Ward relinquishes WBC 'Emeritus' belt

I hear you. But all that **** aside, Ward is still the man at 168lbs.

 

Agreed. I'm just playing devil's advocate for the sticklers.

If you go by "the champ makes the belt" then obviously it's absurd to suggest Sartison, Magee, Balzsay, or Kashtanov were ever the real top banana over SOG.

 

Cool. Thanks for the history lesson on the title. I wasn't insulting you btw.

 

In this particular case, it doesn't mean much. Everyone knows Ward is the man at the weight. 168 is the one division where holding a world title is almost meaningless if it hasn't been won from Ward. And the shitty thing about that? Ward himself hardly even fights .

 

From my understanding, Kessler won the WBA belt, then lost it to Calzaghe. Calzaghe then vacated the belt, and Kessler won it again. Kessler then lost to Ward, Ward was elevated to Super Champ and Sartison won the vacant regular title. That would mean that Ward had the real belt.

 

Nope, Kessler vs. Ward was for the Super. Kessler was "elevated" after Perdomo.

 

That would still mean that Ward had the real belt. Sartison fought for the vacant regular title. By your logic, Povetikin is the real WBA champ at HW and not Wlad. That of course makes little sense.

 

Ward is the real WBA champ.

The one that Kessler is holding has been downgraded. No longer worthy of being called a world title.

 

No, it would mean Ward just missed the boat on the real belt. Kessler defended the real belt against Perdomo and thereafter it wasn't contested for again until Sartison vs. Bozic (ironically, on the very same night as Ward vs. Kessler for the Super title)

I'm not arguing in favor of the ABC cluster**** "making sense". I'm just saying that Ward is technically 2-0 in matches for recognized world titles of any vintage. (his last two, for the WBC, against Froch and Dawson)

 

Ok, it seems as though our difference comes down to semantics. Kessler had the only WBA belt. He was then elevated to Super Champ before fighting Ward. Because he was the Super Champ, the WBA then created a regular title. Now from my standpoint, Kessler's title is the real title. He had the only belt, he was ELEVATED to Super Champ and then another belt was created. You believe that the manufactured, vacant, Regular title is the real title. That makes no sense to me, but that's your point of view. It's almost as if you are saying that Kessler was stripped, which wasn't the case.

Again, you're entitled to your viewpoint. For some reason you believe Ward's title isn't a real title. I don't understand your logic, but your entitled to come to that conclusion. Again though, then that would mean that Haye had the real WBA belt(it was the only one at HW), then once Wlad beat him and unified the belts that title then became an illegitimate title from your viewpoint as the WBA then created a regular title which Povetkin won which made him the real champ in your opinion. We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

Kessler is the real WBC champ, like it or not

 

It isn't even my viewpoint necessarily. Ward is the man at 168, like I said earlier, and has been since he swept the S6.

I'm just explaining the literal interpretation of the belts situation.

Kessler wasn't stripped, no - but the regular title (the one he originally took from Siaca and defended four times, then recaptured against Sartison and defended twice more) was removed from his custody without him losing it in the ring and commensurately replaced - nominally upgraded - with a different version...granted, one with a more flowery name, as "Super" does sound like a superlative next to "regular" and may have been meant as one in sentiment when created...but a newer version nonetheless, and thus lesser in the sense that it doesn't carry the same vintage (in name, anyway - obviously most titles have broken lineages at some point or another) of the division's origin.

After all, most people acknowledge the WBA and WBC as more respectable because they are older and steeped in more tradition than the WBO or even IBF. To accept this but not view the WBA regular as the "real" title over the Super constitutes an inconsistency of logic verging on cherry-picking.

 

Here's the thing though, the regular title only comes into play when there is a Super and/or Unified champ. Kessler simply had the WBA World Championship. He was elevated to Super Champ, so they created the regular championship. This is why I'm having trouble following your reasoning here. Kessler didn't have a regular title and then traded it in for a Super title. He had the The World Championship, was elevated to Super Champ and then a regular title was created in order to collect regularly scheduled sanctioning fees.