Boxing  

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


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-30-2007, 07:12 AM   #1
ChrisPontius
March 8th, 1971
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Holland
Posts: 9,642
vCash: 238
Default Re-establishing linearity in the heavyweight division

In 1905, after Jim Jeffries retired, Jack Root and Marvin Hart fought for the vacant title. Hart had a win over Jack Johnson (although disputed by some), over Ruhlin and Fergusson. Root had wins over Gardiner (although he lost to him also), Marvin Hart a few years earlier, a green Flynn and McCoy.

In 1930, after Tunney retied, Max Schmeling and Jack Sharkey fought for the vacant title. Sharkey was somewhat inconsistent but had wins over Stribling and Loughran coming into the fight, and Schmeling had one win over Uzcudun.


In 1956, after Marciano retired, Archie Moore and Floyd Patterson fought for the vacant championship. Moore had several good wins coming into this fight (Valdes 2x, Baker), Patterson had only one SD over Tommy Jackson and the other time he stepped up he lost to Maxim, although some dispute the decision.




It is fair to say Lewis will not make a comeback. He was offered a shitload amount of money to fight Vitali Klitschko but didn't take it. He, in fact, recently posted a video at his Myspace page in which he expressed again that he wouldn't come back.

I would say the current top5 looks like this:

1. Wladimir Klitschko (IBF champ)
2. Ruslan Chagaev (WBA champ)
3. Sultan Ibragimov (WBO champ)
4. Oleg Maskaev (WBC champ)
5. Samuel Peter

Next october, the number 2 & 3 will face off in the first heavyweight unification match since 1999.
Chagaev has notable wins over Valuev (WBA), Ruiz and Virchis.
S. Ibragimov has notable wins over Whitaker and Briggs (WBO).

Both of their resumes are comparable to the fighters given above who have fought for the vacant title in the past.
Historically, one fight between two top contenders has been enough to re-establish the true champion. This is exactly that, and it is a unification match which is rather seldom.

Since there is not much difference between this situation and the ones in history, i have no problem recognising the winner of Chagaev-Ibragimov as THE champ.
The only thing that itches is that the one whose resumes and ability is clearly a step above the rest, Klitschko, is not involved.

If you don't recognise the winner of this fight as the champ, say Klitschko beats Brewster and fights the winner of this fight; would you consider the winner of that fight to be the true champion of the world?
ChrisPontius is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 06-30-2007, 07:46 AM   #2
janitor
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21,051
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Re-establishing linearity in the heavyweight division

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisPontius
say Klitschko beats Brewster and fights the winner of this fight; would you consider the winner of that fight to be the true champion of the world?
Yes. Any other claim would loose all credibility.
janitor is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2007, 09:44 AM   #3
ChrisPontius
March 8th, 1971
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Holland
Posts: 9,642
vCash: 238
Default Re: Re-establishing linearity in the heavyweight division

As i pointed out above, Ibragimov and Chagaev have no weaker claim than Moore/Patterson, Schmeling/Sharkey, Burns/Root did.

So why would that claim lose all credibility?
ChrisPontius is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2007, 11:58 AM   #4
seb melmoth
newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 20
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Re-establishing linearity in the heavyweight division

Quote:
say Klitschko beats Brewster and fights the winner of this fight; would you consider the winner of that fight to be the true champion of the world?
Yes, he'd be the champion imo.





What about the fight between Vitaly Klitschko and Corrie Sanders to determine the new Champ in 2004?
seb melmoth is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2007, 12:07 PM   #5
janitor
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21,051
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Re-establishing linearity in the heavyweight division

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisPontius
As i pointed out above, Ibragimov and Chagaev have no weaker claim than Moore/Patterson, Schmeling/Sharkey, Burns/Root did.

So why would that claim lose all credibility?
In the scenario you describe one fighter would hold the WBA, IBF and WBO belts. I think in that scenario that man would be regarded as the man at heavyweight.

Anybody who put up a rival claim based on the Whetabix Boxing Council heavyweight title would have little credibility.
janitor is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2007, 01:15 PM   #6
Asterion
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,879
vCash: 75
Default Re: Re-establishing linearity in the heavyweight division

Janitor, do you have a bigger version of your avatar?
Asterion is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2007, 03:36 PM   #7
Asterion
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,879
vCash: 75
Default Re: Re-establishing linearity in the heavyweight division

Quote:
Originally Posted by Homicidal Hank
Just note the two oldest and prestigious organizations. Don't give these other sanctioning bodies any legitimacy by noting them. Your list should look like this:



A fight between the WBA and WBC titlist would be the unified champion. If Lewis doesn't come back, that's good enough for lineage.

Why the two oldest ones and not only the oldest one or the three oldest ones? What makes the WBC more important than the IBF, and what makes the past more important than the present?
Asterion is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2007, 04:40 PM   #8
ChrisPontius
March 8th, 1971
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Holland
Posts: 9,642
vCash: 238
Default Re: Re-establishing linearity in the heavyweight division

Quote:
Originally Posted by Homicidal Hank
Just note the two oldest and prestigious organizations. Don't give these other sanctioning bodies any legitimacy by noting them. Your list should look like this:



A fight between the WBA and WBC titlist would be the unified champion. If Lewis doesn't come back, that's good enough for lineage.
Forget all the belts, and this is to Janitor as well:

Fact remains this is a fight between two top contenders and since Lewis is not coming back, i see no reason not to recognise the winner of them as the champ just like they did in the old days.
ChrisPontius is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2007, 04:54 PM   #9
Pat_Lowe
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 593
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Re-establishing linearity in the heavyweight division

Quote:
Originally Posted by Homicidal Hank
Because the WBC grew out of the international community, working with the NYSAC, striving to create a world boxing organization to reflect the long non-NBA tradition of world championship recognition. The WBC makes a direct line to the beginning of the sport. When Joe Frazier unified the WBA (which was just a few years before the NBA, an organization with as long as history) and NYSAC titles he became WBC champion. Remember when Hearns and Leonard fought for the unified title? Two belts were on the line: WBA and WBC. That's all you need - two competing long-standing sanctioning bodies with the possibility of unification matches that make a world champion in the absence of the linear champion.

There are more than just those four sanctioning bodies. Why don't you recognize all of them? What if there is a title for every person you consider the top ten? Top twenty? When does it stop? When every fighter is a champion? Why do you let a bunch of bureaucrats out to make a buck manipulate you into treating their belt as something special? Anybody can start a world boxing organization, have a belt made, and declare their guy a champion. Are you going to follow around the money grubbers like a puppy dog and roll over and piss on yourself when they sanctioning a "world title bout"?

We only need two sanctioning bodies - therefore no monopoly - and one unification match in only eight divisions. That is what will bring this sport back. As long as you puppies follow around WBO, IBF, IBU, WBU, etc., etc., etc., champions, boxing will continue to die it's slow death. Everybody who recognizes these bastard sanctioning bodies is killing the sport.
I agree with this and the unification of the WBA and WBC is what is needed to establish linearity. Do you consider Kessler the champ in the super middleweight division?

Also, its very difficult to hold the WBA in high regard these days. The ridiculous super champ concept is an absolute farce. Its a joke and really decreases the WBA's standing
Pat_Lowe is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2007, 07:30 PM   #10
Jack Dempsey
Legend
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The sooner the safer
Posts: 3,615
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Re-establishing linearity in the heavyweight division

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat_Lowe
I agree with this and the unification of the WBA and WBC is what is needed to establish linearity. Do you consider Kessler the champ in the super middleweight division?

Also, its very difficult to hold the WBA in high regard these days. The ridiculous super champ concept is an absolute farce. Its a joke and really decreases the WBA's standing
The SMW divison is interesting in terms of Linearity, does it come from Kessler or Calzaghe????

Do you hold the Ring champion as any kind of a guide??
Jack Dempsey is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2007, 10:38 PM   #11
Pat_Lowe
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 593
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Re-establishing linearity in the heavyweight division

I don't know but the ring magazine was just looking for a champ in that division so they sanctioned #1 vs #3 for the ring belt, going against their own policy. The WBO belt is ridiculous, I really don't like Calzaghe, I absolutely hate his style I think its a joke (he slaps), I hate his attitude and I really hope Kessler beats him. At the moment I don't consider there to be a champ at super-middle. This upcoming matchup should change that though.
Pat_Lowe is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic 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 09:35 AM.


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