I know people generally don't care about the IBO, but I was just looking up their history on boxrec and it seems that Khurtsidze won the belt and then Golovkin fought someone for the IBO belt. How was Golovkin able to do that if Khurt had the IBO at the time and they never fought?
Basically saying that he got them, compared to most other titlists, illegitimately. And many other titlists don't get them legitimately, either. He won the "vacant interim WBA title" and then later, without fighting I believe, got it elevated to full titlist.
When no super champion is in place the regular champion is elevated to super after 5 successful defenses. Fairly basic rules everyone needs to know if they're going to voice on opinion on the subject.
crap rule though. Winning a belt is something you do in the ring, by taking the belt from a beltholder, unless its been vacated in which two fight for the vacated belt. You dont get elevated to gold medal if you've won five silver medals.
Seeing the kinds of fights that are made when a vacated belt is on the line these days I think I'll take the 5 defense option instead.
as long as you disregard "reg" defences then accepting "promotions" is still the weskest form of winning a title, but acceptable.
Fanboy, where exactly do these 7 defences come from? Hopkins unified and lost to Taylor who lost to Pavlik who lost to Martinez who lost to Cotto who lost to Canelo who declared himself no longer champion before his Chavez fight. Exactly where in that does Golovkin fit in?