boy's financial interests have imposed a view on Ring's editorial content. It is something to keep an eye on. But they also have an awfully good advisory group.
Again, I'm merely saying that I am uncomfortable with the idea of using a magazine which is just as
corruptible (not corrupt) as any other body. I have no problem with the Magazine at this present moment but If the ring magazine comes to represent the overall ruling opinion of boxing then that is a huge worry for me simply because the Ring Magazine is still at a safe distance from boxing and so there really is no way of knowing if their could or would be any financial/ promotional interests.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
4) How exactly are Ring's p4p rankings "a popularity contest?"
Simply because they are far to subjective with no definitive criteria to be even remotely credible. The fact that a semi-shot fighter like Marquez is still ranked no.4 yet Robert Guerrero isn't even in the top 10 kinda speaks for it's self.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
And p4p doesn't carry any real weight in any case nor do they infringe on Ring's divisional rankings.
I think that P4P 'carries weight' were promoting a fighter is concerned. Fighters seem to REALLY give a shit where they are ranked. And as far as I can see, it just seems to be a fancy collection of champions. Nothing to do with celebrating skill that transcends weightclass.
If the Ring becomes boxing's overall ruling opinion, then this becomes a concern for me.
Ring Magazine was boxing's "Ruling Opinion" for sixty or so years in rnakings from 1924-about 1985 or so. Seems to me those years were ok for the sport.
If not Ring then WHO?
