Thus there is a disputed claim... Offically... Another word with abstract values in boxing (and arguably society as a whole). I could, if I had the money, buy any alphabet organization from the BBB of C to the WBO, and claim a title, and according to your reasoning, as it is official, I am a 45 year old out of shape bum, who is potentially Heavyweight Champion of the World.
The status of the WBO as a "world boxing authority" at the time is open to debate, primarily because there isn't any accepted definition of what one actually is. The WBO for a long time was not recognised by the Ring or any of its sister publications, or by the other governing bodies. My memory is a bit fuzzy on this one, but it may also not have been recognised by one of the US networks either. Without a clear definition and set of criteria, it's unclear why (playing devil's advocate) the WBO would be recognised as a world body in 1989, but the WBU for example in 1995 would not be. The provenance of the early WBU belts wasn't any worse than Damiani-Du Plooy; at least the first WBU heavyweight champion (Foreman) had at least some kind of credibility. The credibility of Damiani's claim to be heavyweight champion could only be based on the status of the WBO as a major body, which was dubious at the time. It gradually became accepted as a governing body, mainly because in the early 90s there was a commercial need for European promoters to bill their fighters as world champions. The WBO had a boost when Hearns took one of their early belts, but without Warren, Hearn and Kohl, the WBO would probably have gone the same way as the WBU.
This is so dumb. Just because some irrelevant org doesn't recognise a champion doesn't mean ****. I could make an org and start recognising people as champions. Me not recognising them wouldn't make them not undisputed. And if my dumb org somehow became recognised later, that wouldn't change who had already been undisputed
No one actually believes that strawman. The contention is that resume is the best, or atleast an important, way to judge how good a fighter is or was
That there’s some sort of extended secret network of paid off, corrupt judges. It’s actually that fans turn in wacky, biased scorecards. And a short list of judges are just incompetent.
Who is Strawman? You are wrong, I see people on here all the time saying this guy will beat this guy because he beat better opponents and starts listing resumes. Completely ignoring styles and how each fighters strengths and weaknesses will match up together.
are these people who are “far from expert” the same media/commentary people you use as an expert source of “fact” in scorecard info in controversial fights, as your rebuttal witnesses to give credence to a robbery?
There's a big difference between picking someone to win because their resume shows them to be better, and thinking the resume wins the fight. Dan Creedon has a nice stylistic advantage over Muhammad Ali, but I'm sure as **** not picking him to win that one.
might be the only sport in the world that has this label. Not sure why more people don’t appreciate both the past and the present of boxing?
I think the reason is non Latino US fighters do not have depth they once did. But as I suspect you are hinting at Latino boxing is huge, East Europe is now a big factor post Warsaw pact, Germany is a European power house, and the money thrown at the amateur game in the UK for the 2012 Olympics, has now made the pro game in the UK as strong (depth wise) as it has been post WWII.
