BoxRec

johnswan1 wrote:Here it is:

http://www.ringtv.com/blog/2690/ring_ra ... er_winner/

Timothy Bradley and Devon Alexander have each won two major sanctioning organization belts, but the undefeated junior welterweight standouts, who meet in a highly anticipated showdown on Jan. 29, will have to wait for the opportunity to add THE RING title to their collection.

The possibility existed that the magazine’s vacant junior welterweight title would be up for grabs for the winner of Bradley-Alexander, which takes place in Pontiac, Mich., and will be televised live on HBO (in the U.S.).

Bradley (26-0, 11 knockouts), who defeated Junior Witter and Kendall Holt for alphabet belts, is THE RING’s No. 1-rated junior welterweight. Alexander (21-0, 13 KOs), who defeated Witter and Juan Urango for alphabet titles, is the magazine’s No. 3-rated 140-pound contender.

RING championship vacancies are normally filled by a box-off between the magazine’s No. 1 and No. 2 contenders. However, in certain instances, such as if the No. 2 contender is unavailable, a box-off between the No. 1 and No. 3 contender can fill the vacancy.

Amir Khan, THE RING’s No. 2-rated junior welterweight, is available, and indeed, there has been talk of the talented UK star facing the Bradley-Alexander winner later in the year. For that reason, the magazine’s editorial board, with the participation of its Ratings Panel, decided not to put THE RING title on the line for the Bradley-Alexander winner.

“After much deliberation, THE RING has decided not to recognize the Timothy Bradley-Devon Alexander bout for the vacant RING junior welterweight championship,” said Nigel Collins, Editor-in-Chief of THE RING magazine. “We began discussing whether or not we should recognize the No. 1 contender (Bradley) against No. 3 (Alexander) soon after the Bradley-Alexander fight was announced. We decided to wait until after the Amir Khan-Marcos Maidana fight (on Dec. 11) to make a final decision, as Khan was No. 2.

“Khan’s performance against Maidna, in one of 2010’s best fights, only served to reinforce his status as No. 2 at 140 pounds. Therefore, we decided to wait until the Bradley-Alexander winner fights Khan before awarding THE RING belt, which has been vacant since Manny Pacquiao voluntarily relinquished the title when he moved up to welterweight.”

Some fans will undoubtedly be upset by the editorial board’s decision. Those fans likely believe that Alexander, who is coming off a unanimous decision over former beltholder Andreas Kotelnik, is just as deserving of THE RING’s No. 2 ranking as Khan.

Of course, Khan supporters can point out that apart from victories over RING-rated contenders Maidana and Paul Malignaggi, their man dominated Kotelnik to a title-winning unanimous decision in July of 2009. Alexander struggled during his fight with Kotelnik, which took place in his hometown of St. Louis last August, and his decision victory was controversial.

THE RING’s editorial board can see merits to both arguments but believes that a prudent approach to filling championship vacancies makes the most sense.

“Since THE RING launched it new championship policy in 2002, we have generally taken a conservative course when filling vacancies,” said Collins. “No. 1 versus No. 2 is still the best way to go. The most recent instance when we recognized a bout between No. 1 and No. 3 for a vacant title was when Wladimir Klitscho, who was No. 1. fought Ruslan Chagaev, then No. 3, in 2009. The reasoning was that Wladimir would never fight No. 2 because it was his brother, Vitali.”

stujones wrote:

johnswan1 wrote:Here it is:

http://www.ringtv.com/blog/2690/ring_ra ... er_winner/

Timothy Bradley and Devon Alexander have each won two major sanctioning organization belts, but the undefeated junior welterweight standouts, who meet in a highly anticipated showdown on Jan. 29, will have to wait for the opportunity to add THE RING title to their collection.

The possibility existed that the magazine’s vacant junior welterweight title would be up for grabs for the winner of Bradley-Alexander, which takes place in Pontiac, Mich., and will be televised live on HBO (in the U.S.).

Bradley (26-0, 11 knockouts), who defeated Junior Witter and Kendall Holt for alphabet belts, is THE RING’s No. 1-rated junior welterweight. Alexander (21-0, 13 KOs), who defeated Witter and Juan Urango for alphabet titles, is the magazine’s No. 3-rated 140-pound contender.

RING championship vacancies are normally filled by a box-off between the magazine’s No. 1 and No. 2 contenders. However, in certain instances, such as if the No. 2 contender is unavailable, a box-off between the No. 1 and No. 3 contender can fill the vacancy.

Amir Khan, THE RING’s No. 2-rated junior welterweight, is available, and indeed, there has been talk of the talented UK star facing the Bradley-Alexander winner later in the year. For that reason, the magazine’s editorial board, with the participation of its Ratings Panel, decided not to put THE RING title on the line for the Bradley-Alexander winner.

“After much deliberation, THE RING has decided not to recognize the Timothy Bradley-Devon Alexander bout for the vacant RING junior welterweight championship,” said Nigel Collins, Editor-in-Chief of THE RING magazine. “We began discussing whether or not we should recognize the No. 1 contender (Bradley) against No. 3 (Alexander) soon after the Bradley-Alexander fight was announced. We decided to wait until after the Amir Khan-Marcos Maidana fight (on Dec. 11) to make a final decision, as Khan was No. 2.

“Khan’s performance against Maidna, in one of 2010’s best fights, only served to reinforce his status as No. 2 at 140 pounds. Therefore, we decided to wait until the Bradley-Alexander winner fights Khan before awarding THE RING belt, which has been vacant since Manny Pacquiao voluntarily relinquished the title when he moved up to welterweight.”

Some fans will undoubtedly be upset by the editorial board’s decision. Those fans likely believe that Alexander, who is coming off a unanimous decision over former beltholder Andreas Kotelnik, is just as deserving of THE RING’s No. 2 ranking as Khan.

Of course, Khan supporters can point out that apart from victories over RING-rated contenders Maidana and Paul Malignaggi, their man dominated Kotelnik to a title-winning unanimous decision in July of 2009. Alexander struggled during his fight with Kotelnik, which took place in his hometown of St. Louis last August, and his decision victory was controversial.

THE RING’s editorial board can see merits to both arguments but believes that a prudent approach to filling championship vacancies makes the most sense.

“Since THE RING launched it new championship policy in 2002, we have generally taken a conservative course when filling vacancies,” said Collins. “No. 1 versus No. 2 is still the best way to go. The most recent instance when we recognized a bout between No. 1 and No. 3 for a vacant title was when Wladimir Klitscho, who was No. 1. fought Ruslan Chagaev, then No. 3, in 2009. The reasoning was that Wladimir would never fight No. 2 because it was his brother, Vitali.”

Not that I am asking him to fight his brother, but Vitali was available - why did the let that one slip buy. What happens if it is gym buddies or best mates. I doubt we'll ever see Khan vs Pacquiao - but would ring not mind a bypass there?

I think its pretty bad that Bradley vs Alexander is not for the ring title.

johnswan1 wrote:The Ring system, although flawed in itself, is the one I give most weight to. Have to say I disagree with their decision not to stage Bradley-Alexander (ranked 1st & 3rd) as a fight for the vacant Light Welter title. They have said that if the winner fights Khan it will be for the title.

jtourettes wrote:

saturday_kid wrote:WBC is ruining its prestige lately big time

Lately? José Sulaimán has been ruining it for years but the diamond belt bollocks for Pac really took the piss.

davie wrote:You know something, if the title (or any of these other fringe titles) started getting regularly contested by solid top level fighters. Perhaps at a better level than some of the joke match ups we see for the 'big 4', I wouldn't mind us recognising one of them as a major title, on one condition.
We relegate the worst 'major title'.
I vote we relegate WBA, just stop recognising them.

1 in 1 out, we can have no more than 4 governing bodies.

If only we could do that, might get some of these jokers to buck up their ideas.

fizzjambo wrote:

davie wrote:You know something, if the title (or any of these other fringe titles) started getting regularly contested by solid top level fighters. Perhaps at a better level than some of the joke match ups we see for the 'big 4', I wouldn't mind us recognising one of them as a major title, on one condition.
We relegate the worst 'major title'.
I vote we relegate WBA, just stop recognising them.

1 in 1 out, we can have no more than 4 governing bodies.

If only we could do that, might get some of these jokers to buck up their ideas.

Can we just relegate some of the four and not bother replacing them please?

mimmy123 wrote:I think Eubank Jr will make it more popular, just as Herbie Hide and Eubank Sr did with the WBO title.

Syntax Error wrote:

mimmy123 wrote:I think Eubank Jr will make it more popular, just as Herbie Hide and Eubank Sr did with the WBO title.

Eubank Jr would need to find a pen to sign contracts for the big fights for that to happen.

Eubank Sr was lucky to have the likes of Nigel Benn, Michael Watson & Steve Collins to lock horns with & it was because of that that initially ridiculed WBO became a recognised title.

Jr's problem is that he doesn't have that calibre of nemesis available in the same numbers & the ones that he does have to face, he mysteriously loses his pen when the time comes to sign contracts.

Perseus wrote:Casual fans know and recognize the WBC,WBA, IBF and WBO but get confused if you mention the IBO.

On top of that try taking a look around the boxing websites, the ones that have a list of sanctioning body champions all have the " big four" but only a few of them have the IBO.
If the most of the sites that actually take the time to keep track of the alphabet belts don't list the IBO that's a pretty good indication that the IBO is not on equal ground the other four yet.

davie wrote:

fizzjambo wrote:

davie wrote:You know something, if the title (or any of these other fringe titles) started getting regularly contested by solid top level fighters. Perhaps at a better level than some of the joke match ups we see for the 'big 4', I wouldn't mind us recognising one of them as a major title, on one condition.
We relegate the worst 'major title'.
I vote we relegate WBA, just stop recognising them.

1 in 1 out, we can have no more than 4 governing bodies.

If only we could do that, might get some of these jokers to buck up their ideas.

Can we just relegate some of the four and not bother replacing them please?

Now we're talking

biglefthook wrote:In recent years the IBO has been classed as a stepping stone title.
it has been thrown with the wbu, wbf, iba ect.
but with Wladimir Klitschko haveing the heaveyweight crown and reguarly defending it plus danny green the cruiser champ.
Lovemore N'dou is the welter champ.
ricky hatton had that title for a while and Manny Pacquiao was happy to have it around his waist when he beat hatton
lennex lewis had it and untill recently pete manfrado had it at middle weight after a failed bid up at super middle. i think its gaining respect and its not makeing a hundred titles like the wbc

forcefraser wrote:That Ring belt list is pathetic. Pascal is not top 5, Martinez and Marquez are retired and Klitscko??????

davie wrote:

forcefraser wrote:That Ring belt list is pathetic. Pascal is not top 5, Martinez and Marquez are retired and Klitscko??????

In it's defence, it is from 2011.