Should Wladimir Klitschko Be Awarded The Ring Belt By Default? - Page 2

kg0208 · 09-09-2007, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Illmatic

The rules are as clear as day....to be ring champ a #1 must beat #2 or #3 in some instances. Whats so hard to comprehend? He wasnt #1 when he beat Peter and Peter wasnt#2 when they fought.

And that #3 is undisclosed special circumstances. Which were invoked for the OTHER Klitscho....so much for his little theory.

kg0208 · 09-09-2007, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A-50

Why? Because you say so? Vitali Klitschko was the Ring Champion, deal with it. and he should be the Ring Champion since he is coming back and NEVER lost the belt. Lennox is not coming back.

Deal with this....show me the rule that says you can RETIRE for years and come back and simply reclaim it?

DEAL WITH THAT

And he should have never had the belt because he never beat the #2 guy. He beat the #3 guy and there were NO special circumstances involved. None whatsoever. He could have fought the #2 guy. Do you know the special circumstances? If not, the you simply look like the fool you are in every thread.

Mrboogie23 · 09-09-2007, 02:26 PM

No, I dont think so. He hasnt won it in the ring yet.

41fever · 09-09-2007, 03:15 PM

4 his overly die hard fans...a resounding, YESSSS!!!!!!!!

SevenSamurai · 09-09-2007, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kg0208

Ummm....thats IDIOTIC. He didn't beat the #2 guy when he was #1. Those are the rules? Should they make an exception so you don't think it's a race or nationality thing?

He has beaten the number two ranked heavweight Sam Peter, and he is universally recognised as the number one ranked heavyweight today. There is not one single heavweight out there, who be the favourite to beat him at the moment.

kg0208 · 09-09-2007, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kings Randsom

He has beaten the number two ranked heavweight Sam Peter, and he is universally recognised as the number one ranked heavyweight today. There is not one single heavweight out there, who be the favourite to beat him at the moment.

Was Peter #2 when he beat him? Was Wlad #1? Then you have your answer. Stop making up conspiracy to propogate your pro Euro stance.

Drew101 · 09-09-2007, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kg0208

Was Peter #2 when he beat him? Was Wlad #1? Then you have your answer. Stop making up conspiracy to propogate your pro Euro stance.

In fact, Wlad and Peter were only ranked in the lower reaches of the Top 10 when they first met. It was only when Wlad defeated Byrd that he jumped to #1, while Peter had to wait until he defeated Toney convincingly in the rematch to get to number two.

Anyway, Wlad's faced two fighters who have been ranked in the lower part of the Top 10 since winning the IBF title, so he hasn't fuflilled the criteria for becoming champion. Simple as that.

SevenSamurai · 09-09-2007, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kg0208

Was Peter #2 when he beat him? Was Wlad #1? Then you have your answer. Stop making up conspiracy to propogate your pro Euro stance.

The answer to that question is no. But how can Wlad be expected to fight Sam Peter again just to win this ring belt, when his focus is on fighting the real beltholders and rightly so.

I know that an exception would be made for a American heavyweight champion who was in Wlad's position and who had done what he has done for the last 5 fights.

Drew101 · 09-09-2007, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kings Randsom

The answer to that question is no. But how can Wlad be expected to fight Sam Peter again just to win this ring belt, when his focus is on fighting the real beltholders and rightly so.

I know that an exception would be made for a American heavyweight champion who was in Wlad's position and who had done what he has done for the last 5 fights.

Well, if Wlad wants to become Ring Champion, he'll have to face the winner of Maskaev-Peter. Simple as that. And, since the winner of that fight will be WBC champion, then the two goals aren't mutually exclusive.

Anyway, there have been other cases of dominant fighters not fulfilling the criteria to become RING champion. If Pacquiao isn't champion at 130lbs, based on his performeces over the past few fights, then RING's sure as hell isn't going to crown Wlad champion, either.

kg0208 · 09-09-2007, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kings Randsom

The answer to that question is no. But how can Wlad be expected to fight Sam Peter again just to win this ring belt, when his focus is on fighting the real beltholders and rightly so.

I know that an exception would be made for a American heavyweight champion who was in Wlad's position and who had done what he has done for the last 5 fights.

Really? Prove it. You KNOW the exception would be made? Show me.

Winning the other titles is Wlad's goal? Good for him. He will still have to fight #2 because a belt holder will be #2 AFTER the Peter-Maskaev fight anyways. So again, he must beat #2.

Let me tell you what I KNOW. The policy says that #1 must face #2 or #3 under SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES but doesn't explain what those are.

You know the only 2 Ring titles I know of fought under unknown special circumstances between #1 and #3 bypassing #2. Vitali Klitscho over Corries Sanders (Euro) and Joe Calzaghe over Jeff Lacy (Euro).

So tell me again about this weird little conspiracy of yours?

Drew101 · 09-09-2007, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kg0208

Really? Prove it. You KNOW the exception would be made? Show me.

Let me tell you what I KNOW. The policy says that #1 must face #2 or #3 under SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES but doesn't explain what those are.

You know the only 2 Ring titles I know of fought under unknown special circumstances between #1 and #3 bypassing #2. Vitali Klitscho over Corries Sanders (Euro) and Joe Calzaghe over Jeff Lacy (Euro).

So tell me again about this weird little conspiracy of yours?

I think the Larios-Vasquez unification/RING championship was another case of #1 (Larios), fighting #3 (Vasquez)...but, that was an all-Mexican match, which only proves the point you were making.

kg0208 · 09-09-2007, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drew101

I think the Larios-Vasquez unification/RING championship was another case of #1 (Larios), fighting #3 (Vasquez)...but, that was an all-Mexican match, which only proves the point you were making.

Yeah, that's one I didn't know of.

Claiming that if Wlad was American that it would suddenly be different is ridiculous.

Drew101 · 09-09-2007, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kg0208

Yeah, that's one I didn't know of.

Claiming that if Wlad was American that it would suddenly be different is ridiculous.

Oh, you're not going to get an argument from me on that point, kg. The RING may have made some interesting decisions in terms of their rankings, but they do apply the championship criteria in the same fashion, regardless of their nationality.

El Bombasto · 09-09-2007, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Presscot

**** no. When all 4 belts are UNIFIED Ring may crown a champion.

are you using the same logic for all weight classes or just heavyweight?

KobeIsGod · 09-09-2007, 05:01 PM

he hasn't met the ring champ requirements so no. But im pretty close to considering him the "Champ" since the belt holders are avoiding him but as of now, he is only the undisputed #1 hw . Only chance for unification is holyfield which is just plain sad cause I think he's the only one crzay enough to fight wald

the hw non-unification situation is just so sad right now. no one will fight wlad and i dont blame them. who wants to lose their trinket and get ktfo?!? Im sure chagaev will fight some can like Julius Long for his first title defense

He never even mentioned wlad in an interview after resuming training. Wlad needs to pull a shannon briggs and start calling out these trinket holders like when shannon said wlad was in "the witness protection plan for boxing"

And if Peter wins, King and Duva will avoid wlad like the plague.

View Poll Results: Should Wladimir Klitschko Be Awarded The Ring Belt By Default?
Yes	41	44.57%
No	51	55.43%
Voters: 92. You may not vote on this poll

09-09-2007, 02:26 PM	#18
Mrboogie23 what the?? ESB Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: New Mexico Posts: 1,373 vCash: 1000	Re: Should Wladimir Klitschko Be Awarded The Ring Belt By Default? No, I dont think so. He hasnt won it in the ring yet.
Top

09-09-2007, 03:15 PM	#19
41fever Belt holder ESB Addict Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: www.SFCboxingGYM.com Posts: 3,418 vCash: 75	Re: Should Wladimir Klitschko Be Awarded The Ring Belt By Default? 4 his overly die hard fans...a resounding, YESSSS!!!!!!!!
Top

09-09-2007, 05:01 PM	#30
KobeIsGod Who Necks?!? ESB Addict Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Kobeland Posts: 3,623 vCash: 1001	Re: Should Wladimir Klitschko Be Awarded The Ring Belt By Default? he hasn't met the ring champ requirements so no. But im pretty close to considering him the "Champ" since the belt holders are avoiding him but as of now, he is only the undisputed #1 hw . Only chance for unification is holyfield which is just plain sad cause I think he's the only one crzay enough to fight wald the hw non-unification situation is just so sad right now. no one will fight wlad and i dont blame them. who wants to lose their trinket and get ktfo?!? Im sure chagaev will fight some can like Julius Long for his first title defense He never even mentioned wlad in an interview after resuming training. Wlad needs to pull a shannon briggs and start calling out these trinket holders like when shannon said wlad was in "the witness protection plan for boxing" And if Peter wins, King and Duva will avoid wlad like the plague.
Top