Groves vs Smith for Ring Title. Agree?

[Alpha]

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.

[Fenster]

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.

[Master]

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.

[Alpha]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Alpha]

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.

[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.

[Master]

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.

[Alpha]

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.

[Alpha]

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.

[Alpha]

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.

[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.

[Alpha]

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.

[Master]

We could re-start the debate if David Haye was truly the undisputed cruiserweight champion of the world.