Oleg - Emeritus if he retires??

[thesandman]

Originally Posted by Asterion

No.

Vitali was seen as the best in 2004-2005, as a light after Lewis retired and had a different aura. Maskaev has been seen as a shitty beltholder and as a guy that would be destroyed by some fighters in the division.

But we can see now that was purely myth.

Vitali and Maskeavs achievements as WBC champion have been identical. Identical.

In fact, Maskaev beat a better fighter than Vitlay did to get the title.


I don't believe the WBC has a "woulda, coulda, shoulda" clause in its rules and regulations. It might though, nothing would surprise me.

[The Kurgan]

Originally Posted by left hook 75

Could almost have a "champion emeritus" tournament with the winner being declared the "ultimate champion emeritus".Now wouldn't that be great...

The winner would be the one to get the most pull-outs/no shows/broken promises done in the least amount of time. Currently, their record on this is-

3. Lewis: Verbally agreed to fight Vitali, but didn't.

2. Maskaev: Signed to fight Peter, but pulled out with about 3 weeks to go.

1. Vitali: The runaway leader- signed to fight McCline once and pulled out; signed to fight Rahman on about five times and didn't face him once; refused to show for the 10th round against the hard-punching Chris Byrd.

[thesandman]

Originally Posted by The Kurgan

The winner would be the one to get the most pull-outs/no shows/broken promises done in the least amount of time. Currently, their record on this is-

3. Lewis: Verbally agreed to fight Vitali, but didn't.

2. Maskaev: Signed to fight Peter, but pulled out with about 3 weeks to go.

1. Vitali: The runaway leader- signed to fight McCline once and pulled out; signed to fight Rahman on about five times and didn't face him once; refused to show for the 10th round against the hard-punching Chris Byrd.

I like it.

How about, the number of days holding the title, divided by number of defences? Most days per defence is the winner. (Winning the title as challenger doesn't count - so defences only)

You also have a 30 day deduction for every mandatory taken on, as that quite obviously is not the done thing anymore.

[T.S.]

If he has herniated discs in his back he's finished.
There will be no emeritus status just back operations, pain pills and traction therapy. What a way to go.

[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?

[thesandman]

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 fucking shit.

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.

[left hook 75]

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?

Its just another way for the organizations to make money thats all it is.Similar to how the WBA has its "superchampion" status going on.A loada shit IMO.

[Thread Stealer]

Champion emeritus was a joke when it came to Vitali, and it would be a joke if they gave it to Oleg.

[Zakman]

Originally Posted by Illmatic

..that would be great. Two champions in emeritus and an interim champ.

Exactly. Let's not compound one riddiculous decision with another!

[thesandman]

Originally Posted by Zakman

Exactly. Let's not compound one riddiculous decision with another!

That's not my (admittedly tongue in cheek) point though.

My point is this.

Why did the WBC fly so rapidly into the whole Emeritus thing in the first place? What makes Vitlay so different to every other fighter that there has been in the past.

And it's a sly dig at the fact that Vitlay's record as a WBC champ really is no better than Olegs.



Vitlay

Beat Corrie "one shot" Sanders in a title fight (vacant belt)
Beat Danny "Legend Killer" Williams in a title fight (voluntary defence)

Oleg

Beat Hasim "used to be undisputed champ you know" Rahman (Rahman champ)
Beat Peter "WHO?" Okhello in title fight (voluntary)



And that's it.

Losing challenges (no matter how 'valiant' *cough* ) don't count here.



Essentially,

Vitlay has a 66% record in WBC title fights.
Oleg, 100%

[Cruiser1]

Originally Posted by Asterion

No.

Vitali was seen as the best in 2004-2005, as a light after Lewis retired and had a different aura. Maskaev has been seen as a shitty beltholder and as a guy that would be destroyed by some fighters in the division.

I don't recall Vitali fighting in 2005.

[DamonD]

Originally Posted by thesandman

Vitali K - number of mandatory defences. 0
Oleg M - number of mandatory defences. 0

I wonder over how many months these two held the WBC title?

31 months.

[kostya by ko]

no !

it's one thing is you've been active as champion and fans
can see that you're interested in building your status as
champion further and been prepared to bring on new fights
within a reasonable period of time after winning the title

however - if you've been inactive and then when you finally do
get around to fighting again you get injured, then that's too
bad ...

[Ambition_Def]

Originally Posted by DamonD

31 months.

31 Months and the WBC has had zero financial gain from this mess (or at least we are told).

I thought these guys wanted to make money. I think it's time we start investigating some backhand pocket exchanges between Jose Suliman and some Eastern Euro connections.

[Jennifer Love Hewitt]

This thread is hilarious!
(and a little bit sad...The WBC needs to hire smarter monkeys!)