The Ring Magazine has earned itself the nickname, "The Bible of Boxing". Some of you may or may not disagree with that.
I'd like you guys to use this thread to discuss and critique The Ring magazine.
-The U.S.A. has the most recognized champions according to the ring. Is this fair?
-The U.S.A. holds the most fighters in it's P4P list, is this well earned?
-Nate Cambell is listed as number two in his divison after Joel Casamayor, even after beating fellow American, Juan Diaz. Is this right?
-Bernard Hopkins and Ricky Hatton for example, do not hold any World Titles. Is it just to keep them as the "recognized" champions of their divisions?
-Should their be only one champion per division? Should we eliminate all other alphabet titles?
How would you guys manage boxing in a whole? I personally respect The Ring Magazine as a powerfull reference in boxing because of their tremendous inpact on the sport, but not as fact. I know I'm not alone in the matter, but I wouldn't call it "The Bible of Boxing". I think it's ok to disagree with it. Especially with their P4P rankings.
Please, explain your answers. Talk about what you want.