Ben Pierce

07.08 - Let me first say that as a die-hard boxing fan, I hate it when some television sportscaster, newspaper, magazine or website writer, wants to try and tell me who the real champions of boxing are. I know who they are and so do most boxing fans.

I know John Ruiz is not the Heavyweight Champion, no matter what the WBA or Don King want me to believe. I know Marco Barrera is the Featherweight Champion, no matter how hard the WBC tries to convince me otherwise. And I know that wearing a Ring magazine belt does not a "real" champion make, no matter how many times Max Kellerman yells it into his in-studio mic.

I think for Ring magazine to call their title holders the only "real" champions is absurd and the height of hypocrisy. The sanctioning organizations are not perfect, by any means. But neither is Ring magazine. They have both faced allegations of corruption over the years, they have both been rocked by scandals and accusations of wrong doing. What makes one better than the other?

The ABC sanctioning bodies serve a purpose in boxing. They began with the National Boxing Association. The NBA was formed in Rhode Island in 1921 and covered boxing on a national level only. The NBA, then later in 1962, changed it's name to encompass a more world wide scope and became the World Boxing Association. Both the well known IBF and WBC sprang from the original WBA during various power struggles through the years.

The Ring magazine of course has been being published since 1922, with various owners and changing leadership. It has also shut down publication, only to begin again under new leadership. It has been widely respected though out the boxing world for years, even being called the "bible" of boxing. But Ring has had it share of controversy. The magazine was accused of accepting bribes and payoffs once before when they ranked boxers and gave championship belts. I think the unavoidable problem facing Ring magazine is now the same as many other magazines, their news is dated. They are an old vehicle traveling on a new information highway.

I have no problem with Ring magazine ranking boxers and giving out championship belts. The problem arises when they, or through their lackeys, they want to say that only their champions are the true, real champs. They have no more right to this claim than anyone else ranking boxers, less in my opinion. Then sanctioning bodies have been ranking boxers and awarding championship belts consistently, the Ring magazine has started and ceased at the whims and wishes of it's editors.

I would have to ask what are their qualifications for being the only ones to name and recognize real the champions of our sport? What makes them different, better? I can see nothing. Their purpose is driven by financial gain, just as the sanctioning bodies are. They are simply trying to find a niche to save a dying magazine. They are trying to boost sales.

Sports Illustrated is a respected publication with probably ten, twenty, maybe even fifty times the circulation, coverage and resources of Ring magazine. Sports Illustrated has always and to this day, gives boxing great coverage. They have some of the best sportswriters in the business. If they decided to rank boxers and award belts, will their champions be the "realer" or "realest" champions of boxing?

Now I hope you see my point. The champions named by Ring magazine are the same, no better and no worse than those named by the sanctioning bodies. For them to say different is the problem. For Max Kellerman to say different as many times as possible in every ESPN broadcast is the problem. I would also ask what is his agenda? If he wants real reform in boxing, why not join his fellow sportscaster, Teddy Atlas in calling for a National Commission to help govern our sport. I have decided for every time he says "real champion", I will say bogus champion. He may have a bigger mouth and a bigger bully pulpit, but I can speak more often, or at least try.

In conclusion I would point out that the system employed by Ring Magazine to rank the boxers and name their champions is flawed. It is dependant upon the same sanctioning bodies that they cry foul about. They employ exceptions that name champions without them facing the other champions or top boxers within the division and their system does not require any champion to defend his title against any top contender and he can never be stripped of his title.

Now I do not agree with the ranking of the major sanctioning bodies either, but then again they do not claim to have the only "real' champions.

Real champions...I think we all know who they are and we need no belt to tell us that.

Questions/Comments: benp1000@msn.com