Ring Magazine on the Road to Sanity

[marbleheadmaui]

In the most recent Letter's to the Editor of Ring Magazine, Editor Nigel Collins has said the following:

It is, however, getting increasingly difficult to distinguish between the ever-increasing number of so-called alphabet champions because of the preposterous “interim,” “super,” “regular,” and “emeritus” categories created by the organizations. Consequently, The Ring is considering dropping all mention of them in the future and would be interested in knowing how other readers feel about such a move.

Here's the e-mail I sent.

Sir,

On behalf of right thinking boxing fans everywhere, I implore you and Ring Magazine to cease all mention of the alphabet belts. They damage the concept of a champion, they confuse the casual fan, they prevent top fights from being made and they damage the overall integrity of the sport.

I’d also ask you to take two further steps in this area. Call a conference among yourselves, HBO, Showtime, ESPN and any other major network that is willing to participate and try to make the following deal:
• The Networks agree only to refer to or mention the Ring Belt and Ring Magazine rankings in all their broadcasts;
• Ring Magazine agrees to make their advisory panel the determinative group in deciding rankings so no one can claim Oscar’s business interests are leaking into the editorial decisions and Ring agrees to use its best efforts to fill in some of the vacant championships over the next year. That would mean in EVERY case where #1 faces #3 in a vacant championship situation the belt will be on the line and that if #1 will not fight #2 or #3 than #2 and #3 can meet for the belt. This would help the networks with marketing and only temporarily dilute what Ring does.

Your magazine is a beacon of sanity in a crazy boxing environment. Please use that influence.

My fellow Saddo-ites. Please let Ring Magazine know your feelings on this as this would be a MAJOR first step in damaging the visibility of these fraudulent straps. Send an e-mail to

AskTheEditor@ringtv.com.

[fan johnny]

I think it's an illegal move. It's called collusion. You can't make agreements in the US to squeeze out the other guys buy controlling the market.

[Spicoli]

Did Nigel really ask that dumb ass question ? Probally why I have not purchased an issue in 2 + years

[marbleheadmaui]

Did Nigel really ask that dumb ass question ? Probally why I have not purchased an issue in 2 + years

Sounds like they want cover for a decision they've already come to. I am happy to help give air cover.

[Spicoli]

Did Nigel really ask that dumb ass question ? Probally why I have not purchased an issue in 2 + years

Sounds like they want cover for a decision they've already come to. I am happy to help give air cover.

I guess they have regressed or giving into group think in regards to mentioning alphabet soup. I remember an issue in which they made a 'mission statement' of sorts as to why they stopped listing the 3 bodies rankings and I.D ing them in own rankings a number of years ago. I can't envision anyone taking exception to them dropping them let alone to them giving merit to that silly "Super-mega-ultra" Champion stuff.

[Kev]

Did Nigel really ask that dumb ass question ? Probally why I have not purchased an issue in 2 + years

Sounds like they want cover for a decision they've already come to. I am happy to help give air cover.

I guess they have regressed or giving into group think in regards to mentioning alphabet soup. I remember an issue in which they made a 'mission statement' of sorts as to why they stopped listing the 3 bodies rankings and I.D ing them in own rankings a number of years ago. I can't envision anyone taking exception to them dropping them let alone to them giving merit to that silly "Super-mega-ultra" Champion stuff.

Yeah I don't know anybody who follows the official rankings of the alphabets. I don't even know who holds what belts let alone who is the IBF top 10 at 140 say. It's of no importance to hardly anyone, the Ring rankings have always been where it's at.

This is why it baffles me when peoplle suddenly treat a belt as if it's a holy, sacred item of unimaginable prestige. Berto musn't be allowed to fight for the IBF belt after coming off a loss! Manny cannot claim a 154 lb title at a catchweight of 150!! Alvavrez should never have been allowed to fight for a belt and be champ.

Really, what does it matter? Nobody pays attention the organisations anyway, they are just there to give a title and some recognition to the top fighters of the moment.

I like the alphabets for that reason. Every sportsman who dedicates 20 odd years amatuer and pro to his craft wants to be able to wins things. All other sports have dozens of trophies, competitions etc up for grabs, and boxing follows suits with 4 titles in each weight class, thus giving the thousands of professional boxers out there the hope of fighting for something meaningful, even if it's not accepted as such by the fans. The fans in boxing have a very self centred approach to their sport imo.

[Conrad]

It's weird, I've always thought that the countless alphabets were bad for boxing as I felt it diluted the words 'world champion' somewhat. But the more I think about it the more I think Bilbo is right.

It doesn't really matter anymore how many world champions we have as we all pretty much know who's number 1 in each division thanks to The Ring.

I'm still undecided on whether the numerous belts get in the way of big fights happening though...

[marbleheadmaui]

I think it's an illegal move. It's called collusion. You can't make agreements in the US to squeeze out the other guys buy controlling the market.

I don't think it meets the legal requirement for collusion (but I'm not an attorney). Collusion involves fraud. Nobody is saying the straps can't exist, only that they agree not to talk about them.

[fan johnny]

I think it's an illegal move. It's called collusion. You can't make agreements in the US to squeeze out the other guys buy controlling the market.

I don't think it meets the legal requirement for collusion (but I'm not an attorney). Collusion involves fraud. Nobody is saying the straps can't exist, only that they agree not to talk about them.

Collusion is the just the word I to describe the behavior. What it's actually called is "Antitrust Laws". Basically they are in place to keep corporations and the like from joining forces to for out the competition. Another word is called monopoly. It doesn't have to involve fraud to be illegal.

[marbleheadmaui]

I think it's an illegal move. It's called collusion. You can't make agreements in the US to squeeze out the other guys buy controlling the market.

I don't think it meets the legal requirement for collusion (but I'm not an attorney). Collusion involves fraud. Nobody is saying the straps can't exist, only that they agree not to talk about them.

Collusion is the just the word I to describe the behavior. What it's actually called is "Antitrust Laws". Basically they are in place to keep corporations and the like from joining forces to for out the competition. Another word is called monopoly. It doesn't have to involve fraud to be illegal.

I really doubt anti-trust laws apply. For two reasons. First ESPN, Ring etc are press organizations and thus protected by the First Amendment. No way the Gov't tries to tell them what they can or cannot talk about. Second, the anti-trust laws are generally geared around two things (sorry, I wrote papers on the Sherman anti-trust act in college), manipulating pricing and manipulating market shares. Neither applies here. Not mentioning them does nothing to impact the revenue of the alphabet gangs. They still can charge fighters sanctioning fees. In addition ESPN, Ring etc do not compete with the alphabet ganges. They are in different businesses. Ring/ESPN etc make money off subscriptions and advertising, NOT by obtaining sanctioning fees from fighters.

[Kev]

I mst be the only on here who doesn't actually think there is a problem with the belts.

Having 4 titles in each weight class is entirely normal in sport. In golf there are the majors, in tennis the Grand Slams, in soccer, lots of different cups and trophies to aim for.

A single world champ in each weight class would be shit. It would mean certain fighters could be ignored, like in the old days and never get to fight for the title. There would be less interest for non title fights and it would be harder for fighters to get recognition.

Onto the admiteddly silly emeritus and diamond belt situation. I agree they are often silly but actaully they help the sport imo by making sure the biggest name, high profile guys get titles to distinguish them, immediate rematch at a title they once owned etc.

I don't see how that is actually bad beyond people's sensibilities being offended.

So for example maui says Saul Alvarez is no more of a world champ than he is. Well I agree I don't regard him as the true champ in the weight class but right now he is one of the most exciting up and coming fighters and a fighter lots of guys want to see fight so I'm all for a way to make sure he gets the attention and giving him a belt does that.

Just forget about the name. A belt world championship hasn't meant world champion in decades now, fucking get it over it guys! We all know that. The Ring rankings are what people involved in the sport follow.

The belts just attach a title and meaning to a fight to get people watching. Look at golf and tennis. There are all sorts of majors and grand slams. Winning one doesn't mean you are the best player in the wolrd but if they only had one major or one grandslam it would suck.

Would we even watch an event that didn't have a major or grandslam tag to it? I don't think minor events even get televised, certainly only the most hardcore fans will watch them.

Titles and belts are a necessary part of the reward process in any sport. They just act to give a fighter a name and to give a significance and meaning to a fight.

Without them it's just two people fighting, or two people playing tennis. Sportsfans don't watch that.


Just get with the times and stopp griping about redundant arguments.

Your ideas of reform would actually ruin boxing imo.

[fan johnny]

I think it's an illegal move. It's called collusion. You can't make agreements in the US to squeeze out the other guys buy controlling the market.

I don't think it meets the legal requirement for collusion (but I'm not an attorney). Collusion involves fraud. Nobody is saying the straps can't exist, only that they agree not to talk about them.

Collusion is the just the word I to describe the behavior. What it's actually called is "Antitrust Laws". Basically they are in place to keep corporations and the like from joining forces to for out the competition. Another word is called monopoly. It doesn't have to involve fraud to be illegal.

I really doubt anti-trust laws apply. For two reasons. First ESPN, Ring etc are press organizations and thus protected by the First Amendment. No way the Gov't tries to tell them what they can or cannot talk about. Second, the anti-trust laws are generally geared around two things (sorry, I wrote papers on the Sherman anti-trust act in college), manipulating pricing and manipulating market shares. Neither applies here. Not mentioning them does nothing to impact the revenue of the alphabet gangs. They still can charge fighters sanctioning fees. In addition ESPN, Ring etc do not compete with the alphabet ganges. They are in different businesses. Ring/ESPN etc make money off subscriptions and advertising, NOT by obtaining sanctioning fees from fighters.

Think about it! Try to forget what you wrote in college. Law is generally vague so that it works for both sides. What then becomes more important is the "intent". The specific purpose of proposed alliance is to get rid of the abc belts. This is exactly what the antitrust laws are for. It doesn't matter about price fixing. What matters is the purpose of the alliance. The behavior is unethical because it's intent is to destroy the abc business.

[captainanddew]

I think it's an illegal move. It's called collusion. You can't make agreements in the US to squeeze out the other guys buy controlling the market.

I don't think it meets the legal requirement for collusion (but I'm not an attorney). Collusion involves fraud. Nobody is saying the straps can't exist, only that they agree not to talk about them.

Collusion is the just the word I to describe the behavior. What it's actually called is "Antitrust Laws". Basically they are in place to keep corporations and the like from joining forces to for out the competition. Another word is called monopoly. It doesn't have to involve fraud to be illegal.

Please refrain from discussing the law if you are not an attorney.

I'm a tax and estate planning attorney and I myself try to not make statements about other areas of the law, especially specialized areas such as anti-trust law.

[Kev]

I think it's an illegal move. It's called collusion. You can't make agreements in the US to squeeze out the other guys buy controlling the market.

I don't think it meets the legal requirement for collusion (but I'm not an attorney). Collusion involves fraud. Nobody is saying the straps can't exist, only that they agree not to talk about them.

Collusion is the just the word I to describe the behavior. What it's actually called is "Antitrust Laws". Basically they are in place to keep corporations and the like from joining forces to for out the competition. Another word is called monopoly. It doesn't have to involve fraud to be illegal.

Please refrain from discussing the law if you are not an attorney.

I'm a tax and estate planning attorney and I myself try to not make statements about other areas of the law, especially specialized areas such as anti-trust law.

Huh? Or what?

Can you please refrain from telling other posters what they can discuss if you are not their parent or legal guardian.

I have discussed topics on these boards for many years with over 20,000 posts and I myself try not to make statements dictating what others can talk about.

[fan johnny]

i think it's an illegal move. It's called collusion. You can't make agreements in the us to squeeze out the other guys buy controlling the market.

i don't think it meets the legal requirement for collusion (but i'm not an attorney). Collusion involves fraud. Nobody is saying the straps can't exist, only that they agree not to talk about them.

collusion is the just the word i to describe the behavior. What it's actually called is "antitrust laws". Basically they are in place to keep corporations and the like from joining forces to for out the competition. Another word is called monopoly. It doesn't have to involve fraud to be illegal.

please refrain from discussing the law if you are not an attorney.

I'm a tax and estate planning attorney and i myself try to not make statements about other areas of the law, especially specialized areas such as anti-trust law.

stfu!