Ring Magazine on the Road to Sanity

[fan johnny]

@marbleheadmaiu.

As the logic in your last post was so alien to me I wanted to go through it with you step by step so you can help show me what I'm not understanding here. Can you go through with me one by one and lets see if we can work through this?


You SERIOUSLY struggle with the concept of cause and effect don't you?

Uhm, I admit I do struggle with your conclusions about the causes certainly. Let's start with Floyd not fighting Cotto and Margarito. How did the belts orgs cause that? My likely explanation for the cause is twofold. Firstly, it's been more than half a decade since Floyd was fighting more than twice a year which means he can only fight one or two people in that time. By fighting one he automatically avoids another. The other cause, as I see it is that Floyd choose who Floyd fights. What I don't see is any evidence at all of an alphabet organisation sabotaging that fight. You obviously disagree so if so please present the evidence.

Likewise for the other fights down the list. I don't see how the belts sabotaged any of them, can you explain how they did, beyond shouting cause and effect?

The belts do NOTHING to identify top fighters.

If that is true then why did every single fighter you named hold a belt? A 100% concurrence between the best fighters and the beltholders. That has to be better than chance, do you not a agree?

Know how I know this? Because I had NO IDEA what the status of these guys belts were when I made the list. None.

Amazing logic. So your argument is that if you didn't know the fighters you considered the best were beltholders (which I really doubt is true btw) than there can be no connection to the alphabet orgs having the best guys as champs.

That's like saying because you have never heard of Charles Dickens he couldn't have written Oliver Twist.

In addition you fall down over your own logic. YOUR claim is belts create fights. I list fights that did NOT happen. YOU point out that these guys were beltholders. YET THEY DIDN'T FIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How does my logic fail because some fights didn't happen? Lets consider basic maths. 1000 fighters in a weight class. Average fighter fights 3 times a year. Now for a 1000 fighters to all fight each other, each fighter would need to fight 999 opponents. How is this possible? Can you mathematically explain this to me?

I would conclude the reason some fights don't happen is because fighters do not fight enough to make it possible. If Floyd have fought Cotto for example he would not have been able to fight Mosley, or Hatton. Do you disagree with this? If you think Cotto was a better opponent then those guys and he should have fought him instead, can you explain how the alphabet bodies dictated this?

This is getting pretty damned funny.

If by funny, you mean odd, queer, bizarre I most definitely agree. Your post made literally no sense to me whastover. Baffling.

Let's play the MORE DATA game!

In 1979 ranked welters fought one another eleven times. In 1958, another down period for boxing, they fought one another AT LEAST a dozen times. I stopped counting.

This year? Ranked welters, with all those belts to create fights? Will have fought one another what? Let's count them.

Manny v Shane
Ortiz v. Berto
Ortiz v Mayweather

Am I leaving any fights out? Let's assume I've forgotten two for arguments sake.
All these belts with such value and being used as such bargaining chips are producing no better than HALF as many fights!

Data, data, data

Oh and I have NO IDEA who the alphabet strapholders are or are not. Nor do I care.

What does that even mean? It supports nothing! You use one weight class. Fighters get ranked by who they face in the ring and what they do. The win / loss record comes into play when those win / losses are against ranked fighters. It doesn't matter if you call it organization a, b, c, or ring as long as there is a tracking method. The data is the history and is paramount to the boxing game. I think you had a brain fart or something but usually don't just babel useless info like that.

[Rantcatrat]

Fenster - will you please explain the US/UK angle to this discussion to me? Are you saying there is a point to the alphabet belts because boxing has become global? I'm not being facetious, I just wasn't following it.

Bilbo - can you tell me once more what you see as the major benefit to the alphabet titles? Is it marketability for boxers?

Bilbo - does this mean that you would be against a single worldwide boxing organization that had one champion per division?

[badr_hari]

Alphabet titles confuse the casual fan, but we have to live with it. Ring is definitely not the solution. Its an American magazine (that can be easily manipulated) and i totally disagree with their rankings.

[Rantcatrat]

Alphabet titles confuse the casual fan, but we have to live with it. Ring is definitely not the solution. Its an American magazine (that can be easily manipulated) and i totally disagree with their rankings.

The solution is something like what Fifa does for soccer. Right?

[badr_hari]

Alphabet titles confuse the casual fan, but we have to live with it. Ring is definitely not the solution. Its an American magazine (that can be easily manipulated) and i totally disagree with their rankings.

The solution is something like what Fifa does for soccer. Right?

Absolutely yes. Their structure with 6 confederations for each continent and Fifa for major worldwide tournaments should be used as an example from the boxing community. Maybe we should wait until 2013 for AIBA pro boxing.