Groves vs Smith for Ring Title. Agree?
So The Ring Magazine is going to recognize the winner of Groves/Smith as it's champion.
With recent threads regarding lineal and Ring Championships and some confusion regarding the 2, I thought it would be a good idea to get a feel on how we feel about this fight being for their championship.
Wlad vs Chagaev was 1 vs 3 for The Ring title, there may have been other occasions where 1 vs 3 crowned one of their champions, but it is rare.
So I have added a 4 option poll, basically do you think this fight should be for The Ring Championship (Yes or No), and the other 2 options, does it qualify for the lineal title (Yes or No)?
The Ring has Groves #1 and Smith #3. #2 is Ramirez. #4 is Benavidez, #5 is Uzcategui, #6 is DeGale.
The TBRB has Groves #1 and Smith #8, #2 is Ramirez, #3 is Anthony Dirrell, #4 is Eubank Jr (Wtf), #5 is Benavidez,#6 is Uzcategui.
ESPN has Ramirez #1 and Groves #2, #3 is DeGale, #4 is Uzcategui, #5 is Smith, #6 is Anthony Dirrell.
The WBA does not currently have Smith ranked
The WBC has Smith at #2 behind their champion Benavidez.
Smith is not ranked with the IBF or the WBO.
Re: Groves vs Smith for Ring Title. Agree?
No it should definitely not be lineal. You need a clear top two to emerge to restart history definers, there's literally six guys there who are close to 50-50-ish.
Now currently Groves should definitely be no.1, he quite simply has competed against and beaten better fighters than anyone else, but the rest are a toss up.
I don't see much wrong with the Ring crowning the winner of the world series in this instance. In fact the winnner of the world series should become THE champion per division, make everything easy.
Re: Groves vs Smith for Ring Title. Agree?
I voted for the ring title. Groves is the best in the division and Smith has got into the final of the competition.
I do not know who was the last liniel champion was? If it was broken and there is a big enough gap then it could be for that.
Re: Groves vs Smith for Ring Title. Agree?
I think for the Ring title to regain credibility, it's championship policy should become stricter if anything. Obviously they can recognise anyone they want, but if they want their belt (which I really like by the way, and holds lots of history) to be taken seriously and respected as the hallmark, they should only go outside the standed 1 vs 2, in extreme circumstances (see Wlad vs Chagaev, or cases where the 2 & 3 are considered as close to equal as possible).
With the upcoming Groves/Smith fight, I agree Groves is clearly #1. But with guys like Ramirez and Benavidez, who could make a case for being rated ahead of Smith, I think it would be better to leave the title vacant. Filling vacant titles, just for the sake of filling titles is not the answer.
Re: Groves vs Smith for Ring Title. Agree?
Ward was the last lineal champion and also The Ring champion.
Since Ward left supermiddle The Ring made DeGale-Jack for the belt but it was a draw.
Re: Groves vs Smith for Ring Title. Agree?
I don't think the Ring belt matters at all in this day and age (in the past it was the corruption which ruined it). All the major networks use their own ratings and the four alphabets are well and truly established in the minds of modern fans.
For instance - Joe Calzaghe never gets recognised as lightheavyweight world champion by many well respected British comms/pundits/writers. Why? In their opinion The Ring isn't a "real" title? Calzaghe beat Hopkins who had beat Tarver who had beat Roy for The Ring belt. Nathan Cleverly was upgraded to WBO champ after beating Nadjib Mohammedi. Yet Clevery is considered a "real" lightheavy champion. Hilarious.
It wasn't long ago the WBO was considered a bogus title, now modern day "historians" (boxrec experts) are publishing articles all over the internet questioning Lennox Lewis claim to be undisputed because he never won the WBO title. You have Showtime commentators blaring out on air Lennox was never undisputed. Madness.
Re: Groves vs Smith for Ring Title. Agree?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Ward was the last lineal champion and also The Ring champion.
Since Ward left supermiddle The Ring made DeGale-Jack for the belt but it was a draw.
With Ward/Froch, many rated the undefeated IBF champion Bute ahead of Froch at the time. Putting the legitimacy of the lineal title being on the line in question.
Re: Groves vs Smith for Ring Title. Agree?
If Groves has the Ring belt then he should be the others fighters have to beat to be considered the best in the division. If they do not challenge him then they are just 'also rans' and should be treated as such.
The ring belt does carry some credibility.
Re: Groves vs Smith for Ring Title. Agree?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Alpha
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Ward was the last lineal champion and also The Ring champion.
Since Ward left supermiddle The Ring made DeGale-Jack for the belt but it was a draw.
With Ward/Froch, many rated the undefeated IBF champion Bute ahead of Froch at the time. Putting the legitimacy of the lineal title being on the line in question.
Froch annihated Bute later on should tell us that Bute was a paper champ.
Re: Groves vs Smith for Ring Title. Agree?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
I don't think the Ring belt matters at all in this day and age (in the past it was the corruption which ruined it). All the major networks use their own ratings and the four alphabets are well and truly established in the minds of modern fans.
For instance - Joe Calzaghe never gets recognised as lightheavyweight world champion by many well respected British comms/pundits/writers. Why? In their opinion The Ring isn't a "real" title? Calzaghe beat Hopkins who had beat Tarver who had beat Roy for The Ring belt. Nathan Cleverly was upgraded to WBO champ after beating Nadjib Mohammedi. Yet Clevery is considered a "real" lightheavy champion. Hilarious.
It wasn't long ago the WBO was considered a bogus title, now modern day "historians" (boxrec experts) are publishing articles all over the internet questioning Lennox Lewis claim to be undisputed because he never won the WBO title. You have Showtime commentators blaring out on air Lennox was never undisputed. Madness.
Calzaghe definitely should be recognised as a Light-heavyweight champion, although only The Ring Champion. Not the Lineal.
I agree that the Ring title (and the lineal) are irrelevant in this day and age. I think it's better to debate who the best fighter in each division is. Sometimes it's clear (Usyk at Cruiser for example). Other divisions not so much.
I thought I would do these threads as a Ring title is announced, to see what the general concensus is surrounding the recognition.
Re: Groves vs Smith for Ring Title. Agree?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Alpha
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Ward was the last lineal champion and also The Ring champion.
Since Ward left supermiddle The Ring made DeGale-Jack for the belt but it was a draw.
With Ward/Froch, many rated the undefeated IBF champion Bute ahead of Froch at the time. Putting the legitimacy of the lineal title being on the line in question.
Froch annihated Bute later on should tell us that Bute was a paper champ.
That is besides the point, Bute was considered by many to be #1 or #2 in the division heading into Ward/Froch.
Re: Groves vs Smith for Ring Title. Agree?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
If Groves has the Ring belt then he should be the others fighters have to beat to be considered the best in the division. If they do not challenge him then they are just 'also rans' and should be treated as such.
The ring belt does carry some credibility.
In my opinion championships (The Ring & Lineal) sound be earned against the best. 1 vs 2.
Otherwise we might as well just hand out titles to everyone.
Re: Groves vs Smith for Ring Title. Agree?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Alpha
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Alpha
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Ward was the last lineal champion and also The Ring champion.
Since Ward left supermiddle The Ring made DeGale-Jack for the belt but it was a draw.
With Ward/Froch, many rated the undefeated IBF champion Bute ahead of Froch at the time. Putting the legitimacy of the lineal title being on the line in question.
Froch annihated Bute later on should tell us that Bute was a paper champ.
That is besides the point, Bute was considered by many to be #1 or #2 in the division heading into Ward/Froch.
It caused tons of arguments on here as Bute had a big following claiming he was the best supermiddle. Not for me though, Ward-Froch had better form than him so was fine by me, and I believe Froch annihilating Bute was some kind of justification (as Master said).
At the very least it cemented Andre Ward's claim to be no.1 in the division.
Re: Groves vs Smith for Ring Title. Agree?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Alpha
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Alpha
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Ward was the last lineal champion and also The Ring champion.
Since Ward left supermiddle The Ring made DeGale-Jack for the belt but it was a draw.
With Ward/Froch, many rated the undefeated IBF champion Bute ahead of Froch at the time. Putting the legitimacy of the lineal title being on the line in question.
Froch annihated Bute later on should tell us that Bute was a paper champ.
That is besides the point, Bute was considered by many to be #1 or #2 in the division heading into Ward/Froch.
It caused tons of arguments on here as Bute had a big following claiming he was the best supermiddle. Not for me though, Ward-Froch had better form than him so was fine by me, and I believe Froch annihilating Bute was some kind of justification (as Master said).
At the very least it cemented Andre Ward's claim to be no.1 in the division.
Definitely established Ward as top of the division.
Froch had lost to Kessler (no shame in that), who Ward had just beaten. Bute was unbeaten until running into Froch, although he had the scare against Andrade in the first encounter. He blew him away in the rematch.
This was another example where it would have been better to leave the titles (both Ring & Lineal) vacant.
Re: Groves vs Smith for Ring Title. Agree?
We could re-start the debate if David Haye was truly the undisputed cruiserweight champion of the world.
Re: Groves vs Smith for Ring Title. Agree?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
We could re-start the debate if David Haye was truly the undisputed cruiserweight champion of the world.
Haye was the Lineal Cruiserweight champion. Mormeck and Braithwaite were 1 & 2 when they fought to claim the vacant title (Nelson was probably 3rd at best due to inactivity and a couple of close calls).
Re: Groves vs Smith for Ring Title. Agree?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Alpha
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
We could re-start the debate if David Haye was truly the undisputed cruiserweight champion of the world.
Haye was the Lineal Cruiserweight champion. Mormeck and Braithwaite were 1 & 2 when they fought to claim the vacant title (Nelson was probably 3rd at best due to inactivity and a couple of close calls).
Are you sure that was lineal or the Ring belt?
Mormeck-Bell unified the WBC, WBA and IBF titles (the IBF then stripped Mormeck), Haye beat Mormeck becoming THE man (lineal), then for good measure beat Enzo Macc for the WBO, he has as much right as any to claim undisputed.
Re: Groves vs Smith for Ring Title. Agree?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Alpha
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
We could re-start the debate if David Haye was truly the undisputed cruiserweight champion of the world.
Haye was the Lineal Cruiserweight champion. Mormeck and Braithwaite were 1 & 2 when they fought to claim the vacant title (Nelson was probably 3rd at best due to inactivity and a couple of close calls).
Are you sure that was lineal or the Ring belt?
Mormeck-Bell unified the WBC, WBA and IBF titles (the IBF then stripped Mormeck), Haye beat Mormeck becoming THE man (lineal), then for good measure beat Enzo Macc for the WBO, he has as much right as any to claim undisputed.
They were the top 2 in the division, so I'd agree with lineal.
Re: Groves vs Smith for Ring Title. Agree?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Alpha
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Alpha
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Alpha
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Ward was the last lineal champion and also The Ring champion.
Since Ward left supermiddle The Ring made DeGale-Jack for the belt but it was a draw.
With Ward/Froch, many rated the undefeated IBF champion Bute ahead of Froch at the time. Putting the legitimacy of the lineal title being on the line in question.
Froch annihated Bute later on should tell us that Bute was a paper champ.
That is besides the point, Bute was considered by many to be #1 or #2 in the division heading into Ward/Froch.
It caused tons of arguments on here as Bute had a big following claiming he was the best supermiddle. Not for me though, Ward-Froch had better form than him so was fine by me, and I believe Froch annihilating Bute was some kind of justification (as Master said).
At the very least it cemented Andre Ward's claim to be no.1 in the division.
Definitely established Ward as top of the division.
Froch had lost to Kessler (no shame in that), who Ward had just beaten. Bute was unbeaten until running into Froch, although he had the scare against Andrade in the first encounter. He blew him away in the rematch.
This was another example where it would have been better to leave the titles (both Ring & Lineal) vacant.
Maybe leave it vacant but only because of Kessler not Bute.
I don't think cometitive losses to top-class opposition should demote fighters, and Kessler is an all-time great supermiddle. Bute's lofty ranking was down to European fighters being underrated at that time, remember, although only 10 years ago, the East-Euro/Russian invasion had yet to be accepted Stateside, guys like Bute were fighting on HBO/Showtime so naturally overhyped.
Leading up to the Ward fight this was their opposition between 2008-2010.
Bute - Miranda, Andrade, Mendy, Magee and Johnson.
Froch - Pascal, Taylor, Dirrell, Kessler (L), Abraham and Johnson.
YET!!! Bute was ranked ahead of Froch!!! That is ridiculous. Froch not only beat far better opposition he'd already knocked Magee unconcious and matched the Johnson win.
Re: Groves vs Smith for Ring Title. Agree?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Alpha
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Alpha
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Alpha
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Ward was the last lineal champion and also The Ring champion.
Since Ward left supermiddle The Ring made DeGale-Jack for the belt but it was a draw.
With Ward/Froch, many rated the undefeated IBF champion Bute ahead of Froch at the time. Putting the legitimacy of the lineal title being on the line in question.
Froch annihated Bute later on should tell us that Bute was a paper champ.
That is besides the point, Bute was considered by many to be #1 or #2 in the division heading into Ward/Froch.
It caused tons of arguments on here as Bute had a big following claiming he was the best supermiddle. Not for me though, Ward-Froch had better form than him so was fine by me, and I believe Froch annihilating Bute was some kind of justification (as Master said).
At the very least it cemented Andre Ward's claim to be no.1 in the division.
Definitely established Ward as top of the division.
Froch had lost to Kessler (no shame in that), who Ward had just beaten. Bute was unbeaten until running into Froch, although he had the scare against Andrade in the first encounter. He blew him away in the rematch.
This was another example where it would have been better to leave the titles (both Ring & Lineal) vacant.
Maybe leave it vacant but only because of Kessler not Bute.
I don't think cometitive losses to top-class opposition should demote fighters, and Kessler is an all-time great supermiddle. Bute's lofty ranking was down to European fighters being underrated at that time, remember, although only 10 years ago, the East-Euro/Russian invasion had yet to be accepted Stateside, guys like Bute were fighting on HBO/Showtime so naturally getting constantly overhyped.
Leading up to the Ward fight this was their opposition between 2008-2010.
Bute - Miranda, Andrade, Mendy, Magee and Johnson.
Froch - Pascal, Taylor, Dirrell, Kessler (L), Abraham and Johnson.
YET!!! Bute was ranked ahead of Froch!!! That is ridiculous. Froch not only beat far better opposition he'd already knocked Magee unconcious and matched the Johnson win.
Great Post.
Depending how a fighter loses to a higher rated guy and what others have done, I'd agree about not demoing fighters.
I think many fans put too much stock in unbeaten records, rather than opposition. Which seems the case with Bute at the time.
There was definitely a dispute about Ward/Froch being 1 & 2 tho, so it would have been better to leave the lineal title vacant.
Although the more I look into the lineal, the more holes I see in the concept. Mainly due to there being no main authority to determind the concensus rankings.
