WBC strips Martinez of title

That's not entirely true. I know people who don't follow boxing that saw the Williams knockout...one person told me they saw it on Sportcenter's Top Plays.

 

Same, a few of my friends told me about it.

 

Some douchebag like Foreman showed what happens when you ignore sanctioning bodies. It was a predictable path, if not overly likely path, for a champion to take and it demonstrated why sanctioning bodies are necessary and far, far, far better than what can happen without them.

The more likely path is that a champion will spurn a belt to take a bigger fight. When that happens, the champion gets stripped--as he should--and life goes on. And whiny bitches start crying about sanctioning bodies. It's like death and taxes.

Also, whenever a champion leaves a belt behind or gets it stripped for cause, they always come back looking for a sanctioned title fight eventually. Always.

 

Fuck off.

 

:Wah::laughing:

 

Hard as fuck.

But honestly, for people like The Ring who offer a magazine belt, they don't really offer anything else that goes with it. Not to mention that theoretically, you only have to win one fight to become champ and then spend the rest of your time cherry picking.

For example... Pacquiao only had to fight once at 140, beating Hatton to become champ. He never had any intention of defending it or ever again fighting at 140, yet was allowed to keep it up until he decided to fight Margarito.

But in a beltless society, he's 'the champ' and Bradley-Alexander is just another fight. In fact, without belts, Bradley-Alexander is quite possibly a five-figure payday for both and most likely not on HBO or Showtime. As it is, The Ring doesn't even want to recognize it as a championship fight, instead insisting that the winner needs to fight Khan.

Me personally? I don't need a belt or a championship policy to tell me that the winner of Bradley-Alexander is the best 140 lb fighter in the world. I'll argue until I can no longer speak or type that rankings should just go from 1-10, without any champion at all being recognized. This way, the #1 spot is always up for grabs, rather than a champ sitting on his lead.

 

I'm not a defender of the Ring policy.

The system is obviously broken, and I hate it when I hear "without belts so and so isn't a big fight or a big pay day."

That just tells me that boxing needs an overhaul. It doesn't tell me that we should excuses these silly belts.

I like your last idea, but I also like having a champion. But a real champion, none of this four or five planet earth's crap.

 

I'm wit you Steve Dave, I'm a big-time fight fan.

I also think that getting rid of the belts willbe so difficult. Especially when that's all boxers have been bred to fight for. I'll Holla 5000

 

If you ignore them they'll FUCK OFF.

 

What exactly is The Ring policy? I mean, I know they dont have any power, but as far as stripping champions...is there only a certain time limit (like a year or so of inactivity) before they start removing championship status and remove fighters from their rankings, or are there standards of opposition (like fighting other another top ten fighter within the weight class) for any amount of time?

 

And that says more about the state of boxing than the credibility of the paper belts.

 

Yeah, but there are always going to be idiots like mikE, so more drastic measures are needed.

 

Boxing is the best, I don't care who watches and who doesn't.

 

As far as I know, they only strip for inactivity. Been a while since I cared.

 

I am amazed none of you see the real motive behind WBC making Martinez "emeritus" champion: to protect WBC's mexican darling, Julio Cesar Chavez Jr, from a brutal defeat against Martinez. Against the german dude he has a chance of remaining 'undefeated' and win a belt.

 

Knowing that would mean actually looking at their rankings.

 

No. It is in that same article: the german dude will fight mandatory challenger Julio Cesar Chavez Jr.

 

Continue to talk shit at Fightbeat probably.

 

I'm pretty busy followin other passions of mine. Hopefully, one day I'll be able to do some work in boxing.

 

This.

 

Not in boxing he can't.

 

Look dimwit, if you can come up with a better system, let's hear it.

Then let's hear why it will work. Then let's hear why it isn't in place now.

What I expect to get from you is "wahh wahhh wahhh, this is how I think it should be even if I can't do any of the above."

A one-belt system pretty much cannot work. I know one way it may work, but I'll let you whine first.

Edit: Reading the rest of the thread, you did exactly what I though you would. You punted: "Continue to talk shit at Fightbeat probably."

The only way that a one-belt system has a chance is with $$$$$$$$$$. And I'm not talking about millions, but probably hundreds of millions. You have to control all 17 weight classes and you have to make it so that every top challenger would prefer to fight for your championship and no other. And that's not going to happen without your belt being worth more $ than any other. What that means is that the new sanctioning body will have to be willing to lose lots of $$$ just to keep everything under their control, particularly at first, but perhaps forever.

The reason it will go on forever is because power corrupts and even if one sanctioning body can gain control for a while of the entire sport, they will fuck up sooner than later and things will evolve to a 2 and then 3 and then 4 sanctioning body system once again.

Personally, I don't like the idea of one belt, anyway. Why? Because it shuts out too many fighters from making good money and getting title shots.

I like the way it is, but perhaps with more encouragement to get unified champs. However, it works pretty well as it is now. And I sure as fuck have never heard of a feasible way to make it better. Just a lot of whiny bitching.

Jake's proposal above is fairly novel, but I don't see it working, either. People like for there to be champions, not just #1 rated guys.

 

They've never stripped anyone outright. Pacquiao was the closest - they gave him a deadline to respond to the question of whether or not he'd ever again fight at 140. That deadline came and went, he never responded, so they vacated the title.

Usually after a year of inactivity, they begin a letter writing campaign, giving the fighter the opportunity to confirm where his career is heading. Sometimes, fighters are honest. Other times, you get guys like Paulie Ayala who hang on to their title for years without ever actually defending it. I'm pretty sure he was their 122 champ from the Bones Adams rematch all the way up until the Barrera fight (which was at 126), having never fought at 122 at any point during that stretch of more than two years.

Like every other belt in the sport, The Ring title is nothing more than a marketing tool. Only there's even less value in The Ring belt these days since their credibility continues to plummet.

 

i forget who i asked, but it was one of the contributors to the magazine who told me that had yori boy beaten oscar (in a 10 round fight), he would've then be declared the champ at 154. their whole concept was nebulous to me from the getgo, but now it just seems like another alphabet belt minus the fees.

 

DLH/Campas was a 10-rounder?

 

It wasn't, it was definitely scheduled for 12. Oscar was a unified champ at the time, had just beaten Vargas (well, several months prior, but still...)

I know what Joony's saying though. There was in fact a Ring Title-related fight that was only scheduled for 10 due to the absence of an alphabet belt, but it wasn't Oscar. At that time, state commissions only recognized sanctioned title fights as 12 round bouts.

 

Speaking of ol' what's his gut, I think he just had a breakdown...