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

"Rightful belt-holder" is an oxymoron. Fighters who are handed a belt should give them back and stop pretending. World champion? Stop the insanity. Why won't they hand them back? Because of us -boxing fans and media- keep injecting legitimacy into their nonsense. It's our fault. We've been willing patsies who don't even know when our intelligence is insulted.

Stupid belts.

Stupid WBS presidents...
"With termites in their smiles,
With all the tender sweetness of a seasick crocodile,

Given a choice between them I'd take the ... seasick crocodile!

They nauseate me,
With a nauseous super 'naus',
They're crooked dirty jockeys and drive crooked hosses

They're a three decker sauerkraut and toadstool sandwich, with arsenic sauce.

The three words that describe them are as follows, and I quote, 'Stink, Stank, Stunk!'

Fighters shouldn't touch them with a thirty-nine-and-a-half foot pole..."

:xmas

 

Math tells me that 2 is closer to 1 than 3.

If the number 2 guy is voted there by a legitimate panel, that means for all intents and purposes that he is better than 3. If 1 fights 3 he may be ducking 2. If he beats 3, he didn't beat the next best guy, he beat the third best guy.

I think we have to be strict with who is crowned as the king of the division.

1 vs. 3 for a vacant throne means "loose end."

1 vs. 2 for a vacant throne means clarity.

 

...

 

So, you don't think Floyd's win over Shane was adequate to establish a new lineage @ WW?

 

If Cotto Margarito I wasn't a contest between the two highest rated 147lber's then who would you have rated higher than Cotto or Margarito @ WW? Paul Williams?

 

Well said.

 

I agree with you.

forgetting aside the Klitchsko family situation, if they werent brothers wich one is the best in the world? I would say it is close to a split down the midddle. The only way is if they actually fight.

Although, I suppose there does come a time where Wlad could win without fighting no 2 on circumstances. If Vitali, for example loses to say David Haye, then I think Wlad might be acceptable as the no 1 because he has already beaten the no 1. Possiibly even if Nicolai Valuev beats Vitali because Wlad has beaten the man that beat Valuev.

I wonder though if one vs two is really strict enough. It is hard when a champ retires to know who one and two are. At Present it is easy. But if the Klitchsko's were to retire, is there any idea who 1 and 2 really are? I think maybe that any title should be maybe not decided until the top 4 or 8 claims to the title are actually settled. The champ before being dethroned by the retiring champ definitely has a claim in most cases.

ideally, what would happen is that the Retiring champ would nominate who he saw as the 8 best fighters in the world, and they would fight every month until there was one winner. At a place nominated by the champion.

If the two fighters get together and agree other venues, prizemoney, dates and times then fine but if there is no agreement, then the tome dates and places nominated by the champion stands and the fighter who doesnt turn up forfeits the chance at the title. If we only promote one title and recognise one title then this is what will be important. It is how the fighter makes money. If a fighter forfeits this title in the hope of getting an easier shot, then they can hardly claim to be a world champion. Actually i probably need to think about it more, to see if i agree but the reasoning is sound. any thoughts.

 

No, that would be merely a subjective opinion. Floyd and Manny are the 1 and 2 right now. They have to come to terms and then come to blows, then we'll have a welterweight champion.

 

I'm not shaking a fist at anyone declaring Wlad the champion. He should be. I just think he needs to do what conquerors do and vanquish his rival -not the midgets further down the threat scale.

Let me illustrate. Wlad is the best HW in the world -he is lufcrazy's premiere HW. However, I think that it is quite likely that Vitali can and would beat him if they fought. Which would mean that the HW with the best resume is not the champion -the man who beat him is.

My point is that they need to fight. I don't know who the champ is because it is undetermined. Putting Wlad on the throne by fiat is no different than putting fighter A on the throne because we believe he could beat fighter B.

What is boxing? It's trial by Combat -NOT BY FIAT. Now, let's see that "throne is vacant" category get some clicks you damn fools!

That made my head spin.

I think tournaments are better determinants. However, the reality of boxing today prevents it. How long has it taken to determine who is on the SMW throne after that tournament? Boxing no longer allows for it...

Jim Jeffries nominated Hart and Root and more or less bequethed the title to the winner.

This sounds something like what would happen in the 19th century. I'm not so sure you want the retiring champ deciding anything. They have friends who fight and can be "gotten to."

However, you are on the money when it comes to US demanding exclusive recognition of ONE CHAMPION. I cringe everytime I even hear Max Kellerman mention "belt-holder" because it isn't enough. Call them top contenders and stop pretending their belts do anything more than hold their pants up.

 

You are right about not wanting champions to decide anything, but they are i suppose as good as anyone was my point. Do we trust any of the sanctioning bodies? Boxrec maybe another idea or some type of poll or internet poll? I dont really know. Although if we had proper lineal rankings that couldnt be manipulated (other than by bad judges) then i guess this would really solve the problem.

On Jeffries choice of opponent. Jeffries chose on the promoters wishes and i do agree it meant nothing. Ironically though, if Jeffries had been forced to nominate 4 or 8 guys to compete in the tournament then this tournament would have included Johnson. Johnson was one of the guys who could have fought for the title as he was under control of the promoter and actually considered for the vacant title. He was passed over because the other guy thought the other two were more marketable and presumably easier to control in the long term.

 

I'd trust Sesame Street with rankings more than those sanctioning bodies. Puppets don't need graft (WBA, IBF) and only want to please children (unlike SillyMan who wants to please everyone who is nice to him) and children don't care about boxing.

Thank you for the background.

 

And on the 19th century idea, you are sort of right. But isnt that what happens now, The sanctioning body makes the rules, the promoters bid for purses and eventually the defence somehow gets made months down the track after a few duck outs and strips or whatever.

the point i am getting at is why not just make a strict rule and stick to it. to modernise things why not this: Dates are to be 1 month apart. Promoters have 1 week to issue the highest bid for each fight/round of the tournament. Purse is winner 75% loser 25%.

Super 6 was agood tournament and the winner will get a lot of mileage from it. But, the problem is that the rounds were miles too far appart and therefore it lost interest. It would have been much better if each round was held every month. the fighters would have got their form up and built followings.

 

Always loved bringing back the idea of actual prize-fighting ^

However, you used a word that brings all this home in a previous post: "ideally."

Boxing is too far gone to get as radical as you propose though I like the idea.

I think that even my relatively modest proposals would meet the kind of fierce opposition you find anytime greedy jerk-offs see their cash-cows jumping the fence. Though it is about a zillion times more likely that my ideas would be completley ignored.