When I talk to casual fans of the sweet science I’m always asked the same question ? why is there more than one champion?
You’d think such brilliance could only come from a child or someone that knows everything about the subject of which they’re speaking. But no, this statement comes from fans that wouldn’t be able to tell Vitali Klitschko and Manny Pacquiao apart.
Numerous champions seem to be the quintessential element holding back the sport from the mainstream. Without a true testament that determines who is the best in the division, the casual fan has no interest in the sport. Which most die-hard boxing fans can relate with.
The Ring Ratings came two years ago and seemed to be the best solution to this dilemma, at least for the time being. I cannot applaud ESPN enough for taking steps to show their TV audience the real champions of the division.
This isn’t to say that the Ring Ratings aren’t without flaws. Realistically what system isn’t? I would argue that democracy is one of the most flawed forms of government in the world, yet it’s still the best one. The point is boxing cannot continue to rely on sanctioning bodies who put Bernard Hopkins in the ring with Morrade Hakkar.
Speaking of Hopkins vs. Hakkar, how dare HBO absolutely discredit the true middleweight champion of the world in the ring, during analyst Larry Merchant’s assault on Hopkins in the post-fight interview. Then the network has the audacity to call Juan Manuel Marquez the champion in his match against Manny Pacquiao. Don’t get me wrong, Marquez is a hell of a champion but he was not the true featherweight champion of the world. It was Pacquiao that defeated the legendary Marco Antonio Barrera, who knocked off then-king Erik Morales? I guess the H stands for hypocrite in the Home Box Office of boxing.
The Ring Ratings is the best system we have to date. It offers us a map to pass over all the garbage that the WBC, WBA, IBF, WBOs of the world put in front of us. Like anything else, the Ring is going to make adjustments when it’s necessary, and it’s such a new system yet its ratings are clearly the best guide available in boxing. Although I do think it’s time for a facelift for the current Ring Magazine championship belt, that thing is hideous.
Matchups are what make fighters in the long run; whom they beat on their way to a title shot can be just as important as the actual title shot itself. It’s in how a fighter earns his title shot that he builds a reputation, as well as his marketability. Look at Oscar De La Hoya, everyone wanted to see him fight because he was a gold medalist. You have to create yourself early to make 20 million a fight. The rise to the top creates awareness for the casual fan. Then once the fighter knocks off the true champion of the division; he will have earned the recognition and financial livelihood he deserves.
