Has wlad done enough such that he's began a new universally accepted lineage?

sorry I meant jofre at fw.

yeah if a universally regarded champ retires the best men should immediately sign up to a tournament.

When Lewis retired it should have been vitali, byrd, sanders and ruiz. not because they held the belts but because they were genuinely the top 4 men.

You call it a mistake, I call it a hobby :good

No what is fantasy is the entire dicussion at hand; being brutally honest whenever a man wins a sanctioned title he will officially go down as world champion. That is the painful reality we live in. You are saying that a worthy champion beats the number 2/1 whilst ranked number 1/2 and keeps his belt until he vacates his throne. I am saying a worthy champion is the man beating better people than anyone else in a better fashion.

We are both living in a fantasy world, it's just that yours is a bit more contemporary.

Langford and cocoa kid both held the coloured championship don't forget so they technically were both champions.

The difference here is I accept my way of thinking is contained withing my way of thinking. I set out to convince noone.

You seem to harbour the idea that your way of thinking is correct and should be embraced.

Question; when do you recognise Ray Robinson as becoming the champ? officially it was when he beat bell, but that doesn't suit your criteria I believe?

What you say is pandora's box is what I say is the essence of boxing debate "who is the best out there and why" I love it. Sure it's a bit more fluid and not as rigid as traditional linearity, sure it relies on heavy research into dubious decisions, but I have the time so why not?

 

The exact question I could pose back is what sense does it make to call Briggs the true champion in the HW division when he never became champion until a decade letter? To decide 15 years later that he was actually "on the throne" because he got a gift against big george and should have been on the throne is fantasy.

 

mine has rules also. getting battered by schulz but being gifted the decision followed by a 2 year hiatus is not a worthy champion in my opinion.

 

between 73 and 76 jofre's opposition was not the best.

No I recognise that there actually ARE multiple world champions. I hate the system, I'm just saying we're both living in a faantasy world we perceive as better than the reality (which is multiple world champs e.g. nathan cleverly)

I go to these lengths out of, to be honest, politeness. I am doing the research anyways and save it on microsoft word on my computer. It's merely the click of a button to post that information on here and I do it to see what people's thoughts are.

Yeah your system is good, I just think the lack of demand to fight meaningful opposition is a flaw. But I do understand the flipside of a champion only losing his belt in the ring.

Do you have an actual cut off date when 1 vs 2 becomes, in your eyes, a necessity? Interested to here when and why.

I do label my guy the premiere fighter. I'm nopt to confuse it with the lineal champion which in essence is just the lineage tracing back to an ultimately undisputed champion.

What I'm saying is, if I was the head of WBC/A/O etc it would be the premiere guy I'd award a belt to. I'm not saying my premiere guy should be recognised as a champ if they aren't, I'm saying it is those I think are the most worthy of the title in my opinion.

Take an example today off the tiop of my head. Miguel Cotto, Saul alvarez, Cornelius Bundrage. All claiming to be the world champion of the 154 division. It is cotto I think is the best of those 3 so if any of them is to be seen as a champion, I'd prefer it to be miguel.

When ranking fighter's my minimum criteria of entry is that they were seen as the best in the world at some point in their career.

So to summise, if I was the head of NBA, NYASC in 1960, I'd strip Patterson of his title and award it to liston after beating machen. That's not to say I demand Liston should be recognised as champion from that date.

 

I have no issue with people recognising briggs as a lineal champ after that "victory" my real problem is when people say **** like "wlad should rank behind briggs because shannon was the lineal champ and wlad hasn't ever fought vitali"

 

We're confusing the issue here.

To me the champions are as they are and can't be changed. What's done is done. Due to certain incidents over the history of boxing i've come to conclude that when ranking a fighter, it is more important for me that they were the premiere fighter as opposed to be being a champion of a given belt (be it alpha, coloured, lineal or ring).

So yes walker did become middleweight champ and yes louis did defend jersey joe.

But did I think walker was the premiere mw in the world after reading up on the fight? Hell no I didn't. Here, however, flowers vacated his claim (to being the best) by leaving the division and walker was the best man left.

Regarding louis I haven't seen enough evidence to support a robbery claim so in cases where i'm not convinced I take the result at face value: he won a close fight but scored a knockout in the rematch.