Thoughts on the phrase "world champion"

How about Giovanni Segura?

 

So you base your champions on who you think is the best, not who actually proves they are the best.

I am sorry but i think that is ridiculous, the lineal concept is the only one that works. It is only when people start using your method by picking their own champions, that it falls down (eg. WBA, WBC, IBF etc). If you got rid of them and promoted one champion for everyone, you would see the occassional stutter in the line, but ultimately the best fighter will always find a way towards the title, eventually.

 

Good points.

I consider the Chinese amateurs the real champions ! :good

 

How can you be considered the champion of the World, if entire races arent allowed to challenge your claim?

Surely to be a world champion, means that you are the champion of all nationalities and races in the world??? Basic Geography, bro.

 

I would go further and say you're not champion of the world until you've beat every man in the world - or at least every man who says he can beat you !

But seriously, who was a world champion then ?
Mostly, boxing has been America-oriented.

And some big geographical areas have concentrated on the Olympic style amateur sport of boxing, not the professional variety, so have been segregated away too. Cuba and China for example, India too. That's like 40% of the world's population or something.

 

There were plenty of african americans in America, so that nullifies your cop out completely. Regardless of whether or not he was the best(i'll leave the Wills/Greb/Dempsey discussion in the other thread), how can he be considered a WORLD champion, if an entire race isnt allowed to dispute it? The Cubans etc may have been on the olympic side of things, but the blacks were right there on the door step. There were as many blacks in America as there were whites, if not more.

So how can he be considered World champion, when these people were not allowed to dispute it, and thus, he was not able to prove it?

This black boxing demographic was mostly based in North America(not competing in the olympics) so how can he even be considered the North American champion, if they were not allowed to dispute it, and thus, he was unable to prove it?

Quite simply, Jack Dempsey's real title was the WHITE American/European Heavyweight Title. Or you can call it the White Intercontinental Heavyweight Title.

But you cannot call him a World Champion, when an entire race is not allowed to challenge that claim.

 

By definition, a world champion is the holder of a world title belt. The term means less today.

I think we start to see true champions when guys start picking up multiple belts or defending a few times against the best. Unifying the big 4 titles and/or defending a belt against the best in the division legitimizes your reign, and should be the criteria for greatness in this era.

 

what else do want to call them? they are champions? Look into this man's eyes... it's the focus of a champion!

This content is protected

my problem is when folks afford the same abilities and value between a self-hating Nova Scotian midget in Tommy Burns and a great, multifaceted athlete like Tony Tubbs... or Pinky.

 

By definition, it meant absolutely nothing at all whilst the colour bar was up

 

Dempsey won his title from Willard who won it from Johnson (who was black).
But then some say Johnson was only the champion of the whites too !

I don't know. If Dempsey had beat some no-hoper who happens to be black would that make him champion of the entire black race ? That's where I'm getting confused.

Tyson never defended his title against whites, and white heavyweights were kind of "discredited" and not taken seriously by the mid-80s.
He talked about fighting Francesco Damiani but that never materialised, for some reason.
Maybe he wasn't world champion either.

 

Yep, though they are prone to bias too.

 

Who are the coloured fighters that you think earned a title shot but were denied because of their colour? And were better than the reigning champion at the time.

 

The obvious thing is that the opportunity was NOT there for the whole world at the time of Dempsey's reign

 

It doesnt ****ing matter in the slightest who could've or should've. I know both you and Unforgiven are both intelligent enough to understand this, and it feels like a waste of time explaining it.