It seems like fighters vacate titles regularly shortly after winning them. Crawford became undisputed and the very next fight vacated the super lightweight titles to go fight at welter weight. Usyk waited a little longer but not much. Pacquiao rapidly moved up in weights, barely staying at any weight long enought to defend any titles. Canelo has done much the same, and with the expectation that he will become undisputed Saturday, people are mostly talking about who he will fight next in a different weight class instead of at super middleweight. So why don't we seem to value the skill it takes to hold on to a title for a long time over the skill it takes to move to different weight classes? (The only exception seems to be heavyweight, most likely just because there's nowhere higher to go and moving down in weight is uncommon.)
No we don't care. Title defences are just very weak way to judge someone's career. This is purely down to a couple of thingsz. There is just too much cherry picking, too many titles and too much politics involved. Classic example, take wilder. 10 defences and his best, best name, on the list is a 45year old spent Cuban. Spent years ****ing Whyte and povetkins of this word until he came unstuck on a Tyson failed cherry. Unless you build you own lineage, such as GGG, such as Bhop, such as Klit. Title defences mean very little .
because half a dozen fighters in each weight category can have them, so being a 'world champion' is watered down in boxing. for belts to be coveted (and mean something), we need 1 federation and 1 world champion per division.
The forum cares when it suits their biased agenda in any given argument. I hear it a lot about W. Klitschko. He went on a reign over short, useless, blown up cruiserweights or old boxers. Totally hopeless opposition that any excellent boxer would overcome in his sleep, especially when all of the external conditions are in his favour such as dodgy contracts, ring canvases, judges and referees and so on. The likes of Fury is easily better than W. Klitschko ever was and he doesn't need to go on a reign over bums like Brock, Leapai, Mormeck etc. to prove it.
Its all context. Going up in weight and winning titles can be more impressive depending on who you beat.
Every fight is its own monster. A belt being on the line or not doesnt matter. We judge by their performance and what that performance against that specific opponent means. Now almost always the four belts will be on fighters that are in the divisional top ten. But certainly the merit of the average challenger continues to lower with time.
IMO It depends on a few factors:- Age/frame/weight bulling capability Depth in the division Depth in adjacent divisions Level of challenge / legacy - HOF / candidate ATG dance partners Recent HOF / ATG candidates 'path' Where is the 'money fights' Much more in recent years it seems (at least to me) that - maybe due to nutritional / weight cutting advances - that many more fighters are not really fighting at their natural weight class, which then gives them the option of moving up in divisions when the cut becomes too much, or less cynically, when they age/grow out of the division. If you look at Hagler's then Bhops reign @160, then contrast to GGG, it's generally fairly well accepted that GGG fought in a 160 division that had less depth than his forebears, hence the narattive that GGG needed to move up to face a legacy-defining challenge; GGG didn't have an elite dance partner to measure himself against till Canelo really. But even that doesn't really tell the whole story - look at Floyd and Pac - they are the 2 greatest figfhters in the last 2 decades without question, but look at how much the 5-division and 8-division champ clamour get's punted about. But I think what Floyd and Manny achieved - moving through the divisions, and arguably fighting at a division a good bit higher than what is optimum, and not only being competitive, but dominating. Well that's set the blueprint, and anyone coming after is going to be seen as inferior - just look at Canelo's road; he is following Floyd and Manny's path. I think consecutive defences (when many are mandatory) is now seen as a fairly safe - even sheltered - option, where a fighter is not really 'daring to be great'. It's not just Golovkin that got tarred with that brush - Calzaghe did as well, although he did move up eventually. What is interesting when you look at that list of criteria, then look at Hagler - his resume is stacked, but he had the fortune to have a wealth of ATGs coming up and daring to be great by trying to beat "the man" @160. Hearns, Duran, Leonard - take the other 3 kings away from Hagler's resume and those titanic legendary matches, and Hagler might have came in for some criticism himself. Take Josh Taylor now? I know he is looking to move up to 147, but he could conceivably stay at 140 and have Lopez, Tank and others come up to challenge his dominance - and I think that should be equally valid a strategy, but I think it would be judged as to safe in the modern game. Of course, as a fighter you are damned if you do, damned if you don't - Taylor goes up to 147, it's inevitable that Lopez and Tank etc will strat running their mouth that he is ducking/running away etc - yes, to Ennis, Ortiz, Crawford and Spence - good luck with that one!
At this point, no, I do9nt really care. You can easily rack up a load of defences fighting incredibly medicore fighters. I'd rather guys make the big fights, with or without belts.
It’s not just the defense but paying the fees on 4 belts is damn expensive. You are at best throwing away 100k every fight.
Deontay Wilder...close thread. Title defenses are essentially meaningless these days. It started with Larry Holmes' failure to unify/acceptance of the IBF belt, and now, in the area of the WBA alone having thee champions, they really are just gaudy trinkets to display to casual fans. A fighter has to be primarily judged on his resume.
I do, but everyone seems to think conquering new territory in new weight classes (as opposed to ruling what you've conquered) is the path to greatness these days.
It depends on the title. The alphabet soups organizations are worth ignoring as much as we can, though we still have to emphasize them a little because it still represents a higher stakes match whenever they are involved. The Linear/Lineal crown has historical significance and a higher standard in which to obtain it, so I definitely care about that one. What matters above all, though, is quality of opposition. Who you fight and how you perform is the most important metric we have in assessing someone's career.
Titles SHOULD be defended. Those who win a belt and don't defend it shouldn't get the accolades those who do defend against top contenders receive. Too many are just too interested in title hopping. And getting a title shot is often the only big shot some fighters get. Posters focus too much on established fighters, cash cows, or mainstream boxers, ignoring those actually working their way up for a shot. Some "fans"....