BoxRec

No fighter should be awarded a title without winning it in the ring. Ward is the best super middleweight in the world and has been inactive because of legal issues and because no one really wants to fight him, Froch himself hasn't fought in 9 months and isn't showing much of intention of getting in the ring at the minute, it's been a couple of years since he fought a top 5 fighter. And the Ring didn't break any of their own rules:

Here are the seven situations in which a champion can lose his belt:
The Champion loses a fight in the weight class in which he is champion.
The Champion moves to another weight class.
The Champion does not schedule a fight in any weight class for 18 months.
The Champion does not schedule a fight at his championship weight for 18 months (even if he fights at another weight).
The Champion does not schedule a fight with a Top-5 contender from any weight class for two years.
The Champion retires.
The Champion tests positive for a banned substance.

Only one that Ward hasn't met is the one about a top 5 contender, last one he fought was Dawson, last time Froch fought one was Bute. The champion can lose his belt, not will.

Froch is practically semi-retired at this point, awarding him a belt for doing nothing seems kind of ridiculous.

No.

Carl has been the definitive #2 guy for so long giving him the belt randomly would feel as awkward as letting Aquaman wear Superman's clothes.

Which rules have Ward broken?

The only rules that were broken, which I suppose are minor, was the fact that the Ring Magazine allowed Andre Ward to retain ownership of their championship belt for a time period that falls outside the scope of their own rules.

What is this based on? In the bit that expe posted The Ring uses the words "Here are the seven situations in which a champion can lose his belt", and 'can' simply means that it's possible for a champion to lose their belt in that case, not that it's mandated.

fergusg wrote:

expe wrote:No fighter should be awarded a title without winning it in the ring. Ward is the best super middleweight in the world and has been inactive because of legal issues and because no one really wants to fight him, Froch himself hasn't fought in 9 months and isn't showing much of intention of getting in the ring at the minute, it's been a couple of years since he fought a top 5 fighter. And the Ring didn't break any of their own rules:

Here are the seven situations in which a champion can lose his belt:
The Champion loses a fight in the weight class in which he is champion.
The Champion moves to another weight class.
The Champion does not schedule a fight in any weight class for 18 months.
The Champion does not schedule a fight at his championship weight for 18 months (even if he fights at another weight).
The Champion does not schedule a fight with a Top-5 contender from any weight class for two years.
The Champion retires.
The Champion tests positive for a banned substance.

Only one that Ward hasn't met is the one about a top 5 contender, last one he fought was Dawson, last time Froch fought one was Bute. The champion can lose his belt, not will.

All you’ve done is copy and paste the rules, which I have already addressed in my original post.

I have already read the rules, hence my comment that suggests that the Ring Magazine should consider breaking them (as they had done so already for Ward).

By the way, Chad Dawson wasn’t a world-rated 168lb-er, since he hadn’t fought in that weight class for approaching seven years.

George Groves, Mikkel Kessler & Lucian Bute were all top five rated 168lb-ers when they fought Froch, which accounts for four of Carl's last five fights.

Do you actually follow the rankings?

jujigatame wrote:Froch is practically semi-retired at this point, awarding him a belt for doing nothing seems kind of ridiculous.

Carl Froch defeated the third highest ranked 168lb-er last Summer, which was about eight months ago (265 days). What's ridiculous about that?

ReggieDiggs wrote:No.

Carl has been the definitive #2 guy for so long giving him the belt randomly would feel as awkward as letting Aquaman wear Superman's clothes.

The thing is… Froch has already beaten the next two highest ranked contenders and it seems silly to declare the title vacant, when the necessary match-up’s to crown a new Ring Magazine champion have already taken place and aren’t commercially viable.

Says a top 5 contender from any weight class, Dawson was the champion at light heavyweight at the time. Forgot about Kessler, so that's nearly 2 years since Froch fought a top 5 fighter, Groves wasn't at the time of the first fight, possibly when the second came round based on his performance in his fight.

fergusg wrote:

crusader wrote:

The only rules that were broken, which I suppose are minor, was the fact that the Ring Magazine allowed Andre Ward to retain ownership of their championship belt for a time period that falls outside the scope of their own rules.

What is this based on? In the bit that expe posted The Ring uses the words "Here are the seven situations in which a champion can lose his belt", and 'can' simply means that it's possible for a champion to lose their belt in that case, not that it's mandated.

If you’re focussing on the word “can” rather than “will”, then it seems that the Ring Magazine made a judgement call to allow Ward to retain ownership of their belt, regardless the stipulations or Andre's inactivity… then could they have not made a similar call to declare Froch as their new champion?

After all, according to the Ring Magazine, “Championship vacancies can be filled in the…”

Did I say they couldn't? I was inquiring about which rules were being broken as I've seen you suggest on multiple occasions that The Ring wasn't following their rules, but the use of 'can' in the set of points quoted clearly indicates that those aren't necessary conditions to holding a title, and hence no rules were technically broken.

As for Froch being given the title, on one hand I think he's the clearly the top fighter in the division if Ward is considered inactive but on the other I think titles should be fought for and won inside the ring (i.e. awarded to a fighter upon him winning a title bout) rather than given on ad-hoc basis that involves considering fights that occurred months and even years ago. Overall, I'd prefer for him not to be named champion because I think that label would lose more significance by being given in this circumstance than be being reserved for someone who wins the belt in the ring under the appropriate conditions.

What's it matter......Ward is fighting soon....so as soon as he fights he's back at 1. If it makes u bits happy to have Foch "1" for a couple months he'll go for it. Just remember Froch got embarrassed by Ward. George Groves lol

fergusg wrote:

expe wrote:Says a top 5 contender from any weight class, Dawson was the champion at light heavyweight at the time. Forgot about Kessler, so that's nearly 2 years since Froch fought a top 5 fighter, Groves wasn't at the time of the first fight, possibly when the second came round based on his performance in his fight.

It had been 2½ years since Andre Ward faced Chad Dawson. Edwin Rodriguez was a borderline top-ten contender at best... and fought the S.O.G. as a light heavyweight.

George Groves was ranked fifth by the Ring Magazine in their 2013 annual ratings and rose to third the following year. He was KO’d by Carl Froch eight months ago.

Ward fought Rodriguez as a super middleweight, not his fault Rodriguez didn't make the weight.

So Groves was 6th(Ward being champion pushes him down a spot) and 4th when he fought Froch, according to the Ring. Personally I wouldn't have had Groves that high, the Ring's ratings aren't the best out there, Ward, Froch, Kessler, Abraham and Stieglitz were all above him before the first fight IMO and there's a couple of others that could be added to that list. He jumped past some of those with his performance in the first fight and possibly did enough to move above Stieglitz, but he wasn't top 5 IMO.

Ward shouldn't be the champ. A guy who doesn't fight shouldn't be the champ. But Froch doesn't have the claim either. VACANT

fergusg wrote:

expe wrote:Says a top 5 contender from any weight class, Dawson was the champion at light heavyweight at the time. Forgot about Kessler, so that's nearly 2 years since Froch fought a top 5 fighter, Groves wasn't at the time of the first fight, possibly when the second came round based on his performance in his fight.

It had been 2½ years since Andre Ward faced Chad Dawson. Edwin Rodriguez was a borderline top-ten contender at best... and fought the S.O.G. as a light heavyweight.

George Groves was ranked fifth by the Ring Magazine in their 2013 annual ratings and rose to third the following year. He was KO’d by Carl Froch eight months ago.

crusader wrote:Overall, I'd prefer for him not to be named champion because I think that label would lose more significance by being given in this circumstance than be being reserved for someone who wins the belt in the ring under the appropriate conditions.

Under normal circumstances, I’d agree with you, but since Froch has already defeated the next two highest rated contenders for the belt in that weight division, with those men having already notched up victories over the next two highest rated fighters... this seems to be an obvious and common-sense exception to the rule.

I see your point, but as mentioned I think titles should be fought for and won in the ring (i.e. awarded to a fighter upon him winning a title bout) rather than given on ad-hoc basis that involves considering fights that occurred months and even years ago when another person was champion.

Froch wasn't champion when he beat Groves and AA and at least in the case of the wins over the former someone else was in that position; what happened after those bouts shouldn't retroactively make Froch a champion in my view when he didn't fit the criteria for that at the time of the fights.

fergusg wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote:But Froch doesn't have the claim either. VACANT

Who does Carl have to beat to be crowned the new Ring Magazine 168lb champion? Is there any justification for him to grant Arthur Abraham a rematch when he’s already beat him by a one-sided 120-108 margin?

Since you want the Ring to stick stringently to their criteria, Abraham would guarantee him the title, or he could fight any of Groves, DeGale and Stieglitz and see if they see that as enough to take the title. Really he should have to beat Ward to prove he's the best in the division.

fergusg wrote:

ReggieDiggs wrote:No.

Carl has been the definitive #2 guy for so long giving him the belt randomly would feel as awkward as letting Aquaman wear Superman's clothes.

The thing is… Froch has already beaten the next two highest ranked contenders and it seems silly to declare the title vacant, when the necessary match-up’s to crown a new Ring Magazine champion have already taken place and aren’t commercially viable.

You can't retroactively win a title. Or I guess I should say I don't think you should be able to win a title retroactively. With todays slippery slope of title nuttiness I could see anything happening.

Yes, as long as it'll shut you boxing nerds up about make believe titles. Ward is the best SMW we all know it, even Froch knows it. But if rewarding it to Froch will shut up the boxing nerds I'm all for it.

The only way Froch could get Ward's title, any title, is by having it handed to him. As great as Froch is, he is forever 2nd best.

As a member of THE RING's rating panel. I appreciate the conversation.

As you say Ward was stripped earlier this week. Froch will not be made RING champion, with respect to what he has done at 168 and that is a great deal. We won't be making him champion unless he can earn it correct way and that's beating a top fighter. I know he owns wins over 2. Arthur Abraham and 3. George Groves but when those fights were fought Ward was the No.1.

There have been several instances where two fighters have fought and then later on in their careers they were ranked No. 1 and No. 2 in a division, while the result is taken into consideration they have to meet at the current time to belt a champion.

Another instance. At 130 Uchiyama is universally recognised at the best, he fought Miura in 2011 and stopped his fellow Japanese fighter. Miura rebounded excellently to win the WBC belt. Currently Uchiyama is No. 1 and Miura we have at No. 3. But we wouldn't make Uchiyama the RING champion, he has to win it in the ring.

It would cause anarchy if we started awarding titles for past achievements.

When did Froch unannounce his retirement?

ReggieDiggs wrote:No.

Carl has been the definitive #2 guy for so long giving him the belt randomly would feel as awkward as letting Aquaman wear Superman's clothes.

Top

Eww Froch is old and overrated. At this point both Dirrells beat his ass. I just want him to retire so we don't have to hear about him anymore. And no he is not a RING champion.

Carl Froch does not need any organization's recognition. His record speaks for itself.

And that record proves he's number 2