Of the fighters who have won four or more titles

Serrano would never be over Arguello. His beating the sitting champion doesn't make it so. But he has to be champion and he beat the champ who beat the champ all the way back to 1959.

Robinson's ascension satisfies the consistent conditions of the model (which by the way, you haven't seen. It's a beauty, though, believe me.)

Holmes is under review, man. That's a nod to you.

But don't get too excited about that because I happen to know that your model has already been counted out, and is dazed in the dressing room at this very moment. That's because you didn't keep it focused on "premiere fighters" like it should have been and like I told you too.

 

But how do you justify crowning sugar ray and not wlad? Surely that's inconsistent?

Any sneak preview on the model and it's consistent conditions?

My premiere fighter is still as fluid as it always was.

I just strongly believe a claimant who isn't premiere is a champion on paper only. That's not me denying the champion's status, it's me questioning it's worth.

 

That I agree with and it's always the case. Even when there were 9 divisions and everyone knew who was who, they'd still call guys like Servo and Lesnevich seat-warmers.

As to my model: It lists every "true" champion in every division -name, opponent's name, result, date, venue, and comments, beginning with the first Queensberry championship bout to the present.

By consistent, I mean that its rules for filling empty thrones are uniformly applied even if the result is unpopular.

It's intended to demonstrate, as far as I am able, that boxing does not need the so-called sanctioning bodies. That boxing, of all sports, should be as simple as the idea of it, and that a cleaned-up, clear, and sensible model would see boxing overtake MMA, baseball, golf, and even basketball. It could be the second most popular sport on the planet behind American football and football.

 

People are more offended when bad language is used. No need for that mate.

 

:roflAh, this has been a great read.

 

Whats happening, champion?

 

Yes lesnevich is another good example. He lost to bivins very soon after winning the vacant belts.

As I say, my model doesn't name a champion, there's enough claims to that title as it is. Mine just decides who is the best of the claimants at any given time.

A clear sensible approach works if it's an idea also pursued by boxer and promoter i.e. They aspire to be the "stonehands champion" otherwise the worth isn't that great imo.

 

...i tend to skim over posts that i don't agree with so i don't have any comment on those who justify the wbo titles, for example. if that offends anyone that's not my problem.

stonehands is the only one who makes any sense here...two men have won three titles.....one fighter three at once, the other going from middleweight to heavyweight and then down the light heavy.

no fighter has won 4 or 5 legit titles and it's unlikely that anyone ever will

 

I'd love to see the end result of your project. I think there'll be enough there to talk about for years. And hey, that may be our middle ground -the idea that even the actual champ may be what you call a paper champ or what I call a seat-warmer. Barring protection and politics, their reigns are usually brief though.

As to my thing. You're right -the most likely scenerio is that it will be utterly ignored by the powers that be. However, I think that it will turn some heads among historians. It's more organized, internally consistent, and thorough than any I've seen yet and all it takes is one influential figure to take it and run with it. It's also something that is going to have to be dynamic in that guys who know what they're talking about will catch mistakes. I hope not though.

 

I for one can't wait to complete it but it's a long way off yet. And there will be lots because of how fluidly subjective it is. That's exactly why my model is totally unideal. It's personal to my own opinion and something like that could never take off. It's borne out of the mess we have regressing to the claimant system but it recognises the reality of the mess.

That's a fair middle ground because your system is idealist and in a perfect world people would ignore the trinkets and there would be just one champion that the best would strive to be. It's not how boxing is today, but it's how boxing once was and should be.

Before proliferation, the best man usually was the champion. The problem began when the concept of 1 champ faded and to be the best there were other avenues to explore that led to the same media recognition, payday and big fights.

Yeah when I say paper champ I mean just that, on paper they are or should be the champ, but in reality they aren't championship material (politics and protection as you say).

I'm happy with this truce for now, I just wish you'd consider the strength of wlad's claim again!

I apologise for hijacking the thread, we've gone way off tangent!

 

Take a look at my first post and see who the real guilty party is.

 

Ruby Rob! What's up with you, man? I rarely see you around these parts anymore.

 

Everyone's to blame stoney. Fighter's pay the fees, promoter's make the fights, bodies enforce the **** poor mandatory defence, media label them each a champion. All these small cogs conspire against your ideal i'm afraid.

 

Ahhh, I go through phases on here. I always pop on now and again for a look. I have been posting recenty, but just the odd post.

 

--I meant who's to blame for hijacking the thread.