What do you guys think a guy has to do to be classed as a world champion? I personally believe in the lineage so for me a guy has to beat the current champ to become a champ himself. Obviously that isn't always the way things happen these days because the bodies all rank people differently and the ring belt doesn't bring as much public prestige. I mean nathan cleverly, can he really be called a world champion? Would beating braemer have been enough to make him world champ? What about at light welter, do you recognise both bradley and khan as world champs or, like me, do you view the lightwelterweight championship as vacant? Sometimes I feel it's a bit unfair dismissing someones title credentials unless they're lineal, but then on the flipside I think back in the day only 1 guy could ever be champ and he was champ until he retired the belt or lost. And i'm not some anti-modern old timer; i'm 23 years old so i've only ever known boxing to be in the form of alphabet titles. My hero was frank bruno and even tho he claimed the wbc belt off the wbc champ can he be rightfully classed as a world champion? I prefer to call him a titlist rather than a world champion but is this unfair considering the era we live in? If he or any other alphabet title holder is classed as a world champ should history also remember the coloured championship as a valid world championship? What are your thoughts?
atsch Okay, so what do you suggest giving the title to whoever we think might be the best in the world, because he fought a lot of fights against the 5th, 6th or 7th best fighter in the worldatsch I am very interested to see who you would suggest we get world champions if not through the lineal method. I would in fact go further. I actually think that the top 10 and maybe even 50 contenders should be ranked using a lineal method. This is the only way to find the best fighters. It is a joke that some people get a top 5 ranking without beating the other top 5 contenders. Boxing will not regain popularity until the top challengers are forced to fight each other and not just wait in line for title shots. And stripping the world champion for fighting the wrong people just makes it ridiculous. The prime example is David Haye, who became a world champion simply because the other world Champion fought a world title unification. Absolutely ridiculous. Lineal is the only concept, although obviously the selection of the first fighter is a bit of a problem.
I agree : for example the farce of Holyfield KOd an unmotivated Douglas , then defended against weak opposition until he lost to Bowe whom came in fat to the rematch (which some claim was a way to duck Lewis) , but still didn't really lose , yet the judges thought otherwise , and then Holyfield himself with a heart attack during the first Moorer fight still floors him twice to none yet loses the title , but wait , Moorer loses the title by KO to an incompetent old fat George Foreman who defends against the elite of the stiffs , and fails to impress until he meets Shannon Briggs , whom of course , yet again , fails to beat the "champion" but gains the title and then loses it to Lewis , whom would have never fought a fit Oliver McCall , or otherwise Lewis gets dropped again and again ..until his retirement , Lewis fouled against Grant and gave neither him nor Vitali a rematch , avoided a rubber match against Rahman , and did I already tell you that the McCall rematch is irrelevant ? I think quarry knows best about it.
it possibly is .... but your quite happy to buy into the "multiple belt holder" bull**** where anyone who's ever arrived among the top dozen or so fighters is likely to be described as a "world champion" at some time or another ....
George Foreman was a definite stutter in the concept of lineal, as he openly ducked fighters, and certainly Briggs was one of those few upsets you see (such as Ingemar Johansson, Leon Spinks, Hasim Rahman etc) but is no coincidence that before long, the lineal concept returned the likes of Lennox Lewis & Co back to the top of the tree where they belong. The fact is that until you beat the man, you do not deserve the title. Alphabet titles are just garbage, look at Ruiz who seemed to be given one every couple of months after many of his losses. At most times, there is a major class gap between the champion and even his top 2 or 3 challengers much less others. Sure some of these can and will take the title with luck and a chance, and often they improve after doing this (eg Jimmy Braddock or Tommy Burns) but the reality is that if a champion is good enough they will earn a title shot regardless by simply steamrollering everyone else. The prime example is Jack Johnson who forced Burns and Jeffries to fight him. Tyson is another one, who made sure Spinks had no choice but to fight him. Patterson couldnt avoid Liston forever. And while it took a long time and Shannon Briggs as the fighter, there is no doubt that Lennox was always going to eventually get his shot. Like everything the Lineal concept has its problems, but it is easily the best concept we have.
The concept of multiple belts is a joke. when Larry Holmes was the champion, sure he could have fought other belt holders and some would have been better than the guys he did fight, but to suggest at any point in time that one of these guys could have earned the title of world champion, just because a winning Larry Holmes had stuttered a bit, is ridiculous. The David Haye situation at the moment is the biggest joke.
I don't consider fighters who hid behind the colour bar, World Champions. More like just the 'White Race Champion'. About 20% of the world is white, so thats the equivalent of having 5 Alphabet Soup titles. But its even worse than that, as only that exclusive 20% are even allowed to challenge for your title. So Jack Dempsey i consider even less of a champion than today's alphabet soup title holders. He was the White Champion.
World Champions are a personal thing, thus a personal standard needs to be set. I like to use the term generally recognized World Champion. That stops the extremist putting the kibosh on things, because the champ did not follow linear law 7 section D, Paragraph viii; but also means that to gain recognition you must be in a position to show you have beaten all other fighters with a credible claim.
I make my own lists , Don King and Bob Arum don't decide who is the real champion for me. Actually I don't always have a champion like now in the 175 for example : it's either Cloud or Dawson , with either Shumenov or Glen Johnson @ #3 , Hopkins @#5 But Hopkins is lineal ! for you. Hopkins is a dirty fighter who "won" the title vs a drained Tarver , gave no rematch , fouls or cheats every time , defended his "title " 3 times @ 170 , once cheating his way against a former 154 lber to a decision win and once actually losing it , and then he avoids Cloud and Dawson. Hopkins "won" the "vacant lineal title" yep
Langford and Burley were no "lineal" nor "champions" . Same for Tua. On the opposite way , the majority's opinion is that Jones never was "lineal" @ 175.
I follow lineage but only as a result of 1 taking on 2. So I don't recognise a heavyweight champ atm. The only champs atm are hopkins, martinez, marquez and pong. This is a direct result of the alphabet era were the best no longer have to fight each other. Cleverly is now a world champ because braemer got injured... Ridiculous. Keeping things modern it's not too bad because it happens all the time. But we can not put cleverly in the same bracket as moore, maxim, spinks and other lhw champs of the past.