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

I can use that same argument against you.

Alexander got the decision against Kotelnyk. You're the one who thinks he got "exposed".

The FACT of the matter is, when Tim beat Devon, he beat the #2 140lb'er in the world.

You don't have a leg to stand on in rating Khan above Bradley.

 

I see you're still hitting the sauce...

 

I told you...call me Bronco...say sorry Bronco.

This content is protected

 

Holmes is complicated, precisely because of the WBA and WBC's nonsense. I wave them off and choose Holmes ultimately because of Ali.

Tyson's unification was a big deal to the boxing world -because it was marketed as a big deal to the boxing world. I like the fact that he defeated all of the belt-holders and showed the world who the real champion is. However, had he ignored those belts, it would have been at once revolutionary and clarifying in the long-term sense. The sanctioning bodies breed confusion because of the belts and their competing agendas. They thrive in confusion. They are the problem and the media is directly complicit.

PS/
I didn't mind belt-holder either last summer. But I've since realized that it will become status-quo and nothing will change. Turning our backs on them and towards a rational system will change things.

 

YOU do.

Any further questions?

 

So how long do you wait after someone retires to find the next lineal champ?

While Vitali was retired Wlad was the recognized HW champ. If they fought I think Wlad would lose. What is the answer?

There is none, it is a philosophical question. Either Vitali lost it when he retired or he had it when he returned.

 

Will there ever be a problem of never having to prove yourself to be the best without belts? On a rational stance one could rank Willis over Dempsey. But what historian would ever rank Willis ahead of Dempsey? Has the culture affected us? How do we break from that mold then? Would it just be as simple as a ranking system with the #1 guy being the champ, and everyone else just a ranked fighter? Since there are multiple fighters with multiple belts they care about, who gets the ultimately say for being the best fighter if for some reason they don't fight?

 

If they dont fight, the fighter who was the champion first would be the best fighter. If this was neither fighter (due to retirements) there would be no champion.

 

That's a solid rule. You'll run into a few critics who may say that we should judge fighters based on what they've actually done and not what we think they're capable of. Mayweather may have not fought the most dangerous and best opponents out there post JWW but that doesn't award him fantasy victories in my mind. At the same time, I have no problem with people thinking Mayweather is the P4P best even if his track record as of late is not stellar or truly deserving of such merit. But the skills are there, and even in light of Pac's latest performances which seems sub-par (Whether that be because of himself or his opponent, not the issue anyway), we as boxing fans shouldn't care if it seems fickle to change our P4P ranking after just one fight. We're not talking P4P but since we're in the same division we can talk about best WW. Some may say that the two best need to duke it out to prove who the best WW is. I'm sure that's Stonehands position. It's hard to argue, but say the fight never happens... that doesn't mean we can't form an opinion on who we think is the best, right? It's all subjective after all.