In light of Niclay Valuev becoming a 2 time Champion it leads me back over the years mostly since Don King came into play. There have been solid Champions who had to defend against the best like Joe Louis, Marciano, Ali and others do you think split Champions (some of them I dont even remember) who never unified ( did not have the desire) should be held in the same esteem or do you think the real title Chamipons should be rated above. Right now we have 4 Champions Vlad,Peter,Chagaev,Valuev...does there defences really count...How much harder is it to defend if there was 1 champ fighting the best....thoughts on subject
I view champions as top contenders; top4 if you will. It's clear Wlad is the best out there today, but officially not THE champion yet. It's a bit unfair though, beating 1 man to become the champion is easier than having to go through 3 champions with all the politics, Don King, Wilfried Sauerland, etc, around. For instance, i don't consider Mike Weaver as a champion, despite him having the WBA title along with a nice set of "title" defenses. He was, however, a top contender because Holmes was the champion. But who is a champion and who is not can be a subjective matter, sometimes even coming down to definition. Patterson was considered champion because Ring magazine considered Moore vs Patterson to be for the heavyweight title. Vitali Klitschko was given the Ring championship in 2004 but not everyone recognizes him as linear champion. Wlad vs Sultan could've been considered for the linear championship for the same reason as Patterson-Moore was. Just a matter of definition.
I agree with the fact that Vlad has done everything at this point to unify, he beat Byrd and Sultan and Peter already and is the Champion, more than any . A match with Valuev would be interesting. The thing I am talking about is Weaver,Dokes,Bowe,Moorer, Foreman,Ruiz,Seldon.Thomas,,Tubbs,Page,...were they Champs....who was a champ and who was not and if they were not...Did they have any defences
Id like to see wlad beat chagaev and valuev before he calls himself the best. Chagaev is undefeated HW champion who has beaten better opposition than wlad has over the past 3 years. he also doesnt have 3 embarrasing stoppage losses on his record like wlad does. as far as im concerned chagaev has just as much claim to being the best in the division. a lackadasical win over tony thompson doesnt change that.
There's no doubt it's easier to defend a alphabet strap than the previous single versions of the titles. When there was one title, everybody wanted it. Now fighters don't seem that interested in belts, just money. Also with the 4 organizations fighters are split between them, I mean for example Valuev isn't going to have to defend against the best, being Wladimir Klitschko, because he's obviously also a champion and being the IBF and WBO champion of course isn't a mandatory, so Valuev is going to get away without fighting the best fighter in his division.
Actually he doesn't call himself the best. He said he didn't feel champion until he unified all belts. I like that in a fighter. On Chagaev: i agree, he has a very good resume and in my opinion he's the #2 guy at the moment, followed closely by Valuev and Peter. I believe he'll beat Valuev again in the upcoming rematch, if he retains his ability after the injuries and layoffs.
Im not saying the title is the most important thing in terms of greatness or legacy, it isnt imo. But when solely on the topic of the championship, i normally consider the lineal title (and it is possible to trace them correctly), although i am completely knowledgeable of the alphabet titles, thats all i see them as. On saying that, i do give much credit to a titlist who sees his title as 'the championship' and defends it as if it is just that, doing so honourably and with dignity, kind of like what Felix Trinidad did with his IBF 147 pound title. It wasnt actually the lineal title, the WBC was at that time, its clear if you trace it back.
Depends, if you have a dominant titlist who is recognized as the best at his weight like Wlad who isn´t able to unify due to politics than it is nearly as good as beeing the champ. If a titlist is only interested in keeping his belt and make money of it, like Felix Sturm, than he´s just a contender and not even the best. The linear title is what counts. That´s why Pavlik is the champ and Abraham is the No. 1 contender but than it can be that you have a guy like Erdei who has the lhw linear title and an alphabet strap but doesn´t fight the best and there are obviously better fighters around at his weight. That is only possible due to the ABCs.
There has not been a true Lineal champion since 2001 when Girard gave up his 168lbs crown. It is naive to suggest that boxing has Lineal champs, Lineage has long since been broken in every division, if it was ever there in the first place. Also you can never have an undisputed champion, because someone will always dispute it! All you and I and everyone else have is a personal opinion as to who is champion.
I just think that lineage can be restored in a 'perfect world' where rankings are totally correct and justifiable. Lineage in terms of the world title is not the same as say in a royal family. If a lineal champion retires and his title is therefore vacated, then the correct way of restoring lineage would be for the justifiably ranked number 1 and 2 in the division to contest the beginning of a new lineage. Like i say, this would be a 'perfect world'. Also, when i say rankings, i dont mean Ring magazine rankings, if you look over boxing's history, it is possible to really see who the true champion was. I maybe wrong, i can't remember now, but when reading Charley Burley's book, i learned that (and my memory may serve me wrong) that Ken Overlin was the true champion at one point, or it may have been Soose, who beat Overlin, and lineage in my opinion followed from there, the title was being disputed at that time. I would like to say though, that the parts of your post that i have highlighted, i strongly agree with.:good
This is how I feel - I think Wlad is the best, but should he automatically be elivated above Chagaev based upon the way he looks? Not neccesarily. I look to the guy with the Ring belt, generally, but I think the HW division is one where the top guys absolutley need to square off to settle this. Ironically, it's the one where this is least likely to happen. Chagaev infuriates me. I think he looks like a cracking fighter - but he's always injured.
I agree, its the fighter that at least trys to unify who should be reconized, with these split or bogus titles it all lies with the fighter who wants to unify because he wants to clear up confustion and knows and feels he is the best....I dont think Larry Holmes tried enough to do this and was content in the safety of the split titles...Riddick Bowe threw a title away rather than fight Lennox after that I reconized Lewis and anything he did before that. We are talking Heavys but there are many other instances in lower divisions...Who was at fault Jones Or Darius M. for robbing the fans of the unification at least Lacy and Calzage took the chance and gave the fans what they wanted
A lot of times the split titles have to do the politics (money). What will make more money, 1 unified champion, medium draw, and earns about 4-5 million per fight or 4 champions, 3 small draws, 1 medium draw, earn ingabout 2-4 million per fight? In the cases like Tyson and Holyfield the promoter would make it easy for him unify because he was a very big draw and could earn him the same, or more money than 4 champions. That's how I take it at least.