Any Significance To The Ring Title "Real" Title?

Question

Is there any significance to the Ring Title and is it a "real" title like the WBA, WBC, IBF?

This is it http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/55897496.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF1939847EC77F5F8D1CEC6863818127C8025A40A659CEC4C8CB6

Answer 1

Yes the ring title has become the universally recognised title to hold. It is the only title that is the man that beat the man and not the lets try and make as much money from chump contenders belts.

Answer 2

The Ring title is the most respected and important title in the game of boxing today.  It is not a sanctioning body like the crooked and corrupt WBA, WBC, IBF, and WBO belts, but it is a REAL title- in fact it is the most real title out there today.  The reason why it is so respected is because it brings boxing back to the old days where there was ONE lineal and true champion in each weight division (not 4 like we have today).  And the only way that you can lose the belt is if you lose it in a title fight, you move to another weight division permanently, or you retire- thats the way it USED to be and thats the way it SHOULD be.  They also don't strip the fighters for not defending against bogus mandatory bums and they don't make the fighters pay a sanctioning fee every time they defend the belt.  The fighters with Ring belts are regarded as the linear and true champions in their weight divisions and they garner the most respect.

The picture that you have is when Jermain Taylor was the middleweight champion of the world after he beat Hopkins the first time and that photo was taken before their rematch (which Taylor also won).  He has since lost the championship to Kelly Pavlik (the current middleweight champion).

Don't pay any attention to the guy above named grant B- he's probably a member of the IBF or WBO or something like that, LOL.  He's trying to say that 2 belts would be okay- Umm... thats still one too many my man.  There should only be ONE belt and that is what the Ring belt signifies.  And he's trying to say that the mandatory challengers are good- so you're trying to tell me that Ray Austin was a worthy mandatory IBF challenger and deserved a shot at Wladimir Klitschko coming off a DRAW (not even a win)?  Thats what I thought...  And he actually disproved his own point by saying that when Mayweather beat Baldomir, he became "the champ."  Yes, he did and you know why he was considered the champ after he beat Baldomir?  Because he won the linear and Ring Magazine title, which signifies that he beat the man who beat the man.  It had nothing to do with him winning the WBC belt- he was and still is looked at as THE welterweight champion of the world because he won the linear, Ring title. I could go on with all of the money-making schemes and worthless mandatory challengers that there have been recently, but it would just take up too much space.

Answer 3

The Ring title is no better then other ABC boys.

Basically it allows a fighter who get's the belt to just sit on it for over a year and defend the belt against fighters not even ranked or in the division they are suppose to be "champ" in. Case and point, Hopkins defending his Ring belt against blown up Winky Wright.

The Ring, which is now own by Oscar, pushes it's own agenda and belt. Basically Ring only credits fights that have THEIR belt as being the "true" champ.

Let's not forget The Ring is not a pure source, and was busted in late 1970s by taking money from Don King to manipulate rankings for his fighters.

News sources should be reporting the news not creating news or pushing their own product, which is what The Ring does.

Also, manditores are not the problem. It allows none Big Name fighters to get a shot at the belt instead of "champs" avoiding them. There's been many cases where "champs" have lost to manditores. Case and point. Zab losing to Baldi, who everyone thought was a bum. Same Baldi that Mayweather beat to become "champ."

It's ABC boys ranking system and not including other titalists that is the problem, not to mention too many belts. If there was only two belts, there wouldn't be a problem.