Quote Originally Posted by superheavyrhun
Quote Originally Posted by Fenster
Quote Originally Posted by lance Uppercut
Either 1 & 2 or 1 & 3- they allow 1 & 3 to fight for vacant titles if there is very little disparity between 2 & 3.
Right. So even though the ring doesn't recognise the WBO it still had Calzaghe ranked in a position to take their title?
Logic??!!?!?!? You can't argue on the basis of logic, it has to be all down to some old American pundits and writers and their opinions. Calzaghe's first title shot in their view was for the ring belt. Totally mkes sense.
As an American I have a problem dealing with The Ring's stance on the WBO. It sucks that they bitch and complain about the alphabet groups, then turn around and legitimize the WBC, IBF and WBA in their reporting and ignore the WBO.