Ring Magazine on the Road to Sanity

[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.

[Kev]

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.

[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.

[Kev]

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

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.

[Spicoli]

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.

[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.

[fan johnny]

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.

[Kev]

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.

[Kev]

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.

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

[marbleheadmaui]

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

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.

[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

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.

[marbleheadmaui]

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.

[Kev]

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.

[marbleheadmaui]

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.

What makes a champion a champion? it is in the OVERCOMING, it is in the RARITY, it is in the EXCELLENCE!

90% of major sports games have zero meaning in themselves. NONE. Who wins or loses has ZERO to do with the outcome of an individual game. And how many NBA champs are there every year? ONE!

This is bloodsport, not some game of fourth gradse dogeball where people get participation certificates.

Again, this is measurable. If you were right? More straps would mean more fighters. In fact the opposite is true.

[Kev]

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.

What makes a champion a champion? it is in the OVERCOMING, it is in the RARITY, it is in the EXCELLENCE!

90% of major sports games have zero meaning in themselves. NONE. Who wins or loses has ZERO to do with the outcome of an individual game. And how many NBA champs are there every year? ONE!

This is bloodsport, not some game of fourth gradse dogeball where people get participation certificates.

Again, this is measurable. If you were right? More straps would mean more fighters. In fact the opposite is true.

You and vanchilds are bleating a load of nonsense!

Why does having four belts stop fighters from reaching the pinnacle? Since when has winning an alphabet belt been the pinnacle? Truly great fighters go well beyond that. They want to win several belts, across multiple divisions, amass a ton of trophies and silverware just like in every other sport. Then they want to fight the other best fighters and prove their greatness.

How have the alphabets hindered that? Have fighters like Mayweather, Pacquiao, Hopkins, Jones Jr, Holyfield, Lewis, Marquez, Morales, Barrera, De La Hoya not been able to achieve in the sport because of the alphabets?

Can you really not tell the difference between their acomplishments and lets say those of David Diaz, Ponce de Leon, Steven Lueveno, Marcus Beyer and Hasim Rahman?

The alphabets are not the pinnacle, they are just a title, like winning a Grand slam isn't in tennis isn't the pinnacle or winning a major isn't the pinnacle in golf, or winning the FA cup isn't the pinnacle in English football.

All of these trophies are highly desirable to win but winning them doesn't make you the best person or team in your sport. Winning a few of them might well do though, and it's no different in boxing.