Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > General Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-30-2007, 03:39 AM   #76
RAMPAGE0017
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 814
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Did anyone accept VITALI as the legitimate heavyweight champion when he beat Sand

Quote:
Originally Posted by cuchulain
I believe that it's ludicrous to suggest that he feared Rahman (as some on these threads have) when he took on Lennox.

I always thought that was pretty laughable, myself. But only the most hardcore of Klitschko detractors will state that Vitali was afraid of Rahman.
RAMPAGE0017 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 07-01-2007, 07:59 PM   #77
thesandman
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,304
vCash: 90
Default Re: Did anyone accept VITALI as the legitimate heavyweight champion when he beat Sand

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavyrighthand
But I think Vitali got his big rankings boost by taking out Johnson, who was a top three contender at the time he was beaten by Vitali. Not absolutely sure, but I think that is correct.
I think the whole thing stinks to be honest.

The Lewis / Johnson fight wasn't even going to be sanctioned by the WBC, as Johnson was perceived as being a not worthy opponent.

Then all of a sudden he's in a title eliminator, and it boosts Vitlay up the rankings -as does a loss to Lewis??



The Ring (IMO) boosted Vitlay up the rankings because

a) he put up a good fight v Lewis
b) this attracted media and fan interest in him
c) he was probably the best, but who really knows.


IF the ring put Vitlay up the rankings so quickly based on nothing more than gut feel and wishing, then they are no better than the ABC's they hammer about their dodgy rankings.
thesandman is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2007, 09:26 PM   #78
RAMPAGE0017
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 814
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Did anyone accept VITALI as the legitimate heavyweight champion when he beat Sand

Quote:
Originally Posted by thesandman
I think the whole thing stinks to be honest.

The Lewis / Johnson fight wasn't even going to be sanctioned by the WBC, as Johnson was perceived as being a not worthy opponent.

Then all of a sudden he's in a title eliminator, and it boosts Vitlay up the rankings -as does a loss to Lewis??



The Ring (IMO) boosted Vitlay up the rankings because

a) he put up a good fight v Lewis
b) this attracted media and fan interest in him
c) he was probably the best, but who really knows.


IF the ring put Vitlay up the rankings so quickly based on nothing more than gut feel and wishing, then they are no better than the ABC's they hammer about their dodgy rankings.
As far as the rankings go, I think you have the WBC to blame for that more than you do The Ring. After Vitali fought Lewis, the WBC just started running people way up in their rankings, starting with Kirk Johnson, then when Sanders vacated the WBO, the WBC automatically put him in title contention so he could fight Vitali. I guess it's safe to say that they wanted to keep the heavyweight picture revolving around their belt since Lewis' vacated it.
RAMPAGE0017 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2007, 09:45 PM   #79
thesandman
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,304
vCash: 90
Default Re: Did anyone accept VITALI as the legitimate heavyweight champion when he beat Sand

Quote:
Originally Posted by RAMPAGE0017
As far as the rankings go, I think you have the WBC to blame for that more than you do The Ring. After Vitali fought Lewis, the WBC just started running people way up in their rankings, starting with Kirk Johnson, then when Sanders vacated the WBO, the WBC automatically put him in title contention so he could fight Vitali. I guess it's safe to say that they wanted to keep the heavyweight picture revolving around their belt since Lewis' vacated it.
So far as Johnson goes I agree.

But The Ring always gob off about how independent they are of abc's, but they put up Sanders just like the WBC did?

Sounds off to me. Couldn't be because the fight was on HBO by any chance???????
thesandman is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2007, 09:46 PM   #80
Lance_Uppercut
ESKIMO
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Alaska
Posts: 26,029
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Did anyone accept VITALI as the legitimate heavyweight champion when he beat Sanders?

He haven't had a World HW Champ since Lewis retired. Just a bunch of titleholders..
Lance_Uppercut is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2007, 07:07 AM   #81
RAMPAGE0017
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 814
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Did anyone accept VITALI as the legitimate heavyweight champion when he beat Sand

Quote:
Originally Posted by thesandman
So far as Johnson goes I agree.

But The Ring always gob off about how independent they are of abc's, but they put up Sanders just like the WBC did?

Sounds off to me. Couldn't be because the fight was on HBO by any chance???????
Ring was probably a little overly influenced in the sense that they bought into Vitali pretty easily, but I can't really say that I think that Ring were wrong to give Sanders the boost in the rankings that they did. Sanders may have been previously unranked, but think about it.... he man-handled the top heavyweight in under 2 rounds, PLUS he won one of four major belts doing so. No matter what, that should atleast by him a spot in the top 4.
RAMPAGE0017 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2007, 07:51 AM   #82
FiveStoneFists
Journeyman
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 80
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Did anyone accept VITALI as the legitimate heavyweight champion when he beat Sanders?

The Ring has only added to the confusion, as has the inclusion of the WBO. In absence of a true linear champion, the title has to be unified, the new undisputed champion then becomes the new linear title. Undisputed traditionally means unifying the WBC, IBF and WBA titles. The Ring, although they have the best consensus rankings, is still subject to opinion and cannot enforce mandatories.

We have been looking at weightclasses and champions that have been far from undisputed. Mandatories are necessary, though some are below par quality level, to give deserving challengers a shot at the title. The Ring more often than not, has lead to scenario's where the #1 challenger does not get his right to challenge. Some of the (past and present) Ring champions are still idle when it comes to facing their mandatories, imo boxing is too protected.

The Ring does not make you the linear champion or undisputed champion. A unified champion is not the same as the undisputed champion (like I tend to read here nowadays), and to many fighters get hyped without even accomplishing anything. The manner in which Hatton for instance beat Castillo is significant (one of the better fights out there for Hatton at the time), but there is no doubt in my mind that Castillo was being overrated (especially by US fans), which subsequently means that Hatton is now again overrated/ overhated by them.

People who say the alphabet titles mean shit do not know what they are talking about either. The way a fighter comes to notoriety is by earning one of the alphabet belts in the first place, generally before they accomplish that, they are not even known or considered a threat. As long as it serves your agenda certain fighters are allowed to cherry pick their opponents, I think that this is the most harmful part of boxing plus relative inactivity (3 times a year should be a minimum, especially when considering a tune up fight). Give me throwback champions like Lewis, Tszyu and Hopkins - at least they fought the best anytime anywhere...
FiveStoneFists is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2007, 07:54 AM   #83
PATSYS
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,184
vCash: 75
Default Re: Did anyone accept VITALI as the legitimate heavyweight champion when he beat Sanders?

Vitali's claim to fame is giving an old overweight Lewis a tough fight
PATSYS is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2007, 10:13 AM   #84
RAMPAGE0017
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 814
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Did anyone accept VITALI as the legitimate heavyweight champion when he beat Sanders?

Quote:
Originally Posted by FiveStoneFists
The Ring has only added to the confusion, as has the inclusion of the WBO. In absence of a true linear champion, the title has to be unified, the new undisputed champion then becomes the new linear title. Undisputed traditionally means unifying the WBC, IBF and WBA titles. The Ring, although they have the best consensus rankings, is still subject to opinion and cannot enforce mandatories.

We have been looking at weightclasses and champions that have been far from undisputed. Mandatories are necessary, though some are below par quality level, to give deserving challengers a shot at the title. The Ring more often than not, has lead to scenario's where the #1 challenger does not get his right to challenge. Some of the (past and present) Ring champions are still idle when it comes to facing their mandatories, imo boxing is too protected.

The Ring does not make you the linear champion or undisputed champion. A unified champion is not the same as the undisputed champion (like I tend to read here nowadays), and to many fighters get hyped without even accomplishing anything. The manner in which Hatton for instance beat Castillo is significant (one of the better fights out there for Hatton at the time), but there is no doubt in my mind that Castillo was being overrated (especially by US fans), which subsequently means that Hatton is now again overrated/ overhated by them.

People who say the alphabet titles mean shit do not know what they are talking about either. The way a fighter comes to notoriety is by earning one of the alphabet belts in the first place, generally before they accomplish that, they are not even known or considered a threat. As long as it serves your agenda certain fighters are allowed to cherry pick their opponents, I think that this is the most harmful part of boxing plus relative inactivity (3 times a year should be a minimum, especially when considering a tune up fight). Give me throwback champions like Lewis, Tszyu and Hopkins - at least they fought the best anytime anywhere...
By saying that, that allows the sanctioning bodies full control over the sport. Look at the way the sport is right now.. it's in a position where the heavyweight division absolutely NEEDS an undisputed champion, because when it gets right down to it, none of the current champions have anything over the others. So what do the sanctioning bodies do? They wait years before a unification even happens. Corrie Sanders had to even vacate the WBO title in order to fight Vitali because they were busting his balls about mandatories.

And also, let's suppose that one day the sanctioning bodies all decided that they no longer wanted to unify their titles with another.. would that mean every division would no longer have a champion? That's why we can't ALWAYS depend on these assholes to make a champion for us, so we have to settle for the next best thing which is Ring. And even if you ever disagree with a decision that they make, you have to admit that most the time their ratings are reasonable. But as far as what you're saying about Ring not enforcing mandatories, I agree.. if they're going to award their belts out, they should have mandatory competitors, as well.
RAMPAGE0017 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > General Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013