The Renaissance of The Ring Belt

Post Reply
liamlion
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1956
Joined: 06 Jan 2005, 09:56

The Renaissance of The Ring Belt

Post by liamlion »

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.
tiny_acres
Middleweight
Posts: 9528
Joined: 17 Feb 2014, 14:43

Re: The Renaissance of The Ring Belt

Post by tiny_acres »

I lost all respect for the magazine when Oscar bought it.
The belt is no longer meaningful in my eyes
jamamb
Lightweight
Posts: 14329
Joined: 17 Sep 2017, 05:37

Re: The Renaissance of The Ring Belt

Post by jamamb »

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.
jamamb
Lightweight
Posts: 14329
Joined: 17 Sep 2017, 05:37

Re: The Renaissance of The Ring Belt

Post by jamamb »

tiny_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
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 fights

and it did look highly questionable with the magazines editor overturning the stripping of canelo, but then that ended up being overturned as well
stujones
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 27512
Joined: 29 Aug 2003, 15:08

Re: The Renaissance of The Ring Belt

Post by stujones »

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.
jamamb
Lightweight
Posts: 14329
Joined: 17 Sep 2017, 05:37

Re: The Renaissance of The Ring Belt

Post by jamamb »

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
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

Post by Ruthless-RKO »

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.
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.

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.
Oiky
Super Welterweight
Posts: 7277
Joined: 16 Feb 2015, 09:22

Re: The Renaissance of The Ring Belt

Post by Oiky »

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

Post by leejonesjnr »

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.
Post Reply