Bet Price bangs him out early..... just got a gut feeling Price is gonna win this.
Printable View
Bet Price bangs him out early..... just got a gut feeling Price is gonna win this.
Number 1 and 3 are undefeated champions so it is meaningful. If AJ was a yank or signed up with GBP I am sure this would have enjoyed been for the Ring belt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Primo Carnera
Their argument made perfect sense. they don't want to give it to the #1 v #3 when #2 is fighting and active. they want to wait till Joshua fights Wilder. there's enough organisations giving out bullshit trinkets, they want this to be more meaningful.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterI was saying they should give it to the winner of AJ v Parker and not wait for AJ v Wilder.Quote:
Originally Posted by smashup
The way I see it, the Ring want their "Belt" to be for the stand out best guy in the division. So they don't see no.1 v no.3 being good enough, because they feel no.2 has a squeak of beating no.1.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterNumber 1 and 3 are undefeated champions so it is meaningful. If AJ was a yank or signed up with GBP I am sure this would have enjoyed been for the Ring belt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Primo CarneraTheir argument made perfect sense. they don't want to give it to the #1 v #3 when #2 is fighting and active. they want to wait till Joshua fights Wilder. there's enough organisations giving out bullshit trinkets, they want this to be more meaningful.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterI was saying they should give it to the winner of AJ v Parker and not wait for AJ v Wilder.Quote:
Originally Posted by smashup
How would you feel if they classed no.1 as Wilder and no. 3 as Ortiz and decided that would be for the Ring belt? It's not inconceivable and would be as equally unfair.
I think the only time The Ring has accepted #1 vs #3 for the championship was Wlad vs Chagaev. The old editor updated the championship policy, it will be interesting to see if Dougie revisits them and makes any changes.
Is this fight going to be on Showtime? I still haven't heard anything yet.
I thought AJ had a contract with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha
Yeah just seems strange nothing has been announced yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterI thought AJ had a contract with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha
Are his fights ppv there? Are Wilders?Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaYeah just seems strange nothing has been announced yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterI thought AJ had a contract with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha
No, it wasn't announced in the recent schedule with all those fights either last week. Although most of those were PBC fighters.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterAre his fights ppv there? Are Wilders?Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaYeah just seems strange nothing has been announced yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterI thought AJ had a contract with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha
Seems like it will be on Showtime, but I still haven't seen anything to that effect.
Here you go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha
http://www.boxingscene.com/anthony-j...owtime--124983
The Showtime deal is up after this fight, notice they didn't announce it's extended in that press release (which normally happens). Joshua must be going HBO after this, if not, the two firms must be in a serious bidding war.
If Ortiz chins Wilder there's gonna be a lot of sulking from the powers that be.
They're rated 2 and 5 so wouldn't make sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Primo Carnera
The 1 vs 3 can be for the Ring belt but in this scenario, where Wilder is clearly regarded as no.2, in his pomp, active and the most glamorous opponent for Joshua, it would have cheapened their status to award the title for the sake of it.
Yep, I think the only time 1 vs 3 has been for a Ring belt was Wlad/ Chagaev.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterThey're rated 2 and 5 so wouldn't make sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Primo Carnera
The 1 vs 3 can be for the Ring belt but in this scenario, where Wilder is clearly regarded as no.2, in his pomp, active and the most glamorous opponent for Joshua, it would have cheapened their status to award the title for the sake of it.
I think (traditionally) the Ring belt has been lineal. So, for example, when Mike Tyson had every other belt going, Micheal Spinks had the Ring 'belt' because he had beaten Holmes, who had beaten Ali, who had beaten Etc etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Primo Carnera
They have accepted lower ranked people before .... I think they set up the Marvin Hart v Jack Root fight for the World Heavyweight Title when James J Jeffries retired