Talk:List of The Ring world champions

The Ring championship policy
Good article. Ring magazine began handing out championship belts in the 1920's (I think Dempsey was the first to receive one) and continued through the 1980's. It stopped this practice until resuming it in 2002. In this list, however, the heavyweight champions are listed as receiving Ring recognition in the 1990's. I don't think this is the case. What sources are you using? I have some old Ring magazines and would be happy to help contribute as well as to help chart Ring's championship policies. I know that for a time in the 80's they only recognized champions in the traditional 8 weight classes. I think it may be helpful to discuss the history of the Ring championship policy through the ages, too. MKil 17:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)MKil

Holyfield/Foreman
If this article is correct about only being able to lose a "The Ring" championship being losing a match, moving to a different weight class, or retiring, then I don't see how Foreman lost the title in 1995. He presumably won it after defeating Moorer (who had won it from Holyfield). He didn't lose another match until November of 1997. He was stripped of both his WBA (in 1994) and IBF (in 1995) titles, but as this article makes clear, The Ring doesn't strip champions like other authorities do.Zhinz 02:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well to try and clear this Heavyweight title recognition fiasco up a bit you actually have to go back to the May 1989 issue (period ending March 2, 1989). It was the last issue under the old school philosophy held by Editor-In-Chief - Nigel Collins. He believed in only the 8 traditional weight classes and had Mike Tyson as champion, thanks to his win over Michael Spinks. Unfortunately the magazine went out of business for a number of months. It was bought by Stanley Weston, founder of rival KO and various wrestling magazine. It had a relaunch with the Jan. 1990 issue headed by new Editor - Steve Farhood. He took a drastically different approach. He added the IBF, WBC & WBA ratings. He added seven weight classes bringing the total to 15. And most disturbing of all to long time Ring readers(he says so himself in the Ringside column May 1990) was his policy on World Champions. Their ratings "listed the best 10 fighters per division without recognizing one fighter as the deserved world champion". Trust me, you really should track down the May 1990 issue and read for yourself his explanation of his ratings. Well I digress, Mike Tyson was rated #1 with (World Champion) beside his name, while every other "champion" had either WBC, WBA, or IBF. With the June 1990 (period ending Feb. 12, 1990) Buster Douglas was rated #1 (World Champ). He stayed in that position until the March 1991 issue (period ending Nov. 20, 1990) when Evander Holyfield became #1 (World Champ).He held that spot until the March 1993 issue (period ending Nov. 18, 1992) when Riddick Bowe became #1 (World Champ). The very next issue (period ending Dec. 20, 1992) he's ranked #1 (WBA/IBF Champ. So with the trashing of the WBC belt on Dec. 14, 1992 he somehow lost his World Champion status and his Ring magazine lineage. So for the next 8 years while the lineal title changed hands, the Ring title stayed dormant. No Holyfield(2)or Moorer, or Foreman or Briggs. Not until the June 2000 issue when Lennox Lewis graces the cover with "Lennox Lewis receives The "Undisputed" Ring Belt" does anyone have a claim as a Ring world champion. But there was a problem, their ratings (ending Feb.15, 2000) list him as (WBC/WBA/IBF Champ)so still not quite World Champion. It wasn't until the April 2002 issue that Lennox Lewis was recognized under their current policy as Ring Champion. By the way, current Editor - Nigel Collins is the only Editor to regain his title.(Magicpilot 04:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC))
 * I've looked through the old issues and know what you are saying. However, Ring stopped recognizing champions, as you point out, when the new regime took over. So that means that Tyson should be the last Ring champ until Ring resurrected their policy with Lewis. When they went to rating fighters on the #1-10 basis (instead of the Champion then #1-10), that means they abandoned their championship policy. Under the new editors, Tyson was in May 1990 issue not the Champion, merely the #1 heavyweight with his titles listed after his name. The editors used "world champion" as shorthand for having all three belts. So neither Douglas, Holyfield, nor Bowe should be listed as a Ring-recognized heavyweight champion, since Ring did not recognize champions during their reigns.MKil 13:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)MKil

The Ring's ever changing championship policy
At least in the 70's version there was another caveat to the policy. In my Jan. 1980 issue Victor Galindez was listed as World Champion (thus Ring champ) and also WBA titlist at Light Heavyweight. At #1 was Matthew (Franklin) Saad Muhammad with his WBC title. The next month after Marvin Johnson stops Galindez in the 11th round thus winning the WBA (and lineal) title, he only moved into the #1 spot. While Ring elevated Matthew Saad Muhammad from #1 to the World (and Ring) champion stating quote, "Because of the two KO victories against Marvin Johnson, Muhammad gains recognition by The Ring as legitimate light heavyweight champion." I happen to totally disagree with this line of reasoning, but that's the way it was done

So my point here is you really can't assume that the lineal champion and the Ring champion are always one and the same. Any corrections I've ever made on this page have been culled from an actual issue of Ring.Magicpilot 06:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Footnote needed
Muhammad Ali retired in 1978 with the WBA half of the title. That title changed hands regularly, while Larry Holmes repeatedly defended the WBC portion of the title and gained general recognition as the true champion. Ali made an ill-advised comeback in 1980, and Holmes defeated him handily. This finally made Holmes a "linear" champion. It should be noted that most boxing publications considered the Holmes-Ali fight to be regrettable or even farcical beforehand, and it's hypocritical of them to use it in retrospect to justify their title histories. WHPratt (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * PROOF ON 11/30 www.associatepublisher.com/e/r/ro/rocky_marciano.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ringcham (talk • contribs) 20:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Dubious
The article currently states that one of the ways the champion can lose the title is "The champion does not schedule a fight at his championship weight for 18 months (even if he fights at another weight)", and another way is "The champion does not schedule a fight in any weight class for 18 months." Isn't the former a subset of the latter? That is, if a champion does not do the former, he obviously does not do the latter either, in which case we don't actually need seven ways (six suffices, deleting the latter). I checked the source but it's broken - a subject matter expert please take a look. Banedon (talk) 07:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Inaugural champions and the unlisted Ring Magazine champions?
After some digging around, I have realized that Wikipedia holds the only list in this manner of The Ring Magazine champions. I was deferred to Boxrec.com by one of the list's sources and on the page it brought me to, Boxrec.com had a link that led me back to the list on Wikipedia. When looking more on Boxrec, I found a page that shows the annual rankings of every weight class for every decade and year since it's inception in the 1920's. At the top of the rankings for each weight class in that year is their recognized champion. These champions differ slightly from the list on Wikipedia. The website lists Paul Berlenbach as the first Ring champion in 1925, while Wikipedia lists Maxie Rosenbloom as the first in 1930. They list Harry Greb as their first middleweight champion in 1924 as opposed to Marcel Thil in 1933. This is consistent for each of the traditional 8 weight classes (apart from Heavyweight and Flyweight) as well as in light middleweight and light welterweight divisions. These champions should be added to the list as they were recognized Ring Magazine champions and not just the number one fighter as there were some years where the title is shown as vacant. Here is the link. https://boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_Ring_Magazine%27s_Annual_Ratings CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Format of the tables
There are two different formats being used. The Heavyweight, Junior featherweight etc. tables are using four columns. The others are using three columns. We should standardize to one format. I prefer the three column tables with no superscript codes (for stripped, vacated, etc.). recently started the four column format.--Jahalive (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

On second thought, the fourth column for defenses is a good addition and I don't mind the notes in between rows. I'm not a fan of the color coding but I could live with it. The superscript is not an improvement. It's redundant with the notes.--Jahalive (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm still not done editing with all of the weight classes since I do it if I have free time. It's also a headache to find title defenses for old fighters becs not everyone has a detailed boxing record here in wikipedia and boxrec doesn't put ring magazine titles on their fight records. BlizzyBlizz (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay. No rush. I'm going to remove the superscript codes. I see you removed the history section because it is redundant. I think it belongs here. If there is too much repeated from the section in The Ring (magazine) it should be shortened and summarized there.--Jahalive (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Need help in the accuracy for title vacancies
I think anyone with The Ring magazine copies should fill in some references or vacancies because The Ring belts are usually separate from the sanctioning bodies. A boxer may vacate the The Ring belt much later than when they vacated their alphabet org belt. BlizzyBlizz (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)