This word... BUM... IT'S GARBAGE!

[donnydarkoIRL]

I understand completely what you mean and agree on the most part...
We've got a long way to go...

Perhaps if we came up with a viable idea we could outlinbe it's use, petition it and send it to the ring, or implement it at saddo's.

[PRIDE OF BOSTON]

To be honest, I don't have the answer. I do think that The Ring is the best thing out there, although I certainly have reservations as for putting it too much on a piedestal. I dont like belts that do not have mandatories (and, yes, I know mandatories can be annoying (see: Ray Austin), but just letting champs decide their opposition themselves aren't a good solution either (see: Pongsaklek)). As for their rankings, look no further than Danish Thomas Damgaard for a fighter who managed to keep a Ring-ranking way beyond what he deserved based on his opposition.

The good thing about The Ring is that they're subjective rankings. And I mean that when I call it positive. Basing rankings merely on the 'a beat b, so he will beat c' doesn't work too well in my book. I had a debate on Marco Huck once - this is a fighter whose best win came against an opponent who decided to leave the ring after the first round and then got disqualified (Pietro Aurino). How do you take that into account in an objective ranking? How do you account for the 'common sense' - yes, I am misusing this concept, but I do believe there is something to be said for this concept, still - that tells you that no, Carlos Baldomir is not the best welterweight in the world?

However, the bad thing about The Ring's rankings is also that they are subjective. Yes, I contradict myself here, but that's because there is two sides to the argument. And Oscar buying into the magazine certainly makes me more worried about this point as well, even if I don't think there has been grounds for concern yet.

I might be the only one in this world, but I actually like the IBO rankings. At least they are rather comprehensive - going to no. 100 - without being so random as the boxrec ones.

If there is to be a solution, it might be The Ring's belts and rankings. On the other hand I actually feel (like you?) that the alphabelts mean something. Not everything, but something. They are achievements - and great ones at that. Since I have anyway written this long, meaningless drivel, I might as well extend this with my tennis analogy (don't worry, it's better than my football analogy, which I could bring up instead): The alphabelts are like grand slam tournaments. Winning the Australian Open was a great thing for Djokovic, but it doesnt make him the best in the world. Common sense will tell you that that's still Federer. That doesnt make winning Australian Open worthless, far from it. Now - in tennis there is an 'official ranking', but does it really matter? Being no. 1 is great - and the boxing equivalent is the Ring title - but no one will remember if you are 5 or 7 or 9. What matters - in history at least - is your wins. Who you defeated, when and where. Did you win a title etc. The same things should count in boxing - but these things does necessitate a certain amount of common sense.

It is us - as boxing fans - who put perspective into titles, rankings etc. The results only matters as much, as we percept that they do. BUT - this does not render titles, rankings etc obsolete, rather they can be used as 'guidelines' for us.

Wauw. What a shit-long post. And I didnt even make the point that I set out to make (yet) - that I disagree with your distinguishing between Sturm and the others (I am sorry for calling you out on Cunningham, as there was no reason to), as it just doesnt fit with the way you perceive the system in other regards. Either you subscribe to the notion that 'common sense' matters, or you don't. I subscribe to the first position, but not to match' idea that it is all that matter.

And - again I might be the only one, but it seem fitting to admit in a thread against denigrating fighters as bums - I don't actually mind having more champs. I don't mind that quite a few fighters get to hold onto something. As long as they are willing to clear up the confusion and prove themselves once in a while.

Hmmm... Great post. I hear what you're saying. I too feel that many champs is not nessesarily a bad thing as long as they attempt to clear things up. I have legit issues with fighters who get a title and sit on it...

I would love it if there was some type of rule about unification... Of course this would NEVER happen as the sanctioning bodies would never agree to it but how great would it be if added to mandatory challengers there were mandatory unifications... But being the bodies have no affiliation this would be impossible, sadly.

REP for the great post!

[donnydarkoIRL]

Interestingly Pride touched on the reason I excluded Sturm froim my initial statement. Felix although taking risky fights has never expressed any intent to move on toward unification or toward the upper tiers.

[PRIDE OF BOSTON]

Interestingly Pride touched on the reason I excluded Sturm froim my initial statement. Felix although taking risky fights has never expressed any intent to move on toward unification or toward the upper tiers.

This is true...