Ring Magazine on the Road to Sanity

In the most recent Letter's to the Editor of Ring Magazine, Editor Nigel Collins has said the following:

It is, however, getting increasingly difficult to distinguish between the ever-increasing number of so-called alphabet champions because of the preposterous “interim,” “super,” “regular,” and “emeritus” categories created by the organizations. Consequently, The Ring is considering dropping all mention of them in the future and would be interested in knowing how other readers feel about such a move.

Here's the e-mail I sent.

Sir,

On behalf of right thinking boxing fans everywhere, I implore you and Ring Magazine to cease all mention of the alphabet belts. They damage the concept of a champion, they confuse the casual fan, they prevent top fights from being made and they damage the overall integrity of the sport.

I’d also ask you to take two further steps in this area. Call a conference among yourselves, HBO, Showtime, ESPN and any other major network that is willing to participate and try to make the following deal:
• The Networks agree only to refer to or mention the Ring Belt and Ring Magazine rankings in all their broadcasts;
• Ring Magazine agrees to make their advisory panel the determinative group in deciding rankings so no one can claim Oscar’s business interests are leaking into the editorial decisions and Ring agrees to use its best efforts to fill in some of the vacant championships over the next year. That would mean in EVERY case where #1 faces #3 in a vacant championship situation the belt will be on the line and that if #1 will not fight #2 or #3 than #2 and #3 can meet for the belt. This would help the networks with marketing and only temporarily dilute what Ring does.

Your magazine is a beacon of sanity in a crazy boxing environment. Please use that influence.

My fellow Saddo-ites. Please let Ring Magazine know your feelings on this as this would be a MAJOR first step in damaging the visibility of these fraudulent straps. Send an e-mail to

AskTheEditor@ringtv.com.

I think it's an illegal move. It's called collusion. You can't make agreements in the US to squeeze out the other guys buy controlling the market.

Did Nigel really ask that dumb ass question ? Probally why I have not purchased an issue in 2 + years

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fan johnny

I think it's an illegal move. It's called collusion. You can't make agreements in the US to squeeze out the other guys buy controlling the market.

---

I don't think it meets the legal requirement for collusion (but I'm not an attorney). Collusion involves fraud. Nobody is saying the straps can't exist, only that they agree not to talk about them.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fan johnny

I think it's an illegal move. It's called collusion. You can't make agreements in the US to squeeze out the other guys buy controlling the market.

---

I don't think it meets the legal requirement for collusion (but I'm not an attorney). Collusion involves fraud. Nobody is saying the straps can't exist, only that they agree not to talk about them.

---

Collusion is the just the word I to describe the behavior. What it's actually called is "Antitrust Laws". Basically they are in place to keep corporations and the like from joining forces to for out the competition. Another word is called monopoly. It doesn't have to involve fraud to be illegal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fan johnny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fan johnny

I think it's an illegal move. It's called collusion. You can't make agreements in the US to squeeze out the other guys buy controlling the market.

---

I don't think it meets the legal requirement for collusion (but I'm not an attorney). Collusion involves fraud. Nobody is saying the straps can't exist, only that they agree not to talk about them.

---

Collusion is the just the word I to describe the behavior. What it's actually called is "Antitrust Laws". Basically they are in place to keep corporations and the like from joining forces to for out the competition. Another word is called monopoly. It doesn't have to involve fraud to be illegal.

---

I really doubt anti-trust laws apply. For two reasons. First ESPN, Ring etc are press organizations and thus protected by the First Amendment. No way the Gov't tries to tell them what they can or cannot talk about. Second, the anti-trust laws are generally geared around two things (sorry, I wrote papers on the Sherman anti-trust act in college), manipulating pricing and manipulating market shares. Neither applies here. Not mentioning them does nothing to impact the revenue of the alphabet gangs. They still can charge fighters sanctioning fees. In addition ESPN, Ring etc do not compete with the alphabet ganges. They are in different businesses. Ring/ESPN etc make money off subscriptions and advertising, NOT by obtaining sanctioning fees from fighters.

I mst be the only on here who doesn't actually think there is a problem with the belts.

Having 4 titles in each weight class is entirely normal in sport. In golf there are the majors, in tennis the Grand Slams, in soccer, lots of different cups and trophies to aim for.

A single world champ in each weight class would be shit. It would mean certain fighters could be ignored, like in the old days and never get to fight for the title. There would be less interest for non title fights and it would be harder for fighters to get recognition.

Onto the admiteddly silly emeritus and diamond belt situation. I agree they are often silly but actaully they help the sport imo by making sure the biggest name, high profile guys get titles to distinguish them, immediate rematch at a title they once owned etc.

I don't see how that is actually bad beyond people's sensibilities being offended.

So for example maui says Saul Alvarez is no more of a world champ than he is. Well I agree I don't regard him as the true champ in the weight class but right now he is one of the most exciting up and coming fighters and a fighter lots of guys want to see fight so I'm all for a way to make sure he gets the attention and giving him a belt does that.

Just forget about the name. A belt world championship hasn't meant world champion in decades now, fucking get it over it guys! We all know that. The Ring rankings are what people involved in the sport follow.

The belts just attach a title and meaning to a fight to get people watching. Look at golf and tennis. There are all sorts of majors and grand slams. Winning one doesn't mean you are the best player in the wolrd but if they only had one major or one grandslam it would suck.

Would we even watch an event that didn't have a major or grandslam tag to it? I don't think minor events even get televised, certainly only the most hardcore fans will watch them.

Titles and belts are a necessary part of the reward process in any sport. They just act to give a fighter a name and to give a significance and meaning to a fight.

Without them it's just two people fighting, or two people playing tennis. Sportsfans don't watch that.


Just get with the times and stopp griping about redundant arguments.

Your ideas of reform would actually ruin boxing imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fan johnny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fan johnny

I think it's an illegal move. It's called collusion. You can't make agreements in the US to squeeze out the other guys buy controlling the market.

---

I don't think it meets the legal requirement for collusion (but I'm not an attorney). Collusion involves fraud. Nobody is saying the straps can't exist, only that they agree not to talk about them.

---

Collusion is the just the word I to describe the behavior. What it's actually called is "Antitrust Laws". Basically they are in place to keep corporations and the like from joining forces to for out the competition. Another word is called monopoly. It doesn't have to involve fraud to be illegal.

---

I really doubt anti-trust laws apply. For two reasons. First ESPN, Ring etc are press organizations and thus protected by the First Amendment. No way the Gov't tries to tell them what they can or cannot talk about. Second, the anti-trust laws are generally geared around two things (sorry, I wrote papers on the Sherman anti-trust act in college), manipulating pricing and manipulating market shares. Neither applies here. Not mentioning them does nothing to impact the revenue of the alphabet gangs. They still can charge fighters sanctioning fees. In addition ESPN, Ring etc do not compete with the alphabet ganges. They are in different businesses. Ring/ESPN etc make money off subscriptions and advertising, NOT by obtaining sanctioning fees from fighters.

---

Think about it! Try to forget what you wrote in college. Law is generally vague so that it works for both sides. What then becomes more important is the "intent". The specific purpose of proposed alliance is to get rid of the abc belts. This is exactly what the antitrust laws are for. It doesn't matter about price fixing. What matters is the purpose of the alliance. The behavior is unethical because it's intent is to destroy the abc business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

I mst be the only on here who doesn't actually think there is a problem with the belts.

Having 4 titles in each weight class is entirely normal in sport. In golf there are the majors, in tennis the Grand Slams, in soccer, lots of different cups and trophies to aim for.

A single world champ in each weight class would be shit. It would mean certain fighters could be ignored, like in the old days and never get to fight for the title. There would be less interest for non title fights and it would be harder for fighters to get recognition.

Onto the admiteddly silly emeritus and diamond belt situation. I agree they are often silly but actaully they help the sport imo by making sure the biggest name, high profile guys get titles to distinguish them, immediate rematch at a title they once owned etc.

I don't see how that is actually bad beyond people's sensibilities being offended.

So for example maui says Saul Alvarez is no more of a world champ than he is. Well I agree I don't regard him as the true champ in the weight class but right now he is one of the most exciting up and coming fighters and a fighter lots of guys want to see fight so I'm all for a way to make sure he gets the attention and giving him a belt does that.

Just forget about the name. A belt world championship hasn't meant world champion in decades now, fucking get it over it guys! We all know that. The Ring rankings are what people involved in the sport follow.

The belts just attach a title and meaning to a fight to get people watching. Look at golf and tennis. There are all sorts of majors and grand slams. Winning one doesn't mean you are the best player in the wolrd but if they only had one major or one grandslam it would suck.

Would we even watch an event that didn't have a major or grandslam tag to it? I don't think minor events even get televised, certainly only the most hardcore fans will watch them.

Titles and belts are a necessary part of the reward process in any sport. They just act to give a fighter a name and to give a significance and meaning to a fight.

Without them it's just two people fighting, or two people playing tennis. Sportsfans don't watch that.


Just get with the times and stopp griping about redundant arguments.

Your ideas of reform would actually ruin boxing imo.

---

The data seems to me to show you're dead wrong. The decline of boxing viewerships, shows, national attention etc runs awfully close in time to the emergence of the alphabet organizations in their current formations.

Now why is that? Because the casual fan now has no way of determining the gravity of a fight. Everybody is a champ and therefore nobody is a champ. These belts prevent Sergio Martinez from leaping out as the champion he really is. The casual fan turns on JCC jr or Felix Sturm and says "THIS GUY is a champion? This sport blows." And he is 100% right to say that.

Your argument fails on Golf and Tennis. There is only ONE British Open champ at a time. There is only ONE US Open champ at a time. And you say people won't "just go watch" unless there is something at stake. You've never been to Wimbledon or the US Open is my guess. People don't just show for the finals. They show for the whole two weeks.

Hell if "get withe the times" means everyone gets a championship? Why don't we just stop the World Cup at the semi-finals and call everyone a champ and go home?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fan johnny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fan johnny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fan johnny

I think it's an illegal move. It's called collusion. You can't make agreements in the US to squeeze out the other guys buy controlling the market.

---

I don't think it meets the legal requirement for collusion (but I'm not an attorney). Collusion involves fraud. Nobody is saying the straps can't exist, only that they agree not to talk about them.

---

Collusion is the just the word I to describe the behavior. What it's actually called is "Antitrust Laws". Basically they are in place to keep corporations and the like from joining forces to for out the competition. Another word is called monopoly. It doesn't have to involve fraud to be illegal.

---

I really doubt anti-trust laws apply. For two reasons. First ESPN, Ring etc are press organizations and thus protected by the First Amendment. No way the Gov't tries to tell them what they can or cannot talk about. Second, the anti-trust laws are generally geared around two things (sorry, I wrote papers on the Sherman anti-trust act in college), manipulating pricing and manipulating market shares. Neither applies here. Not mentioning them does nothing to impact the revenue of the alphabet gangs. They still can charge fighters sanctioning fees. In addition ESPN, Ring etc do not compete with the alphabet ganges. They are in different businesses. Ring/ESPN etc make money off subscriptions and advertising, NOT by obtaining sanctioning fees from fighters.

---

Think about it! Try to forget what you wrote in college. Law is generally vague so that it works for both sides. What then becomes more important is the "intent". The specific purpose of proposed alliance is to get rid of the abc belts. This is exactly what the antitrust laws are for. It doesn't matter about price fixing. What matters is the purpose of the alliance. The behavior is unethical because it's intent is to destroy the abc business.

---

The issue has NOTHING to do with ethics does it? It had to do with the law. Or at least that was your claim. The intent is NOT to destroy anything. NOBODY is making ANY move on the revenue of the alpahbet gangs. NOBODY is dividing up market share. THOSE are the factors judges and juries have historically looked at. The First Amendment case it seems to me cannot be overcome anyway. Just no way the Feds tell magazines and networks what their content has to be. Just no way.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

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.

---

He's already the Ring champion, stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

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.

---

He's already the Ring champion, stupid.

---

Even less reason for Maui to feel aggrieved then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fan johnny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fan johnny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fan johnny

I think it's an illegal move. It's called collusion. You can't make agreements in the US to squeeze out the other guys buy controlling the market.

---

I don't think it meets the legal requirement for collusion (but I'm not an attorney). Collusion involves fraud. Nobody is saying the straps can't exist, only that they agree not to talk about them.

---

Collusion is the just the word I to describe the behavior. What it's actually called is "Antitrust Laws". Basically they are in place to keep corporations and the like from joining forces to for out the competition. Another word is called monopoly. It doesn't have to involve fraud to be illegal.

---

I really doubt anti-trust laws apply. For two reasons. First ESPN, Ring etc are press organizations and thus protected by the First Amendment. No way the Gov't tries to tell them what they can or cannot talk about. Second, the anti-trust laws are generally geared around two things (sorry, I wrote papers on the Sherman anti-trust act in college), manipulating pricing and manipulating market shares. Neither applies here. Not mentioning them does nothing to impact the revenue of the alphabet gangs. They still can charge fighters sanctioning fees. In addition ESPN, Ring etc do not compete with the alphabet ganges. They are in different businesses. Ring/ESPN etc make money off subscriptions and advertising, NOT by obtaining sanctioning fees from fighters.

---

Think about it! Try to forget what you wrote in college. Law is generally vague so that it works for both sides. What then becomes more important is the "intent". The specific purpose of proposed alliance is to get rid of the abc belts. This is exactly what the antitrust laws are for. It doesn't matter about price fixing. What matters is the purpose of the alliance. The behavior is unethical because it's intent is to destroy the abc business.

---

The issue has NOTHING to do with ethics does it? It had to do with the law. Or at least that was your claim. The intent is NOT to destroy anything. NOBODY is making ANY move on the revenue of the alpahbet gangs. NOBODY is dividing up market share. THOSE are the factors judges and juries have historically looked at. The First Amendment case it seems to me cannot be overcome anyway. Just no way the Feds tell magazines and networks what their content has to be. Just no way.

---

Rather than argue about the intent of what you have written, I leave you to ponder your own words on the subject. But know this: "Law" is society creating rules about what is acceptable behavior. i.e ethics.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 :-\

Dean Chance loves ya Bilbo :)

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...

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!

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

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.

---

We have HALF as many active fighters as we had fifty years ago. And they are divided amopng twice as many divisions. Here are some numbers. We have roughly 1500 active welters. I went through Boxrec for ten randomly chosen pages of the 45,000 welterweights they have registered across time. I found on those ten pages a little over 20% were active in 1940. That implies there were 9,000 active welters in 1940. Cut that in hald just to be conservative. That means in 1940 THREE TIMES as many fighters were batlling for a single title. I did the same exercise for 1970. That came in a little over 10%. Nor surprising as the sport has shrunk considerably. Again, cut that in half just to be conservative. Even THAT means 50% MORE fighters were battling for a single championship.

The numbers demonstrate today we have fewer fights between contenders than 30 or 50 years ago. Significantly so. I did a quickie on the heavyweights. In the last three years there have been a total of nine fights between ranked hevy contenders outside of Wlad's title fights. In 1973 (first random year picked) there were nine fights among ranked contenders excluding title fights. Then I checked another down year for the sport. 1958. That year had ten fights among ranked contenders. In other words in eras with one championship, fights between contenders were THREE TIMES as common.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

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.

---

Laughing

Necessary? Hardly. The sport thrived with TWICE as many fighters in only eight divisions with only eight belts.

Now? The sport is on a respirator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

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.

---

Laughing

Necessary? Hardly. The sport thrived with TWICE as many fighters in only eight divisions with only eight belts.

Now? The sport is on a respirator.

---

Maybe the fans were loving it, but how many boxers were thriving as a result of entertaining you?

How many great fighters of the past were rewarded for their greatness by becoming incredibly wealthy men? Most of them quit broke because they didn't see jack shit of the revenue back then. They had to fight every few weeks and that was the champions!

Good luck with trying to convince today's fighters to give up their belts and 4/5ths of their income because you want only one of them in each weight class having the honour of being called champion.

Sport has evolved since the 40's and 50's and now it's big money. Now the sportsmen are properly rewarded in all major sports and expect to be so.

Why would somebody take up boxing if there was no chance of winning anything and thus earning anything?

You say people turn up to football and hockey matches for games that don't mean anything, that's ridiculous? In the UK football is life and death for some people. A teams position in the league, and progress in the FA cup, to say nothing of the progress in the European cups is literally the most important thing in many British men's lives. Every game is for a title, the premier league, championship, league one, league two etc. Not a single team from premiership down to amatuer pub 5 a sides does not compete for a title of some sort, it's the exact opposite of what you are arguing. Likewise with American football and hockey. All the teams are competing for something!

Your viewpoint is totally selfish just thinking of your perpspective as a fan. If you cared about the fighters you'd be happy to see them rewarded for their efforts, the same way professionals are in other major sports.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

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.

---

Well I don't agree with you there at all, Marble makes a good case and his heart is in the right place, I just disagree with him that the "alphabets" are necessarily a bad thing. Few boxing fans on this or any other forum care about or know as much about boxing as Marble does, and I completely respect his well thought out and researched, contemporary views on boxing.

Where would unification be without alphabet soup?

My head hurts. Seriously, I'm between a rock & a hard place on this one.

I mean, the ABC's 'in theory' are fine yet their ranking systems and multi interim straps are so corrupting and toxic. Who's to say a Magazine can't go the same way?All they are doing is offering yet another alternative albeit via collusion/ monopoly/ slander whatever you wanna call it.

Am I the only one who realises that it doesn't take a magazine to establish lineage???

So then surely it's another load of crap smothered in crap :-\

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

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.

---

How comunist of you Bilbo. Seriously you have been trading barbs with Miles too long win you make some lame analogy that every boxers deserves their own special title so they feel good about themselves to "evil" capitalist bankers. And yeah I am looking at it purely from a fan's perspective. I want to see the best fights between then best fighters in each division. I don't need some trinket of a belt to be on the line to be interested in two top tier fighters getting in the ring together. I also don't really buy that a single belt/ranking per weight class is some how going to impoverish boxers. Honestly considering the declining state of boxing I think the opposite is true. Better fights and better credibility would probably mean more fans and more money for fighters. If you are so concerned with boxer's self esteem then have multiple belts but only one world champion and have one set of rankings so that world champion has to face the #1 contender at least once a year or be stripped. As it is today we have a watered down system with shoddy rankings where "champions" would rather fight bullshit mandatory contenders than unite the belts. Hell lets just start with the different belts ranking the other guys champion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimanuel Boogustus

My head hurts. Seriously, I'm between a rock & a hard place on this one.

I mean, the ABC's 'in theory' are fine yet their ranking systems and multi interim straps are so corrupting and toxic. Who's to say a Magazine can't go the same way?All they are doing is offering yet another alternative albeit via collusion/ monopoly/ slander whatever you wanna call it.

Am I the only one who realises that it doesn't take a magazine to establish lineage???

So then surely it's another load of crap smothered in crap :-\

---

Rankings are purely subjective but when have you read the Ring rankings and thought that their #1 contender was in no way even close to being a top 10 fighter? Now think of how many garbage mandatory defenses we have seen over the years. I am not beholden to the Ring rankings but I can't really think of anyone currently that provides a better set.

Just wanted to add to this thread: As long as there's money to be made, the "alphabets" are here to stay, and I doubt that anything can be done to change it, so why worry about it one way or the other.

P.S. if boxing were going to "die" it would have done so a long time ago.

Bilbo makes a great point about what the belts actually mean to fighters.

I was reading a brief twitter argument between Sergio Martinez and Peter Quillin the other week. Martinez proudly cited he was a three time IBO champion in England. This made me laugh. The LINEAL middleweight champ of the world was citing the IBO title as one of his proud achievements.

Four world champions per division is utterly pathetic. However, has winning an alphabet ever caused harm to a fighters career? Silverware only boosts it.