Originally Posted by radianttwilight
I don't get the whole "champion emeritus" thing anyway, if you want to "retire" with the belt, then you lose the belt...Because it's not like you "LOST" it anyway, you retired with it, and thus the belt must re-enter the heavyweight divison.
The only thing the "champion emeritus" does is give some guy an excuse to not defend his belt, only to come back two years later and get a title shot he hasn't done ANYTHING for. If you're going to duck your mandatory, then be a man and ditch the belt - don't fake a retirement only to come back and challenge either A. the same guy when he is years older/slower/weaker or B. some other champion that you think you can beat
What seperates today's HW divison from the past is that these guys don't HAVE to fight anybody, you can build your legacy off 2x Rahman and SSS, grab a belt, then "retire" whenever your mandatory isn't president of the bum of the month club, so that you can bide your time until you make your "comeback"
Even if these guys have legitimate injuries (As they probably do), if the champion CANNOT FIGHT then he shouldn't be holding the belt. Vitali lost HOW many years to "injuries"? It's not like he got a cut and had to push a fight back 3-4 weeks...he took several years off IN RETIREMENT...and the clowns at the WBC let him keep his belt?
I agree it's ****ing ****.
The WBC didn't give Kostya Tszyu 'emeritus' status with his injury enforced layoff. KT was undisputed division at the time too, not just a belt holder.
KT came back as well. Unlike certain giant Eastern Euros.