Also, are they perhaps another version of a piece of the "Alphabet Soup"
2007-02-27 08:27:15 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Boxing
While I'm sure there are some bias in the Ring rankings, I do put more stock in there title than an alphabet belt. To win the ring belt odds are you had to beat one of the best in the division, often when a fighter is stripped for not fighting a mandatory, the belt temporarily ends up in the hands of a fighter that wouldn't have a prayer of winning a Ring belt. Also, the Ring title is possible. Take the heavyweight division right now. One fight could create a Ring champion. To get a unified champion the fighters and promoters would have to get fights against other champions while keeping up with all the "mandatory defenses." If you look at the alphabet rankings most of them do not have the other "champions" in their top 10s.
2007-02-28 02:58:55 · answer #1 · answered by full_contact80 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Ring's ratings are a respite of sanity amongst a sea of alphabet numbers, however, you are absolutely correct that by being so, they inadvertenly become another piece of the championship pie.
2007-02-27 16:26:42 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree with Brad. But I do put more emphasis on Ring's ratings than the IBF, WBC, WBA, WBO rankings.
2007-02-28 03:19:37 · answer #3 · answered by Brent 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do. Because they have a simple rule a championship can only be lost or won in the ring or through retirement and god forbid death.
2007-02-27 08:44:29 · answer #4 · answered by idak13 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋