Undisputed Champions

Did they have that thing where if the 1st and 3rd fought then it could be for the vacant title at their discretion? I think with Wlad vs. Chag they saw the best oppurtunity they were likely to have in quite a while to get a decent match for the vacant title and took it.

 

Well to be fair the top 2 our Brothers?

I do the ESB rankings and the rule in place there says you can become a champion if your the number 1 ranked fighter and you beat another eligible fighter. That can be anyone in the top 3. its very rare that the number 1 and 2, or number 1 and 3 fighter have a fight. an ESB Champion has yet to defend there title agaisnt a top 3 fighter this year.

 

The situation was deemed a 'special circumstance' as the Klits would never have fought each other. Even someone as pessimistic as you must concede that point. It's in the Ring's criteria that 1st and 3rd placed fighters can fight for the title, but only in circumstances where the top two can't fight. It wasn't something that was just thought-up on a whim to make Wlad the champ. If they were in the business of just giving away titles, they would have just made Mosley-Margo and a whole whost of other fights between 1st and 3rd ranked fighters for the title.

 

the WBO is held by more higher ranked fighters than any other belt.

 

The title should be vacant like lots of other Ring titles.

 

The WBO is favoured (I assume) because it's the belt with the cheapest sanctioning fee. And because all the belts mean as little as each other, as long as you're wearing a belt it don't matter whether it's the green one (which is corrupt as **** anyway)

Again: titles are meaingless.

 

there not quite meaningless.

personally i like to see them as stepping stones towards a lineal title. So when Haye beat Valuev it was an unofficial eliminator for Wlad. They will be 12 round fights between 2 at least decent level fighters.......most of the time.

 

I know why it happened. As Gazoc says it was a convenient political decision. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it. The rules don't say anything about the top two 'not being able to fight'. They say that a fight between number one and number three can be sanctioned for the title in certain circumstances which aren't defined. Past precedent has limited this to situations where there is a clear number one and the two and three are seen as of a similar level (Calzaghe v Lacy as an example). That was a decision taken by the advisory panel as was the decision not to sanction Margarito v Mosley for the vacant welterweight title (rightly in my opinion as the number three Mosley had lost to the number two ranked Cotto in his pervious fight at WW).

Now we can argue that Wlad was clear number one at the time he fought Chagaev, but it's hard to make an argument that there was little difference between number two Vitali and number three Chagaev, most people considered Vitali a clear number two. I suspect the ranking panel would have come to a similar conclusion if they had been consulted. Instead the decision was taken by the editor after Wlad's representatives had rung him to lobby for the belt to be at stake.

 

the fact is we all went nuts when Haye beat Valuev, when Froch beat Pascal, when Bruno beat McAll. and in truth all they did was beat another world level fighter.

when Ricky burns and rendall munroe have there next fighter we will be cheering them on and so proud when they win, when really there not the world champion, just won a petty versain of it.

it would be nice if the TV stations said no to the alphabets like HBO do and dont refrence them on there shows. It be nice if the Ring belt was seperate to the magazine and created an impartial rankings system, with no bias, mandatorys and so on.

in truth.....Eastside rankings are the best.

 

why was lacy ranked number 3 who was 2?

if Margorito had beaten mosley would he have become champ, seeing as he had beat the number 1 and 2 fighters.

cobbler check out the rules in the esb rankings let me know what u think

 

Kessler

No. Either title is on the line or it's not. I actually wouldn't mind if they brought in that as a rule though so that in that situation Margarito could win the title but Mosley couldn't.

Don't mind most of those rules. I think I instinctively tend towards being more cautious in awarding titles/moving people up rankings and want to see actual achievements rather than potential.

 

would make no sense if Margorito had won. he would of had to beaten cotto in a rematch to become champ

i see it the same. Darchinyan is 8th at Bantam after being champ at Super Fly, Adameck was around 10th until the Arreola win.

in terms of the rankings you get allot of people picking out a paticular fighter and askings "what has he done" which is usually a fair assessment. however in general none of the fighters around him have done much either.

 

I wouldn't agree that it was easier to become a unified champion when there was only the wbc and wba simply because it was harder to win or even get a shot at one of the titles. In those days it was pretty rare for two titlists to meet anyway. How about these fights that were never made:
Sanchez vs Pedroza
Conteh vs Galindez
Cuevas vs Palomino
Pintor vs Chandler
To name a few. By your reasoning it was even easier to become a unified champ when there was only one champ.
I think you've got to remember that without all these diluted titles about 90% of "champs" of recent years wouldn't of won any titles at all.

 

i think if you have 3 belts and the ring title, you are undisputed.

 

Exactly this.