Boxing

 

The Real Champs!

By Ben Pierce

I wrote an article about a month ago entitled: "Who are the real Champions", addressing the fact that some would like to call the Ring magazine's champions the only "real" champions in boxing. Unfortunately this campaign continues and it seems that Ring magazine and a small group of their friends and lackeys would like to diminish the accomplishments of boxers inside the ring, in order to further their own cause. And I for one am fed up with it!

It does not matter to me who you are, but when you attempt to discredit and discount what boxers have earned inside the ring, it is not right. These boxers, these world champions, have fought and earned their titles inside the ring and for some magazine or a few boxing writers to try and take that away is a shame. Shame on you!

Their motivation would appear apparent. Ring magazine is a print magazine in an instant information age. The news they print is months old by the time it reaches the market and they are seeking a niche to survive as many of their counterparts fail. It is a tough market for print magazines today. It is simply not enough for them to just rank boxers and award championship belts, if their belts are not recognized as the only real champions, they have no niche. There is no need to buy their magazine if they are just another ranking body. They have to be better. Thus, in my opinion, this orchestrated campaign to further their own cause.

But when Ring magazine does this, they not only discredit the other ranking bodies, but they hurt and diminish the boxers themselves. Many ask, why are you standing up for the ABC ranking bodies. I am not, but maybe I should. They are more qualified than Ring magazine. They have been ranking boxers and awarding championships consistently since the 1920's. Their rankings are voted on by committee, they have open national conventions and they are much better than having one closed, arbitrary body naming champions. Yes, they have been rocked by scandals, but so has the Ring magazine. Their scandals or no worse or no better than the same ones suffered by Ring magazine.

Lets look at the Ring magazine and what happened once before when they were ranking boxers. Boxing was still popular on network television, but they needed someone to rank boxers and tell the public who the real champions and contenders were. Someone to lend credibility. Ring magazine was happy to step up, lend it's credibility and be the one to inform the public, but allegedly for a price. It was alleged that Ring made up rankings, that they changed boxers records, that their were payoffs and bribes involved. Is this not the same thing that they and others have said about the ABC ranking bodies? If true, is this not the classic example of the pot calling the kettle black?

Sorry, but burn me once, my fault. Try to burn me again, it is not going to happen. I was born at night, but it was not last night! We have been there before with Ring magazine and I do not care to go there again or to have any one source tell me who the champions of boxing are unless that source is a National/International Boxing Commission, that is run by committees and is a not for profit organization. Money corrupts and we should take it out of the rankings and championships of boxing.

Lets look further at the way Ring magazine ranks boxers and awards championships. First, they use the same champions named by the ranking bodies as the criteria to name their own champions. How ironic to discount them, say they are not real, then use them as a part of your criteria. But a so called "real" champion does not have to unify all three belts, the Ring magazine in it's infinite wisdom, makes exceptions to that, to boxers they think, boxers they determine, to be worthy. Exceptions make me nervous.

An example of these exceptions is when Ring named Vernon Forrest the "real" champion at Welterweight after his victory over Shane Mosley. He has faced none of the other champions in the division and though I think he may be worthy, I don't want any one entity determining that, especially one that is alleged to have done it corruptly in the past! Why discount the other champions in that division. Is that not the same thing that happened to Vernon Forrest before he beat Mosley? I think that should be decided in the ring, between the champions. Let them earn the title of undisputed champion.

Ring magazine also plans to name the winner of the Vargas-De la Hoya fight as the "real" champion at Junior Middleweight. These are both great champions in their own right and maybe the winner is the top dog at Junior Middleweight, but what about the other champion there? Should they not have to face Winky Wright to be the real, undisputed champion? I understand Vargas already holds a victory over Wright and has said he will face him in a rematch, but what if De La Hoya wins? There is probably no way he will fight Wright and there is definitely no way that Ring magazine can convince, embarrass or apply enough pressure to get him to fight Wright. He would laugh in their face!

Thus the next problem with Ring magazine's rankings and champions. They do not force any or their "real" champions to face any real competition. Once named a Ring magazine champion, you do not have to face any of the top contenders in the division and you can never be stripped of your title. Ring says they will apply pressure and try to embarrass the champions into fighting the top contenders. Have they not tried to do that to Roy Jones Jr. for years and yet he is one of their "real" champions? How much success have they had with applying pressure in the past? Do you think they can dictate to Oscar De la Hoya, Roy Jones, Lennox Lewis, Bernard Hopkins or many others, who they are going to fight. That is laughable at best.

I have no problem with Ring magazine ranking boxers and awarding championship belts. My problem arises, when they want to tell boxers and boxing fans that fights that have already taken place inside the ring do not count. My problem is the method in which they decide who is a champion and how that champion must conduct himself. My problems is I do not want one source, controlled by a need for profit to survive, to have this authority.

There is a place in boxing for Ring magazine and for the ABC ranking bodies. Nigel Collins is said to be a good and honorable man, but so are the intentions of the other ranking bodies. Neither is better than the other, they are the same. They have proven themselves to be the same in the past and we need change, not the same old song and dance.

Until we achieve that needed change is boxing, I think having champions determined by differing bodies is good. I think it is even better when these champions face each other in the ring and become undisputed champions. But lets not confuse the words real and undisputed. One is earned inside the ring, the other is arbitrarily decided by one self proclaimed, self appointed source. Which one do you think is real?

I will say it again and continue to say it as long as this organized campaign to promote Ring magazine champions goes on...these boxers earned their championships inside the ring and you have no right to try and take that away from them. To call them titlists, belt holders or anything less than then champions is wrong. It is simply wrong.

Questions/Comments: benp1000@msn.com

0 comments
 


Bookmark and Share

 

If you detect any issues with the legality of this site, problems are always unintentional and will be corrected with notification.
The views and opinions of all writers expressed on eastsideboxing.com do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Management.
Copyright © 2001- 2015 East Side Boxing.com - Privacy Policy