-
Should Hatton ditch the IBO belt and just keep The Ring belt.
Dont know why he puts his good name to a second rate outfit like the IBO.
Most fight fans know that the Ring belt is the best guide to who are boxings true world champions.
-
Re: Should Hatton ditch the IBO belt and just keep The Ring belt.
Can't wait to see some of the responses you get for this one. ;D
-
Re: Should Hatton ditch the IBO belt and just keep The Ring belt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by porkypara
Dont know why he puts his good name to a second rate outfit like the IBO.
Most fight fans know that the Ring belt is the best guide to who are boxings true world champions.
Nobody gives a f*** about the IBO belt. But why bother dropping a belt that doesnt even require mandatories?
Purse money? Well, first of all the Hatton camp probably doesnt have to turn every penny, second of all the fans shouldnt care about this anyway. Legitimacy of belts? Long gone either way.
-
Re: Should Hatton ditch the IBO belt and just keep The Ring belt.
To say that the belt means nothing is a bit ridiculous.
He fought to get the belt & he was proud to earn it. People kill me with shit like this.
It's a long running arguement with the belts & their meanings but anyone that says belts mean nothing...you've probably never fought for one.
No offense. ;D
-
Re: Should Hatton ditch the IBO belt and just keep The Ring belt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by porkypara
Dont know why he puts his good name to a second rate outfit like the IBO.
Most fight fans know that the Ring belt is the best guide to who are boxings true world champions.
Im not a big proponet of following the alphabet soup belts at all.
I respect the Ring belt and think there all about the facts,fans,and fighters!
As for the IBO Trinket I think Hatton should have it melted down and make Maywither a nice little bling-bling Necklace and Medallion as an apology for cracking some of his Farking Ribs ;D Maybe a couple of gold caps to replace the teeth he'll dislodge also....Dont want to Ruin that sh!! eating smile.
-
Re: Should Hatton ditch the IBO belt and just keep The Ring belt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wacko3205
To say that the belt means nothing is a bit ridiculous.
He fought to get the belt & he was proud to earn it. People kill me with S*** like this.
It's a long running argument with the belts & their meanings but anyone that says belts mean nothing...you've probably never fought for one.
No offense. ;D
They Mean Everything To the fighters that endure blood,sweat,and teers in there pursuit.Thats all that should matter.
All of the polotics,"hostage" sanctioning fees,and utter Nonsense some of these organizations is boarder line criminal.They would make the MOB proud.
The fighter is mostly an after thought >:mad
-
Re: Should Hatton ditch the IBO belt and just keep The Ring belt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by porkypara
Dont know why he puts his good name to a second rate outfit like the IBO.
Most fight fans know that the Ring belt is the best guide to who are boxings true world champions.
cc- I totally agree. I think that now that Golden Boy owns The Ring, you will see it promoted much more.
I dont get why organizations like FightNews.com dont recognize The Ring, and instead give credibility any alphabet title that pops up.
-
Re: Should Hatton ditch the IBO belt and just keep The Ring belt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wacko3205
To say that the belt means nothing is a bit ridiculous.
He fought to get the belt & he was proud to earn it. People kill me with S*** like this.
It's a long running arguement with the belts & their meanings but anyone that says belts mean nothing...you've probably never fought for one.
No offense. ;D
Sorry wack, but the IBO give him the belt after the IBF stripped him of theirs.
I know what you mean about belts and their meanings, to me the best belt is the one the best fighters have, BUT > The ring pawns all... if there was no ring belt then i could see why hatton would go for the IBO, but as the ring champ, honestly? the belt is pointless to me.
-
Re: Should Hatton ditch the IBO belt and just keep The Ring belt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wacko3205
To say that the belt means nothing is a bit ridiculous.
He fought to get the belt & he was proud to earn it. People kill me with S*** like this.
It's a long running arguement with the belts & their meanings but anyone that says belts mean nothing...you've probably never fought for one.
No offense. ;D
Valid points Wack,, Besides some pretty big names have held the IBO belt over the years and kept it...Lennox Lewis while being undisputed and RING champion,,Roy Jones while still near the top of his game, Antonio Tarver, while he was the ring LHW champ....
The ring title is not an official title. it has no governing bodies, no sanctioning organization. You know the guys who allow fights to happen and allows fighters to earn a living. The fellows a fighters manager bargin with.
I agree with too many titles and watered down organizations but fact is title fights with a sanctioning body produce higher paychecks
-
Re: Should Hatton ditch the IBO belt and just keep The Ring belt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preme
Quote:
Originally Posted by wacko3205
To say that the belt means nothing is a bit ridiculous.
He fought to get the belt & he was proud to earn it. People kill me with S*** like this.
It's a long running arguement with the belts & their meanings but anyone that says belts mean nothing...you've probably never fought for one.
No offense. ;D
Sorry wack, but the IBO give him the belt after the IBF stripped him of theirs.
I know what you mean about belts and their meanings, to me the best belt is the one the best fighters have, BUT > The ring pawns all... if there was no ring belt then i could see why hatton would go for the IBO, but as the ring champ, honestly? the belt is pointless to me.
But the Ring belt actually isn't a real belt at all is it? Sure they make them up and present them to fighters like Joe Calzaghe but it doesn't mean anything in actuality in professional boxing. I've never heard Michael Buffer announce a fighter 'And now making his way to the ring, the undefeated Ring Champion of the World.........', doesn't happen.
Saying someone is the Ring champion is just the same as saying by majority consent or universally recognised, and to be honest there would still be a universally recognised ranking order for fighters whether the Ring magazine was around or not.
-
Re: Should Hatton ditch the IBO belt and just keep The Ring belt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wacko3205
To say that the belt means nothing is a bit ridiculous.
He fought to get the belt & he was proud to earn it. People kill me with S*** like this.
It's a long running arguement with the belts & their meanings but anyone that says belts mean nothing...you've probably never fought for one.
No offense. ;D
I fully agree. For example, Mayweather is considered pound for pound #1 because of the belts he held.That's because fighting for a belt means fighting at least the top ten fighter of that weight category. As a matter of fact, many people still judge a fighter with the belt he carried and carries.
-
Re: Should Hatton ditch the IBO belt and just keep The Ring belt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
I've never heard Michael Buffer announce a fighter 'And now making his way to the ring, the undefeated Ring Champion of the World.........', doesn't happen.
Michael Buffer annouced the Bernard Hopkins vs Winky Wright fight as being for the Ring Light Heavyweight Championship, and annouced the winner the same way.
-
Re: Should Hatton ditch the IBO belt and just keep The Ring belt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brucelee
Quote:
Originally Posted by wacko3205
To say that the belt means nothing is a bit ridiculous.
He fought to get the belt & he was proud to earn it. People kill me with S*** like this.
It's a long running arguement with the belts & their meanings but anyone that says belts mean nothing...you've probably never fought for one.
No offense. ;D
I fully agree. For example, Mayweather is considered pound for pound #1 because of the belts he held.That's because fighting for a belt means fighting at least the top ten fighter of that weight category. As a matter of fact, many people still judge a fighter with the belt he carried and carries.
Bruce my man you lostme in the first sentence.Maywither is considered Pnd 4 Pnd (by some) not because The number of belts but because of how ..Cough cough Brilliant He is and a Superb boxer.I just never got the whole Counting Belts equals greatness.Its not the belt that makes the fighter but the Fighter that makes the belt.You have to Judge a fighter on Merits,Talent,skills,and definatley accomplishments (belts??) but You cant carry around 500 belts.Unless your Floyd and Have 50 cents as your bellhop Lol.A great fighter is a great fighter with or without a belt!
OH S!!!!!,Happy Birthday.Later days
-
Re: Should Hatton ditch the IBO belt and just keep The Ring belt.
One champions efforts are futile. What needs to be done is for the true champions to enter into negotiations with the ring and arrange to publicly and collectively dump their Alphabet belts and adopt a "only the ring belt counts," attitude. Mayb now that GBP have control of the ring the finance may be raised to make such a move possible.
-
Re: Should Hatton ditch the IBO belt and just keep The Ring belt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preme
Quote:
Originally Posted by wacko3205
To say that the belt means nothing is a bit ridiculous.
He fought to get the belt & he was proud to earn it. People kill me with S*** like this.
It's a long running arguement with the belts & their meanings but anyone that says belts mean nothing...you've probably never fought for one.
No offense. ;D
Sorry wack, but the IBO give him the belt after the IBF stripped him of theirs.
I know what you mean about belts and their meanings, to me the best belt is the one the best fighters have, BUT > The ring pawns all... if there was no ring belt then i could see why hatton would go for the IBO, but as the ring champ, honestly? the belt is pointless to me.
But the Ring belt actually isn't a real belt at all is it? Sure they make them up and present them to fighters like Joe Calzaghe but it doesn't mean anything in actuality in professional boxing. I've never heard Michael Buffer announce a fighter 'And now making his way to the ring, the undefeated Ring Champion of the World.........', doesn't happen.
Saying someone is the Ring champion is just the same as saying by majority consent or universally recognised, and to be honest there would still be a universally recognised ranking order for fighters whether the Ring magazine was around or not.
As I think has already being pointed out Buffer does annonce the Ring champions in the ring.
-
Re: Should Hatton ditch the IBO belt and just keep The Ring belt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preme
Quote:
Originally Posted by wacko3205
To say that the belt means nothing is a bit ridiculous.
He fought to get the belt & he was proud to earn it. People kill me with S*** like this.
It's a long running arguement with the belts & their meanings but anyone that says belts mean nothing...you've probably never fought for one.
No offense. ;D
Sorry wack, but the IBO give him the belt after the IBF stripped him of theirs.
I know what you mean about belts and their meanings, to me the best belt is the one the best fighters have, BUT > The ring pawns all... if there was no ring belt then i could see why hatton would go for the IBO, but as the ring champ, honestly? the belt is pointless to me.
Odd...for some reason I thought that he fought Urango for that belt. Oh well...mistakes will be made but the point is that fighters do have a strap or two & they do mean something to them.
-
Re: Should Hatton ditch the IBO belt and just keep The Ring belt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wacko3205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preme
Quote:
Originally Posted by wacko3205
To say that the belt means nothing is a bit ridiculous.
He fought to get the belt & he was proud to earn it. People kill me with S*** like this.
It's a long running arguement with the belts & their meanings but anyone that says belts mean nothing...you've probably never fought for one.
No offense. ;D
Sorry wack, but the IBO give him the belt after the IBF stripped him of theirs.
I know what you mean about belts and their meanings, to me the best belt is the one the best fighters have, BUT > The ring pawns all... if there was no ring belt then i could see why hatton would go for the IBO, but as the ring champ, honestly? the belt is pointless to me.
Odd...for some reason I thought that he fought Urango for that belt. Oh well...mistakes will be made but the point is that fighters do have a strap or two & they do mean something to them.
Yeah Ricky won it by facing Urango.
Everytime Ricky Gets wins new belt he gets a miniaturised duplicate made for his son Campbell. The IBO made him one up, no prob after the Urango fight
-
Re: Should Hatton ditch the IBO belt and just keep The Ring belt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wacko3205
To say that the belt means nothing is a bit ridiculous.
He fought to get the belt & he was proud to earn it. People kill me with shit like this.
It's a long running arguement with the belts & their meanings but anyone that says belts mean nothing...you've probably never fought for one.
No offense. ;D
The IBO belt means fuck all.
Its just a paper title invented by greedy self serving peolpe who want to make an easy few quid.
-
Re: Should Hatton ditch the IBO belt and just keep The Ring belt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lance Uppercut
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
I've never heard Michael Buffer announce a fighter 'And now making his way to the ring, the undefeated Ring Champion of the World.........', doesn't happen.
Michael Buffer annouced the Bernard Hopkins vs Winky Wright fight as being for the Ring Light Heavyweight Championship, and annouced the winner the same way.
Actually though this highlights just how wrong the Ring Magazine can be sometimes though. I mean not only was this probably one of the only times a fight has been announced as for a Ring belt, but it was an otherwise non title affair between two old timers that virtually everyone on here was unanimous in expressing that they had zreo interest in seeing them fight at all.
Furthermore that it was labelled as being for the Ring belt at 175 is an absolute farce seeing as they actually fought at 170 lbs ???
If Winky would have won then are you saying he would have been the legitimate MAN at 175 despite never having fought a fight there?
And actually Bernard's position as the 175 lb champion is hardly particularly credible anyhow seeing as he has no intention of ever defending his belt, or of fighting any of the other champions in that weight class.
Right now Bernard resides in some kind of limbo weight zone of his own devising, waiting opportunistically for a chance to fight someone like Jermain Taylor or Joe Calzaghe, most likely at either 168 or 170 lbs.
He is NOT the real champion at 175 by virtue of the fact that he has no intention of ever fighting in that division again. Right now there is no true champion at 175 lbs imo. ;)
It's actually even more ironic when you consider that following the fight Emmmanuel Steward, Lampley and most people on here were saying that Bernard should retire, and that he was clearly past his best and no longer a factor in the division. Steward also said Winky's legs had gone and he should consider retiring too. Not saying I agree with this just pointing out that it hardly paints a picture of either of these being considered the real threats in whatever division they happen to be fighting in now does it?
-
Re: Should Hatton ditch the IBO belt and just keep The Ring belt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by lance Uppercut
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
I've never heard Michael Buffer announce a fighter 'And now making his way to the ring, the undefeated Ring Champion of the World.........', doesn't happen.
Michael Buffer annouced the Bernard Hopkins vs Winky Wright fight as being for the Ring Light Heavyweight Championship, and annouced the winner the same way.
Actually though this highlights just how wrong the Ring Magazine can be sometimes though. I mean not only was this probably one of the only times a fight has been announced as for a Ring belt, but it was an otherwise non title affair between two old timers that virtually everyone on here was unanimous in expressing that they had zreo interest in seeing them fight at all.
Furthermore that it was labelled as being for the Ring belt at 175 is an absolute farce seeing as they actually fought at 170 lbs ???
If Winky would have won then are you saying he would have been the legitimate MAN at 175 despite never having fought a fight there?
And actually Bernard's position as the 175 lb champion is hardly particularly credible anyhow seeing as he has no intention of ever defending his belt, or of fighting any of the other champions in that weight class.
Right now Bernard resides in some kind of limbo weight zone of his own devising, waiting opportunistically for a chance to fight someone like Jermain Taylor or Joe Calzaghe, most likely at either 168 or 170 lbs.
He is NOT the real champion at 175 by virtue of the fact that he has no intention of ever fighting in that division again. Right now there is no true champion at 175 lbs imo. ;)
It's actually even more ironic when you consider that following the fight Emmmanuel Steward, Lampley and most people on here were saying that Bernard should retire, and that he was clearly past his best and no longer a factor in the division. Steward also said Winky's legs had gone and he should consider retiring too. Not saying I agree with this just pointing out that it hardly paints a picture of either of these being considered the real threats in whatever division they happen to be fighting in now does it?
Although I am a big supporter of the Ring titles, I think you point out it's only flaw: without mandatories, a fighter can just sit on their belt. Hopkins will probably never fight a top 175lb guy again, but he beat the man who beat the man... and is technically the Light Heavyweight Champ.
Sitting on titles was not uncommon in the old days. Jack Dempsy, Jess Willard and even James Braddock had two year gaps in between some of their title defenses.
-
Re: Should Hatton ditch the IBO belt and just keep The Ring belt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wacko3205
To say that the belt means nothing is a bit ridiculous.
He fought to get the belt & he was proud to earn it. People kill me with S*** like this.
It's a long running arguement with the belts & their meanings but anyone that says belts mean nothing...you've probably never fought for one.
No offense. ;D
I once fought another crack head for a peice of extension cord he was using...
I'm still using soggy string from a mail bag... :-\
-
Re: Should Hatton ditch the IBO belt and just keep The Ring belt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitmandonny
Quote:
Originally Posted by wacko3205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preme
Quote:
Originally Posted by wacko3205
To say that the belt means nothing is a bit ridiculous.
He fought to get the belt & he was proud to earn it. People kill me with S*** like this.
It's a long running arguement with the belts & their meanings but anyone that says belts mean nothing...you've probably never fought for one.
No offense. ;D
Sorry wack, but the IBO give him the belt after the IBF stripped him of theirs.
I know what you mean about belts and their meanings, to me the best belt is the one the best fighters have, BUT > The ring pawns all... if there was no ring belt then i could see why hatton would go for the IBO, but as the ring champ, honestly? the belt is pointless to me.
Odd...for some reason I thought that he fought Urango for that belt. Oh well...mistakes will be made but the point is that fighters do have a strap or two & they do mean something to them.
Yeah Ricky won it by facing Urango.
Everytime Ricky Gets wins new belt he gets a miniaturised duplicate made for his son Campbell. The IBO made him one up, no prob after the Urango fight
yeh he also won the ibf when he fought urango so its not like he just went for ibo belt...it just sorta came with winning his old belt back.
