Separating the beltholders

On what basis have you decided that Cunningham and Adamek were the two top fighters in the division? What if someone disagrees that they were the two top fighters?

The whole point of your system was to avoid subjectivity, as far as I can see. Having allowed subjective judgment to creep into it, you've undermined the whole purpose of your system. It was inevitable, in fact. It's not about what title you have or whether the fighter you won it against had a title when you beat him or whether it happened to be a lineal title or what not. It's about whom you fight, their level of performance during the fight and your level of performance during the fight, and who wins. Nothing else matters.

 

Don't see any reason to think that a defending champion would fight harder than someone who has a shot at winning a title.

Your 'fine line' shows that your classifications have limited practical application. All you really need are 'recognised champion' and everyone else.

 

Yes, that's how most people think about it. Then, some people talk of "THE" Champion too. If "the man" (i.e. the recognised champion who is seen as the best in the division) beats a recognised champion seen as the second best in the division, he becomes "the champion", but obviously, not in everyone's eyes, because not everyone agrees who "the man" is or who the second best man is, or, because, for example, there could be a third fighter who might beat "the champion" whilst losing to the other two recognised champions. Styles make fights, and all that. For example, Calzaghe was "the man", but became "the Champion" when he defeated the best other recognised champion out there - Kessler.

 

Yeah, as soon as you bring up the article(s) that shows Abraham turning down a fight with Taylor...Now remember Reg, I need to see both sides of the argument. I'll shed the light then.

 

:good

 

if someone wins a title off a paper-champ, is he a titlist or a paper champ?

 

Also, do you consider Chris John a faux champion? Or a paper champion? or a titlist?

 

Please stay out of this conversation. There are real posters posting here. We don't need a PAc nuthugger to join in. Be easy and learn.

 

Williams is a bit of a tricky case. He beat someone who was a true titleholder, but that person had to vacate in order to fight Williams, and some other org gave him the fake interim title. I still give him credit for beating an actual titleholder there, just like I give Hatton credit for beating an actual titleholder in Malignaggi.

 

JMM was WBA super champion, Chris John won the regular title off a non-champion, then JMM was stripped of his IBF title when he drew with Pacquiao so the WBA stripped JMM of the super championship and instilled him as the mandatory challenger to John's regular WBA title. John won the fight and kept his title