Joshua v Parker - 31/3/18

[Fenster]

How would you feel if they classed no.1 as Wilder and no. 3 as Ortiz and decided that would be for the Ring belt? It's not inconceivable and would be as equally unfair.

They're rated 2 and 5 so wouldn't make sense.

The 1 vs 3 can be for the Ring belt but in this scenario, where Wilder is clearly regarded as no.2, in his pomp, active and the most glamorous opponent for Joshua, it would have cheapened their status to award the title for the sake of it.

[Alpha]

How would you feel if they classed no.1 as Wilder and no. 3 as Ortiz and decided that would be for the Ring belt? It's not inconceivable and would be as equally unfair.

They're rated 2 and 5 so wouldn't make sense.

The 1 vs 3 can be for the Ring belt but in this scenario, where Wilder is clearly regarded as no.2, in his pomp, active and the most glamorous opponent for Joshua, it would have cheapened their status to award the title for the sake of it.

Yep, I think the only time 1 vs 3 has been for a Ring belt was Wlad/ Chagaev.

[Primo Carnera]

How would you feel if they classed no.1 as Wilder and no. 3 as Ortiz and decided that would be for the Ring belt? It's not inconceivable and would be as equally unfair.

They're rated 2 and 5 so wouldn't make sense.

The 1 vs 3 can be for the Ring belt but in this scenario, where Wilder is clearly regarded as no.2, in his pomp, active and the most glamorous opponent for Joshua, it would have cheapened their status to award the title for the sake of it.

Yeah, but what I was saying to Master, was how would he feel IF they rated Wilder above Joshua and Ortiz above Parker. Would he still be clamouring for it to be for the Ring belt, or would he be moaning that AJ wasn't involved. Just proving that it works both ways and trying to be consistent.

[Fenster]

The Ring belt and lineal are different, you can trace lots of differences going way back, however, they really went astray after stopping their ratings system in the late 80s. When they restarted they ignored their own history which threw up nonsense like Roy Jones being "THE man" at lightheavy even though the true linage could be traced to Michalczewski (so Roy was Ring champion but not lineal).

Fans constantly confuse the two as they often are in alignment when new linages are created as the top two in a division are almost always the standout best.

As for no.1-vs-no.3 - the Wlad-Chagaev situation happened because of Vitali being rated no.2. However, Bute was Ring no.1/2 (?) when Ward-Froch fought for the title. Pretty sure there are several cases in recent years (can't think off the top of my head though).

[Alpha]

In pretty sure Ward and Froch were 1 and 2 when they fought. Could be wrong.

[Fenster]

You could be right too. I remember Bute had loads of fans that would argue his record was better than Froch's around that time, and he definitely was Ring no.1 at one point in front of both Ward and Froch.

[Alpha]

You could be right too. I remember Bute had loads of fans that would argue his record was better than Froch's around that time, and he definitely was Ring no.1 at one point in front of both Ward and Froch.

I remember Bute being #1 as well, I think after Ward beat Kessler he took over at #1.

It's quite a tricky area, who determineds who are the #1 and #2? Most rankings differ greatly on the top 5 placings.