Is it just me, or has The Ring magazine belt made a strong comback in recent times?
Great belt and significantly, it identifies the division's No.1 champion, which is much welcomed following years of confusion, splinter, and multiple division-champions, including super champions.
I know the De La Hoya connection, but winning one of those belts is arguably the pinnacle of the pro game.
On reflection, Hatton and Calzaghe winning the belts in their careers is perhaps a little overlooked in terms of recognition.
The Renaissance of The Ring Belt
-
tiny_acres
- Middleweight
- Posts: 9528
- Joined: 17 Feb 2014, 14:43
Re: The Renaissance of The Ring Belt
I lost all respect for the magazine when Oscar bought it.
The belt is no longer meaningful in my eyes
The belt is no longer meaningful in my eyes
Re: The Renaissance of The Ring Belt
id say, the belt is still good in terms of recognizing fighters who are legit elite fighters within there division and have usually had strong results to show this
i havent agreed with all there decisions, like to make linares-crolla for the belt, but you really never get a ring champ who isnt a top fighter without some good results, and so getting the belt is still a good accomplishment to me. unlike lineal titles, it also has obligations that need to be made to keep it, includign facing top rated fighters within a certain time frame.
how meaningful it is beyond that, i dont know.
i havent agreed with all there decisions, like to make linares-crolla for the belt, but you really never get a ring champ who isnt a top fighter without some good results, and so getting the belt is still a good accomplishment to me. unlike lineal titles, it also has obligations that need to be made to keep it, includign facing top rated fighters within a certain time frame.
how meaningful it is beyond that, i dont know.
Re: The Renaissance of The Ring Belt
i get your point, but id say, lets look at the cases of ring champs, to me they still show a high quality and the title is usually earned with win or wins that are far better then standard title fightstiny_acres wrote: ↑11 Oct 2018, 18:46 I lost all respect for the magazine when Oscar bought it.
The belt is no longer meaningful in my eyes
and it did look highly questionable with the magazines editor overturning the stripping of canelo, but then that ended up being overturned as well
Re: The Renaissance of The Ring Belt
Can't really say I agreed with having the ring magazine title for Groves vs Smith (especially when they refused Joshua vs Parker). I don't think Groves could be considered beyond all doubt the #1 in the devision...and really he only beat the wba regular champion who was somehow promoted to full status.
I think there was a pretty equal case for Ramirez, DeGale and that guy who smashed Andre Dirrell to be #1.
I think there was a pretty equal case for Ramirez, DeGale and that guy who smashed Andre Dirrell to be #1.
Re: The Renaissance of The Ring Belt
i agree with that for the most part. tbh i have smith at 1, but its not an asbolute top dog type of 1. the ring has had a few cases like that, where they award to to someone who is clearly in the divisions elite and had a good win, but hasnt really cleaned things out like a usyk has. they sort of did this too when they awarded linares-crolla for the title, even though mikey garcia was a champ at that point. still a much higher standard over the usual things for the alphabet soup orgs though.
though, i certanly dont think degale couldve been considered #1 going into smith-groves, losing to a fighter of truaxs level was too damaging even if he did scrape by a rematch
though, i certanly dont think degale couldve been considered #1 going into smith-groves, losing to a fighter of truaxs level was too damaging even if he did scrape by a rematch
Last edited by jamamb on 12 Oct 2018, 03:30, edited 1 time in total.
-
Ruthless-RKO
- Welterweight
- Posts: 103275
- Joined: 24 Apr 2016, 11:59
Re: The Renaissance of The Ring Belt
I think The RING wanted to award the winner with the belt. The tournament was open to all SMW's, anyone who wanted to fight the best in the division could enter and the prize money was good, no doubt.stujones wrote: ↑12 Oct 2018, 03:23 Can't really say I agreed with having the ring magazine title for Groves vs Smith (especially when they refused Joshua vs Parker). I don't think Groves could be considered beyond all doubt the #1 in the devision...and really he only beat the wba regular champion who was somehow promoted to full status.
I think there was a pretty equal case for Ramirez, DeGale and that guy who smashed Andre Dirrell to be #1.
Guys like Ramirez, DeGale didn't bother entering. I know it's not compulsary, but with those two and Benavidez, we could have seen a clear #1 in the SMW division like we saw in the CW.
Re: The Renaissance of The Ring Belt
The ring belt is still good but the magazine is jank
-
leejonesjnr
- Middleweight
- Posts: 2667
- Joined: 31 Dec 2013, 18:32
Re: The Renaissance of The Ring Belt
I can’t say that I’ve seen a strong resurgence in the value attributed to The Ring belt.
There was a time when it was flying, Calzaghe v Hopkins for example was universally accepted as a Light Heavyweight world title fight but that was only for The Ring belt, no other org.
In recent times the only real mention of it has been when it was awarded to the WBSS winner and the question of Tyson Fury remaining their champion.
There was a time when it was flying, Calzaghe v Hopkins for example was universally accepted as a Light Heavyweight world title fight but that was only for The Ring belt, no other org.
In recent times the only real mention of it has been when it was awarded to the WBSS winner and the question of Tyson Fury remaining their champion.