KO Magazine ?error?

[Lance Uppercut]

The Ring recognizes the WBO as much as it does the WBA WBU WBC IBF IBA IBO.....They are all corrupt parasites that keep boxing from being a mainstream sport in America.

[Violent Demise]

The Ring recognizes the WBO as much as it does the WBA WBU WBC IBF IBA IBO.....They are all corrupt parasites that keep boxing from being a mainstream sport in America.

Ever since The Ring created it's championship policy it no longer recognizes any belt. Before it did, it only acknowledge the WBC, WBA and the IBF.

[DaxxKahn]

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?

Ring magazine can care less about any title.....Truth is their title is the only one that counts as far as legitimacy......as you often see they have vacant slots in their champion area...They go b who is the most dominate champion and who fights the best comp if their title is not passed along by defeat...EG baldo was ring champ because he won it from Judah...the rest is all about money amoung thwe organizations...they are the least biased in their ratings because they don't profit from their rankings....You can't put down Ring's champion...You will be hard pressed to find anyone who knows anthing about the sport to disagree with them...their belt is either won from the former holder or awarded by quality and quality only

[superheavyrhun]

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?

Ring magazine can care less about any title.....Truth is their title is the only one that counts as far as legitimacy......as you often see they have vacant slots in their champion area...They go b who is the most dominate champion and who fights the best comp if their title is not passed along by defeat...EG baldo was ring champ because he won it from Judah...the rest is all about money amoung thwe organizations...they are the least biased in their ratings because they don't profit from their rankings....You can't put down Ring's champion...You will be hard pressed to find anyone who knows anthing about the sport to disagree with them...their belt is either won from the former holder or awarded by quality and quality only

Yes, but the argument about why Lyakovich wasn't on the cover still counts, as his opponent to win his belt, Lamon Brewster, is a fighter of similar level with Rahman, Byrd and John Ruiz, whom the other champions had to beat to claim their belt. Anyhow, I doubt there is a fighter in there worthy of the Ring belt, which, I would agree, is a good indicator of who the best of the champions is in most of the division, where unifications are rare.

[Fenster]

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?

Ring magazine can care less about any title.....Truth is their title is the only one that counts as far as legitimacy......as you often see they have vacant slots in their champion area...They go b who is the most dominate champion and who fights the best comp if their title is not passed along by defeat...EG baldo was ring champ because he won it from Judah...the rest is all about money amoung thwe organizations...they are the least biased in their ratings because they don't profit from their rankings....You can't put down Ring's champion...You will be hard pressed to find anyone who knows anthing about the sport to disagree with them...their belt is either won from the former holder or awarded by quality and quality only

Right. So no point in lambasting the WBO belt then is there? It's just as shit as the others and Calzaghe was still ranked and then won the ring belt on the back of milking it for years

[DaxxKahn]

I think ( not posotive here) tha last HW ring champion was Vitaly

[Lance Uppercut]

Peter has the IBA title, so he has one of the many alphabet titles too. ANd you might say that the WBO is better then the IBA, but what is the difference. Peter beat Toney for his alphabet belt, and Lykovic beat brewster for his.

[Jody Lane]

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.

[Lance Uppercut]

but if they put the wbo alphabet champ on the cover, then they would not have room for the iba alphabet champ. And you may also be mad that they neglected to put the IBC, IBU, WBU, WBE champions on the cover.

For real: who can keep up with these alphabet gangs?

[Violent Demise]

but if they put the wbo alphabet champ on the cover, then they would not have room for the iba alphabet champ. And you may also be mad that they neglected to put the IBC, IBU, WBU, WBE champions on the cover.

For real: who can keep up with these alphabet gangs?

Why didn't you include the WBB in your post?

[Lance Uppercut]

but if they put the wbo alphabet champ on the cover, then they would not have room for the iba alphabet champ. And you may also be mad that they neglected to put the IBC, IBU, WBU, WBE champions on the cover.

For real: who can keep up with these alphabet gangs?

Why didn't you include the WBB in your post?

lol