Are world tidles now completely irrelevant?

Put it this way, when Ward fought Froch I had no idea what belt it was for. Nor did I care. I dont know what belt Ricky Burns holds (its an interim I believe) or what belt Vitaly is the proud owner of. As for Karoly Balszay........?

 

Ricky Hatton 21 times World champion has a nice ring to it.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

.

This content is protected

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

This content is protected

????????????????????????????????????????????????

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

In a way it is, the WBA regular champ has to face the WBA super champ in something like 12 months. Although I certainly wouldn't be shocked if the WBA throw that rule out of the window when the time comes.

With Povetkin having that belt it hasn't been so bad so far, in theory he could take out all of Chagaev, Boswell, Huck and Rahman within 12 months. Clearing out a lot of the dead wood and contenders/fringe contenders which can only be a good thing.

 

How many times has the "super" champion actually fought the "regular" champion?

Golovkin has been holding the trinket for over a year now and the WBA still haven't shown any signs of pushing for it.

 

The whole situation is ******ed to the max!!!

Like the middleweight situation, the best one, THE recognised champ to everyone except the organisations! Beggers belief.

Wladimir has been the champ since he beat Chagaev, I don't care the belt was not on the line, the belts not fighting!!!

 

Not sure, but Povetkin and Atlas both talked about wanting Tyson Fury rather than Rahman as a mandatory to be used as a prep fight for Klitschko so at least they seem keen on the fight this time.

 

I think as others have said that it is the champion that makes the title. But on top of that I believe it is their conduct as champion that makes the belt, do they face their mandatories, do they defend the title regularly, have they looked to face the best contenders available to them in their voluntaries etc.

I'm going to be a bit controversial here but I believe Lucian Bute is a fine example of what a titlist should be.

When he got his world title shot he was a legitimate contender having faced and beaten some tough gatekeepers and journeymen like Sergey Tatevosyan and Sakio Bika in impressive dominant fashion. Because of those solid wins he got a deserved shot at a champion in Alejandro Berrio.

Berrio was a distinctly average champion so on paper Bute wouldn't get much kudos by beating him for one of the many titles around today. If you take away the title Berrio did not stand for much as a respected opponent. He did not have an impressive resume, he was not a highly skilled respected Boxer and he had lost before in comfortable fashion so there was definite clear blue print to beat him before, yet despite this he got a title shot and won the title in an upset. On paper Bute didn't gain much by beating him and to get his dues (or from what people like to say and believe) you would have thought that he would have to face all the very best fighters in and around his division to gain respect and a name but he hasn't. But what he has done is gone out and had 10 mostly dominant title defense's against what has mostly been the best of the rest in his division.

Bute has played by the rules of winning the title, he has built a name, he has proven his abilites by proving that he is above the contender level and despite not facing a Carl Froch, Andre Ward, Mikkel Kessler he is now one of the biggest commodities in Boxing. He may not have a star studded resume but his career has had direction, which a lot of moden fighters seem to lack, just look at Robert Guerrero, Sergio Martinez, and I think we could now be starting to see with Yuriorkis Gamboa and Brandon Rios.

I'm an old school guy I like guys to win titles and to defend the title a few times against solid contenders to prove that they are above the contender level before they look to unify. I am also a strong believer that you only look to move up in weight IF there is nobody viable left in your division and the next weight up has some good options for you. I hate this modern phenomenon of Boxers talking about being a multiple weight champ, fighting for vacant titles and then patting themselves on the back for becoming a multiple weight champion.

For me beyond the proliferation of titles the biggest problem with the current title system is that the sanctioning bodies are giving vacant title shots to guys that are moving up or down in weight and are letting former champions get title shots without having earned the title shot at the said weight. This system has pretty much systematically destroyed the ranking system in Boxing, which is paramount to ensuring competitiveness within the Sport.

Sorry for the long post I could have gone on longer but I didn't want to go on too much because I would probably get repetitive. If you read all that well done :good

 

Its supposed to be but never is. This is Povetkins second title defence. If he didn't have a belt and won an eliminator then he would lose his spot eventually. Now he has the luxury of hiding behind a title.

12 months is a prepostrous time period. A fight should be organised with all the details within a maximum of 2 months UNLESS the organisation board gives the champion a pass because he is engaging in a huge match (Pac vs Floyd calibre) or a unification.

 

Are you trying to say that Chagaev deserved to hold on his title despite being inactive for over a year?

What if in some miraculous turn of events boxing returned to the era of one champ per division, and the heavyweight champ happened to be ruled out for thie same period of time?

Would you advocate that nobody would be able to contest for the title in his absence?

 

Do you not believe that unification fights should take precedence over all other fights? I do personally.

This content is protected

**** everything else when these type of fights can be made.

Oh and Chagaev defended his title 4 months prior to facing Wlad.

 

For the last time, Chagaev was not the champ when he fought Wlad.
He was the champ when he defeated Valuev, but then suffered a torn achilles tendon. In his absence he was elevated/demoted (you choose) to the status of 'champion in recess', and Valuev legitimately reclaimed the title.

After his rematch fell through due to a failed medical test (no doubt something to do with his hepatitis), he decided to fight Wlad, a decision which lead to him being stripped of his aforementioned 'champion in recess' title.

Just out of curiousity to do you consider Arthur Abraham to have been the IBF champ at middleweight? Or do you consider Felix Sturm to be legitimate WBA champ at the same weight?

 

Exactly.

GBP have ruined The Rings credibility, especially since they replaced the majority of the staff with their own people.

Not that it made any difference in end, but the whole Hopkins v Dawson affair stunk, with The Ring keeping the GBP fighter as champion before any official ruling was made.

 

Of course Chagaev was the champ, even the joke, corrupt WBA recognised this when their title was on the line 4 months earlier when Chagaev faced Carl Davis Drumond. Not recognising Chagaev as the champ then would be as daft as not recognising Wladimir as the current WBA champ.

Chagaev's career is ridiculously under played on these boards, just for finally putting an end to the Holyfield, Ruiz, Valuev circle jerk should see us all bow down and suck him off for that alone.

 

Just like the WBC did. You didn't need a GBP bias to know that Dawson didn't win that fight.