Talk:List of The Ring world champions

message: 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)
thread_title:  ''The Ring'' championship policy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Holyfield/Foreman 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ''The Ring's'' ever changing championship policy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Footnote needed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Inaugural champions and the unlisted Ring Magazine champions? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Format of the tables 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Need help in the accuracy for title vacancies