BOXINGS SHOCKING HW CHAMPIONSHIP HISTORY

most of us or all of us recognize wlad as the real hw champ of the world..a shocking discovery of the champions in boxing history..guys like lee savold johnny thunder brian neilson franceso domiani mike bentt herbie hyde are some that were recognized by a major commision as the HW boxing champion of the world..in reality there have been more phoney HW champs then real ones over the years..universal recognition by all commisions has not occured since mike tyson was champ in 1989..yep real champs like douglas bowe lewis hollfield moorer foreman the second time around we and others were not universal champs..one originaztion or another either recognized someone else or vacated the title by stripping.or any other reason..how sick is that..
unifing a title means shit because shortly thereafter someone will declare the title vacant for not fighting there manditory pet..
that is a major core of boxings problem and its not limited to the HWS..this will NEVER end. a solution is not a cry to ignore these commisions without legal enforcement worldwide..
it is what it is and untill a legal solution comes ...as hardcore fans we know who the real champ is and lets roll with the punches and hope boxing makes progress in attracting a little wider fan base and brings us top competitive fights that not only can excite us but newer fans also that hopefully arrive due to a potential cbs and maybe other networks involvement..id be happy with that for now..

Good thread, dmar. I agree with you 100 percent.

Unfortunately, the only time I see the HW division make sense is when a huge star enters the picture. For monetary purposes, the "Cash Cow" heavyweight either inspires a tournament created for him to win or the networks create a unification fight. This is not motivated by morality or a sense of fair play, only profit.

Why The Ring changed their belt policy in 2001. The Ring belt use to be awarded to the real Champ. And then the unified Champ. That was back when was just the WBA and WBC.

Unifications were common then. Then got IBF, and WBO, ect, ect. And now all competing with each other with their bullshit belts, making unification impossible.

So Ring changed the belt policy, awarding it to The Man of the division, even if they haven't unified all the bullshit belts. Because it's pretty much impossible.

the ring belt for years was based on tradtion.titles won and lost in the ring only or threw retirement .retirement passed the tourch..yes today its impossible it seems to unify all belts but its still possible to recognize the real champ ..thats what ring now claims it does.they always did in the past.thats what hardcore boxing fans mostly do.
grant i was thinking of why hbo tv and others dont recognize the ring belt or instead of the word recognize lets say ignore or dont mention the ring belt..when hbo and others were bringing big fights to the fans .when cash cows like tyson oscar were drawing well and when hollifield was getting good ratings and mosley and others ring abandon boxing a bit..for over a decade the self proclaimed bible of boxing recognized no one as a boxing champ..according to ring magazine all titles were vacant.lineal champs the man or whatever we want to call them were not the champs according to ring magazine..by doing this the bible of boxing said this sport has no champions..tv knew better ..yes they understood who the real champ was .they also understood the abc stuff..so a fights for the wba title they announced it no different then when ring wrote about that fight they called it for the wba title..ring has what 5 champs it recognizes out of 17 divsions and the others are title vacant..someone had to beat the man the lineal champ in many of those divisions..and contined to do that no matter if the man was not recognized by no commsions hes still the lineal guy..i dont recall lineal champs in 12 divisions retireing with the belt .yet there are 12 divsions that the title is vacant. surely there is a real champ in 3 or 4 or 5 or more divisions that ring has the title vacant..thats good reason enough why hbo or tv thinks that way..
ring unfortunetly contributed to this mess by having all titles vacant for over a decade..
the confusion will continue unfortunetly untill sanity prevails...

TV networks ignore The Ring and recognize ABC belts for an obviouse reason. They still hold onto the beleif that title fights bring in more ratings. So the more titles, the better.

IF they only recognized The Ring and real Champs, there'd be less title fights. The promoters would flip out and be outraged that networks are not hyping their fight up as Championship fight because some trinket is on the line.

As for the vacancies. Almost all of them have to do with two top ranked fighters in their divsion simply not fighting each other.

Biggest example of that is, two top welters, MAyweather and PAc not fighting each other. Mayweather was The Ring Champ, but vacated it when went into "retirement."

No Jr Welter Champ because Manny didn't fight a Jr Welter after taking the belt Hatton for over a year since now fighting at Welter. So he vacated it.

There's been no Jr Middle Champ since Winky vacated it when moved up to Middle. Since then the top two ranked Jr Middles haven't fought each other to create a undisputed Champ.

That is more of a indictment against boxing then it is against The Ring. There wouldn't be vacancies if top two fighters in their divsions actualy fucking fought each other and created a clear cut Champ. But why do that when can get a pointless trinket and have networks and idiot people in media calling them a Champ?

As stands now, got fighters with belts who haven't even beaten a top ten ranked fighter, let alone the number one ranked fighter.

grant your missing the point.for 12 years ring said there were no champs in boxing.none.all titles vacant.even the lineal champs were ignored..thats a good reason why tv started to ignore them perhaps...how could ring say hollified was not the champ..title vacant..nore recognize bowe as champ.or chavez whitaker virgil hill and all the fighters that were real lineal champs..all titles were vacant for a dozen years per ring magazine..when the real champ fought tv annouched what belts he had..if they went by ring all fights would be non title which is a bigger joke maybe then the trin kets..
now if a number one guy fights a number two guy ring will say the winners the champ..they just made there belt a trinket for thoses guys especialy if one and two have no abc belts but the number 3 and 4 guy do..ring made a mistake in doing that and became a major part of the problem.
you can hate all the commisions and so can i.there not good for boxing..and neither was ring magazine who said to the world for 12 years there is no boxing champ in any divsion..title is vacant.that to me was just as destructive maybe even more since they ignored the real champs.
whats so hard to realize that..

The Ring didn't say there was no boxing Champ for 12 years. I just told you. Before, to get The Ring belt, you had to unify the belts and become the clear cut Champ.

But ABC belts got out of control. More kept cropping up, then started having muilti "champs" in same division, and not allowing unifications.

That is why in 2001, The Ring re-implimented The Ring belt, and changed it's policy to what it is now. Where don't have to unify all the belts, because impossible today. You simply have to beat The MAn or two top fighters in a division have to fight it out to create to get it.

And networks ignore The Ring because they want title fights. They are ones that gave power to ABC belts. They want title fights because still think they sell the fight. That why promoters go after ABC belts. So can advertise the fight their fighter is in as a Championship fight.

If HBO say only recognized The Ring belt, there'd be less HBO Championship Boxing, which is their flagship boxing show. Same with Showtime Championship Boxing. If say Showtime had more legit Champions fighting for their network, they'd no doubt get highter ratings, and HBO would not be down for that.

That's how in the past network TV empowered the ABC belts. They were competting against each other. So when ABC had WBA Champs fighting on TV, NBC would show WBC Champs and make it out like they were the real Champs.

so in that 12 year period being the man or the lineal champ didnt count..thats a shame grant cause thats what your saying rings policy was..they went from tradition of wining or losing in the ring a belt to recognizing the belts of the abc commisions.to get the ring belt before the ones given to louis marciano patterson basilio you simply had to win the title in the ring by beating the lineal champ or in a tourney if the champ retired..example when robinson was stripped of the title and the commision set up basilio-fullmer winner as the new champ ring recognized robinson as the real champ which he was because he didnt lose it in the ring or retire.after they recognized pender who beat robinson not fullmer.i dont care if there were one two or 10 commisions out there the champ is the champ..that we all agree on and that was rings poilcy based on tradition and reality and fairness.that was there reasoning back then..thats from articles i read back then stating there reasoning.
they then droped the ball back then and said all titles are vacant.for 12 years they said that.instead of being a leader in reasoning they folded..they stoped recognizing the real champ because there were lets say 5 commisions and 4 champs.to say now to win the title by beating the man we recognize you as champ which is correct but was always there policy or to unify all the belts which indirectly recognizes the abc belts and gives it importance or only if the number 1 or 2 guy fight and of course its rings number 1 or 2 guy noo one elses..by there number 1 and 2 guy as i explained before ring in escence has created another trinket..especialy if the number 3 or 4 guy have all the belts..yes its a harder trinket to get over the others but still i can give you examples in the past where ring ignored the spirit of there present policy.
they became part of the problem ...if you dont think that saying there is no real champ not one in boxing for 12 years did not compound the problem then think again.thats exactly what they did and to hide under the excuse there are several belts out there thus thoses belts negates the real champ who won the title in the ring ..a belt or awarding one to a fighter does not make you champ..its a title not a belt..wining in the ring by beating the real lineal champ makes you champ.belt or no belt.ring ignored that for 12 years.indirectly they gave legitimacy to the several belts by saying unify the belts and your champ..
they messed up big time by saying hollifield bowe chavez and others are not recognized by ring mag as the champ..clearly they were..and noo belt given to someone else can change that..this weak kneed anser by ring for 12 years saying there is no champ is solid reason for tv and others to ignore ring mag..i can understand and agree somewhat with hbo and others on that..if ring had in its magazine a one page article that stayed in all issues explaining the champ is1.who wins the title in the ring by beating the man or lineal champ for example and for thoses 12 years listed that champ instead of saying title vacant there are no champs per ring magazine in boxing then that would be reason for hbo and others to stand by ring or at least ackowledsge them..they did not..
they failed to be a constant leader when boxing needed reasoning..it came at a time when several fights were broadcasted and did huge money and ratings that noo title by anyone was at stake..does a belt possibly give more ratings ..maybe..it doesnt make it skyrocket at all..tyson-ruddock tyson -tilman foreman rodrigues golatta bowe proved that.tyson-mcnelley i can go on and on and many of thoses fights upfront every one knew was a mismatch to begin with.
all im saying ring mag compounded the problem which is clear..there possition is defenseless..
they stoped being a leader ..they stoped being a voice of reason by saying there is no champs in boxing..they droped the ball.we dont need any belt to tell us real fans who the champ is.a belt dont make a champ..that includes ring who said for 12 years there is no champ in any division.if any commision had said that you would jump all over them condeming them for ignoring the lin eal champ..but since ring mag did it its ok..
like i said in my original post lets enjoy the fights..lets not care about this belt or that one including rings..untill sanity prevails and legaly enforced the madness will continue.its been what 20-25 years of big time madness including rings 12 years of denial and we still enjoy the fights..the confusion will remain unfortunetly..lets just make the best of it untill real sanity and real legal solutions prevail somehow.

It's obviouse man you run off entirly different kind of logic then I do.

Bottom line is this. If a trend starts where The Ring belt is only one get's recognized, a lot top fighters will start ditching their belts like Mayweather did, because don't want to pay sanctioning fees on a grappy belt when The Ring doesn't make them.

This will get rid of a lot ABC belts. They don't make money off nobody fighters. They make it off big name fighters. Why Don Jose went into a fit when Vitali stalled on doing his WBC manditory defense. Why wanting Pac to pay up.

Perhaps this cause the ones can still keep standing to clean up their shit, allow unifications, and fixing their joke rankings

If you don't think this is the most realistic way for change to happen, fine. We'll never agree. And just have to agree to disagree.