Re: Ring Magazine on the Road to Sanity
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli
Did Nigel really ask that dumb ass question ? Probally why I have not purchased an issue in 2 + years
Sounds like they want cover for a decision they've already come to. I am happy to help give air cover.
I guess they have regressed or giving into group think in regards to mentioning alphabet soup. I remember an issue in which they made a 'mission statement' of sorts as to why they stopped listing the 3 bodies rankings and I.D ing them in own rankings a number of years ago. I can't envision anyone taking exception to them dropping them let alone to them giving merit to that silly "Super-mega-ultra" Champion stuff.
Re: Ring Magazine on the Road to Sanity
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli
Did Nigel really ask that dumb ass question ? Probally why I have not purchased an issue in 2 + years
Sounds like they want cover for a decision they've already come to. I am happy to help give air cover.
I guess they have regressed or giving into group think in regards to mentioning alphabet soup. I remember an issue in which they made a 'mission statement' of sorts as to why they stopped listing the 3 bodies rankings and I.D ing them in own rankings a number of years ago. I can't envision anyone taking exception to them dropping them let alone to them giving merit to that silly "Super-mega-ultra" Champion stuff.
Yeah I don't know anybody who follows the official rankings of the alphabets. I don't even know who holds what belts let alone who is the IBF top 10 at 140 say. It's of no importance to hardly anyone, the Ring rankings have always been where it's at.
This is why it baffles me when peoplle suddenly treat a belt as if it's a holy, sacred item of unimaginable prestige. Berto musn't be allowed to fight for the IBF belt after coming off a loss! Manny cannot claim a 154 lb title at a catchweight of 150!! Alvavrez should never have been allowed to fight for a belt and be champ.
Really, what does it matter? Nobody pays attention the organisations anyway, they are just there to give a title and some recognition to the top fighters of the moment.
I like the alphabets for that reason. Every sportsman who dedicates 20 odd years amatuer and pro to his craft wants to be able to wins things. All other sports have dozens of trophies, competitions etc up for grabs, and boxing follows suits with 4 titles in each weight class, thus giving the thousands of professional boxers out there the hope of fighting for something meaningful, even if it's not accepted as such by the fans. The fans in boxing have a very self centred approach to their sport imo.
Re: Ring Magazine on the Road to Sanity
They have their entertainment value Bilbo. Sort of like watching a pig farmer wear a blindfold & sort random heads then demand the 1st lb. In fantasy land the orginizations would keep it literal and have number one meet the champ and rankings below meet in eliminations to earn way to top. If your ranked # 10 for Christ sake you should at least defeat a SINGLE guy ranked ahead of you to earn a shot. But the networks would hate that and its not like we fans actually want to see fighters we've never heard of more than once on HBO anyway. I think HBO and Showtime have tunnel vision, and we drink the kool aid.
They 'can' matter but yes, having a belt used to mean something. As it should. Just because its common now to hand them out like door prizes doesn't mean fans aren't right to call bullshit on it when they see it.
Re: Ring Magazine on the Road to Sanity
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli
They have their entertainment value Bilbo. Sort of like watching a pig farmer wear a blindfold & sort random heads then demand the 1st lb. In fantasy land the orginizations would keep it literal and have number one meet the champ and rankings below meet in eliminations to earn way to top. If your ranked # 10 for Christ sake you should at least defeat a SINGLE guy ranked ahead of you to earn a shot. But the networks would hate that and its not like we fans actually want to see fighters we've never heard of more than once on HBO anyway. I think HBO and Showtime have tunnel vision, and we drink the kool aid.
They 'can' matter but yes, having a belt used to mean something. As it should. Just because its common now to hand them out like door prizes doesn't mean fans aren't right to call bullshit on it when they see it.
With 4 belts you simply can't have the best ranked fighters fighting for each belt as it would be the same guys ranked the same in each organisation.
I think of each organisation seperately, just like in MMA. So Cain Valesquez is the UFC world champ whilst Allister Overeem is the Strikeforce world champ. Actually I think he just got injured and stripped but the point remains. Two world champs, two different organisations.
Well boxing's roster is probably 100 times bigger than the UFC. There are probably 250 UFC contracted fighters and maybe 100 in Strikforce versus maybe 10,000 pro boxers so as the contention rate is much lower 1:1500 per weight class vs maybe 1:100 in the UFC and Strikeforce they have 4 orgainisations instead of two.
It's no problem to me. Considering the welterweight division has 1483 boxers in it (boxrec) and the UFC has maybe 63 fighters in it's welterweight division then even with 4 belts it's still far harder to win a world title in boxing than it is in the UFC.
Fans seem to ignore this. A sportsman who is dedicating his life to his sport wants to have belts, trophies, etc to aim for. Having 4 organisations gives hope to more pro's that one day they can fight for and win a world title and probably keeps them in the sport.
They are not bad for boxing, rather they are necessary for boxing.
Re: Ring Magazine on the Road to Sanity
I could be all wrong about this, but as flawed as they are, for the most part I don't have a problem with the "alphabet titles". It gives more Pugs a chance to pick up a strap, and titles translate to money and prestige getting spread around.
I also don't like the idea of "Ring" being able to call all the shots, sorry Marb, I disagree with you on this one, and agree more with Bilbo.
Re: Ring Magazine on the Road to Sanity
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mars_ax
I could be all wrong about this, but as flawed as they are, for the most part I don't have a problem with the "alphabet titles". It gives more Pugs a chance to pick up a strap, and titles translate to money and prestige getting spread around.
I also don't like the idea of "Ring" being able to call all the shots, sorry Marb, I disagree with you on this one, and agree more with Bilbo.
Damn, I was really getting into this and ready to go another 12 rounds :(:p
That is a big point though. One champ, one weight class is an incredibly small allocation of reward for success. It means of the 10,000 or so current pro boxers 9900 will never have a chance at anything.
With those odds, I'd pick a different sport to participate in.
If professional MMA continues to grow they will experience the same problem down the line too. When there are a few thousand pro MMA fighters the UFC will lose its monopoly as most fighters will be unhappy to be fighting for nothing and new organisations will be formed and become more appealing.
Maui believes alphabets are responsible for a decline in boxing I disagree. I think they are a necessary response to an increased number of professionals in the sport. Maybe PPV has damaged boxing as the big fights are't on terrestrial tv any more. You can't be household names when you aren't being showcased in the household, and that means terrestrial free tv available to all.
Also I take issue with the idea the big fights are prevented from being made because of the alphabet titles. Do we have any examples of this? I think they are make the big fights MORE likely to happen as one guy has something to offer the other guy.
Maui is living in an imagined past and has totally lost touch with boxing reality.
Re: Ring Magazine on the Road to Sanity
Alphabets don't honor they're own order. I stopped relying on them when they were ranking challengers 2a and 2b with number one spot vacant in regards to Jones jr at one point. They have more flexibility and more massaging than a cat house in the Philippines. Its a more the merrier mentality. Either have number 1 mean something, with eliminations or just put the names in a hat...ask the network who they approve...and tell the fans this is more popularity than it is at the time merit.
What is a belt to be 'offered' if they are so prevalent and passed around? Are you fighting to hold up shiny objects or to have the best fight the best? A toddler gets the same satisfaction when he has the bigger set of plastic keys on a colorful ring.
I love the concept of the Ring rankings but have yet to determine how much of an influence its new owner...Golden Boy Enterprises among others...has on its rankings knowing that GBP is a major promotional company. Then again they did recognize Morrand Hakkar as a worthy challenger for its prestigious belt vs Hopkins moons ago even though he was a sub & not ranked in the Rings top 10. They are not perfect.
Re: Ring Magazine on the Road to Sanity
I think getting rid of the alphabets and having one champion and one set of rankings per weight class would do phenomenal good for the sport. Hard to see how anyone wouldn't see it that way.
Re: Ring Magazine on the Road to Sanity
Quote:
Originally Posted by
VictorCharlie
I think getting rid of the alphabets and having one champion and one set of rankings per weight class would do phenomenal good for the sport. Hard to see how anyone wouldn't see it that way.
I don't, causal people don't care about fights that are not for the championship. Just look at other sports and notice how the viewing goes up during the finals. That's why you always hear the announcer spout off the belts the fighter has had rather than just the one he has. Including the minor stuff if that is all he has. Selling a fight is easier if there is a belt on the line.
Re: Ring Magazine on the Road to Sanity
Quote:
Originally Posted by
VictorCharlie
I think getting rid of the alphabets and having one champion and one set of rankings per weight class would do phenomenal good for the sport. Hard to see how anyone wouldn't see it that way.
It's totally unrealistic and unfair. Do you also belive that the banking elite should be paid millions in bonuses whilst the cashiers get a minimum wage?
Your view relates purely to the perspective of the fan and takes no account of those actually getting inside the ropes and fighting, or their trainers, managers, promoters etc.
If you were a promising young athletic youth considering which sport to get into why would you choose boxing if their was only one title per weight class? With over 10,000 current pro boxers and one title per weight class what would be the realistic chances of you fighting for titles? Now contrast that with all other sports that offer a myriad of competitions and events, then what is the appeal of boxing exactly?
The way to look at it is this. The belts are not there to reward you, the fan. Rather they are there to ensure that more fighters can fight for something meaningful, get television exposure and earn some money in the sport they have dedicated their life to.
It seems so bizarre to me that when it comes to society people are aghast at the disparity between rich and poor and deplore the fat cats and those taking everything.
Yet in boxing you want to take away the livelihoods of most of those who practice the sport you love, and whose blood and sweat entertains you.
The belts are functionally necessary.
Re: Ring Magazine on the Road to Sanity
Quote:
Originally Posted by
VictorCharlie
I think getting rid of the alphabets and having one champion and one set of rankings per weight class would do phenomenal good for the sport. Hard to see how anyone wouldn't see it that way.
Also, I hate you. I just clicked onto facebook having not yet seen the Strikeforce show and your post congratulating the winner was thhe top news story. :mad:
Last week, after being constantly let down by fight news services proclaiming me the fight results on facebook I finally unsubscribed from them all to avoid it happening in future.
I am a bitter man right now :-\
Re: Ring Magazine on the Road to Sanity
Dean Chance loves ya Bilbo :)
Re: Ring Magazine on the Road to Sanity
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
You are hung up on one single word, 'world'.
Titles are essential in sport. You're completely missing the point about Wimbledon. The whole two weeks is Wimbledon, the entire competition is the final. It's a knockout competition and so one single event.
Your preferred idea would be to scrap Wimbledon as an exciting knockout competition which allows even unrated players a chance to challenge for the title and just have the two highest seeded players play each other for the title of world tennis champion, with the 3 and 4 seeds battling for the right to play the champion next time.
That would be shit.
In tennis there are 4 grand slams, an official tour ranking and dozens of minor competitions. So somebody can be the US Open champion, or the Wimbledon champion, or be the number one rated player on the tour or the Rogers Cup champion.
Every time these guys play, it's in a competition for a prize of some sort.
Imagine they called the open winners world champions, and your little nose was put out of joint so you wanted them scrapped and the champion determined by who was the highest ranked player on the tour. Would that improve tennis? Of course not, it would ruin it.
Boxing is no different. You have fourmajor titles in each weight class, the IBF, WBC, WBA, WBO and a lot of minor ones, IBO, British, Commonwealth etc.
It's the same structure as any other sport, only you object to the word used 'world'.
Let me ask you, if instead of the world champion tag the belts were called 'IBF Major champ', or 'WBA Open champion' would that be better? My guess is that you don't mind the belts themselves, rather it's just your constant focusing on the single word 'world' that gets you all worked up.
A division with no belts would be shit. What would people be fighting for? There would be only two, at most 3 championship fights a year, sometimes none if the champ is inactive and a couple of eliminators.
How would you reward the best challengers? What would they have to distinguish them from everybody else? Currently they get a belt, which marks them out as one of the best fighters in the division, and someone a fighter must beat if they wish to claim the title of Ring champ. It's a good system.
Let's look at your Martinez argument. First of all, what fans are confused about whether he's the best fighter? It's a straw man argument because everyone knows Sergio Martinez is the best fighter in the division, which is why the Ring have him rated at one.
What about Sturm? Well his belt clearly marks him out as the best challenger, a man Martinez must beat if he wants to unify and become the Ring champ. Of Sturm also knows he must beat Martinez if he wants to be regarded the same.
It's not confusing, you know the true status of fighters in the middleweight division as well as I do. The idea that fans can't understand and think Chavez Jr is the best fighter is false.
What about Chavez Jr. Well as the son of a legend, and a very popular and undefeated fighter himself with a huge following, especially in Mexico, his belt marks him out as one of the best fighters too. That's a good thing. Guys like Chavez Jr and Saul Alvarez are GOOD for boxing. Ticket sellers, popular fighters who fans want to see. Giving them a belt helps market them and gives significance and context to their fights. It's entirely normal and how it is in every sport where any top sportsman is a champion of some sort. You need titles otherwise it's just people playing sport.
Do you object to the World Series by the way? Do you write and complain to your favourite baseball magazine that they stop it because world only means American and that the whole world thing is a sham? Should they scrap the world series to save baseball?
I think your argument is simply outdated, still living 30 years ago. We have moved on, IBF World champion doesnt' mean best fighter in the world and hasn't for decades. Just regard them as similar to being the US open champ or the US Masters champ and all is fine. Stop getting hung up on a single word, that hasn't meant what you believe it does in more than a generation.
Your approach has several problems. Most notably it flies in the face of what is actually happeninhg in the sports world.
First you assert people won't go to see jsut sports being played withoput some sort of title being on the line. Yet Saturday after Saturday millions of Amercians file into college football stadiums to watach games of no particular import. On Sundays they do the same to watch NFL games. Five days a week hundreds of thousands go to baseball games and three times a week they go to hockey and basketball games. The same must be true for Premier League Football. So much for that.
Second, if your theory is correct and the four belts do represent the desires of "the times?" Then "the Times" must be rewarding the sport with higher attendance at more events and more viewers watching more televised fights and more ranked fighters must be fighting more ranked fighters and the sport must be in a Golden Age.
Of course the exact opposite of the above is true. Fewer events, smaller crowds, fewer televised fights, fewer contender fighting contender fights and so on. Seems to me "the Times" are speaking as regards boxing.
And they are saying Phooey!
Re: Ring Magazine on the Road to Sanity
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Conrad
It's weird, I've always thought that the countless alphabets were bad for boxing as I felt it diluted the words 'world champion' somewhat. But the more I think about it the more I think Bilbo is right.
It doesn't really matter anymore how many world champions we have as we all pretty much know who's number 1 in each division thanks to The Ring.
I'm still undecided on whether the numerous belts get in the way of big fights happening though...
They do.
