Calzaghe is not a two weight world champion

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by Taylex, Apr 22, 2008.


Page 1 of 6
  1. Taylex

    Taylex Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,885
    1
    Oct 15, 2007
    I know Calzaghe is now the linear champ at 175 but he did not win any major titles when he beat BHOP by SD. OK He has the ring magazine championship but although well respected, this is not a real sanctioning body.

    JC needs to pick up a real title to fulfill his dream of being 2 weight champ which means fighting Tarver, Erdi or Dawson.

    The other option is for the WBA to allow RJJ and JC to fight for the vacant WBA strap!

    What should JC do next?
     
    Taylex, Apr 22, 2008
    Taylex, Apr 22, 2008
    #1
  2. PrideOfWales

    PrideOfWales Winston Zedmore Full Member

    11,684
    1
    Apr 20, 2006
    Hopkins isn't a two weight champ either
     
    PrideOfWales, Apr 22, 2008
    PrideOfWales, Apr 22, 2008
    #2
  3. Thread Stealer

    Thread Stealer Loyal Member Full Member

    41,959
    3,439
    Jun 30, 2005
    Erdei has a better claim at being linear than Hopkins @ 175, regardless of what Michael Buffer and GBP try to claim.

    RJ was "the man" at 175 but DM was "linear".
     
    Thread Stealer, Apr 22, 2008
    Thread Stealer, Apr 22, 2008
    #3
  4. Taylex

    Taylex Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,885
    1
    Oct 15, 2007
    How was DM the linear champ? Can you explain please?
     
    Taylex, Apr 22, 2008
    Taylex, Apr 22, 2008
    #4
  5. Axe

    Axe Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,013
    3
    Jan 23, 2005
    Actually, he is not linear at 175 either...the fraudulent Erdei is still linear.

    Calzaghe is just Ring champ, that's it.
     
    Axe, Apr 22, 2008
    Axe, Apr 22, 2008
    #5
  6. rreed23

    rreed23 aka Gordon Gekko Full Member

    1,874
    0
    Nov 23, 2007
    Joe should fight Tarver
     
    rreed23, Apr 22, 2008
    rreed23, Apr 22, 2008
    #6
  7. Axe

    Axe Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,013
    3
    Jan 23, 2005
    Spinks vacates linear title in the 80's, Maske (IBF) and Hill (WBA) are rated #1 and #2 by all the major publications/sites, Hill wins unification and becomes linear champ.

    From there

    Hill>>Michalczewski (16 defences)>>Gonzalez (1 defence)>>Erdei (9 defences)
     
    Axe, Apr 22, 2008
    Axe, Apr 22, 2008
    #7
  8. Thread Stealer

    Thread Stealer Loyal Member Full Member

    41,959
    3,439
    Jun 30, 2005
    If Hill wasn't linear before he fought DM, then you could say it was #1 vs #2 contender.

    DM beat Hill in a unfication WBA/IBF/WBO title bout when most had them as #1 and #2 at 175.
    Roy had just lost his fight to Griffin.

    Roy had The Ring belt, for unifying the big 3 (WBA, WBC, IBF), but even Nigel Collins said if The Ring policy was around in the late 90s, that DM probably would've been their champ, not Roy.
     
    Thread Stealer, Apr 22, 2008
    Thread Stealer, Apr 22, 2008
    #8
  9. teeto

    teeto Obsessed with Boxing banned

    28,075
    54
    Oct 15, 2007
    Oh no, this is embarrassin', i cant be bothered gettin' into this heavily but -

    you are the reason boxing has been messed up for the past 20 years, 'the ring aint a real sanctionin' body, but the alphabet **** are'??

    Support another sport kid!
     
    teeto, Apr 22, 2008
    teeto, Apr 22, 2008
    #9
  10. Taylex

    Taylex Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,885
    1
    Oct 15, 2007
    Erdi fought bums after Gonzalez and he is considered the linear champ! This is the flaw in the linear champ argument sometimes.
     
    Taylex, Apr 22, 2008
    Taylex, Apr 22, 2008
    #10
  11. teeto

    teeto Obsessed with Boxing banned

    28,075
    54
    Oct 15, 2007
    Thats right!
     
    teeto, Apr 22, 2008
    teeto, Apr 22, 2008
    #11
  12. kg0208

    kg0208 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    16,031
    6
    Aug 8, 2005
    It is the flaw. He is holding it hostage. But it's his. DM unified before Jones.
     
    kg0208, Apr 22, 2008
    kg0208, Apr 22, 2008
    #12
  13. Thread Stealer

    Thread Stealer Loyal Member Full Member

    41,959
    3,439
    Jun 30, 2005
    That's the thing about linear champs. It doesn't always mean you're the best, or fighting the best, fighters around.

    Look at Michael Spinks from 1986-88, when Mike Tyson was cleaning out the division. Or Floyd Patterson before he fought Sonny Liston. Liston was doing the better work, but Patterson was still the champ. Or anyone from 1924 to 1927 when Jack Dempsey wasn't even defending his title.
     
    Thread Stealer, Apr 22, 2008
    Thread Stealer, Apr 22, 2008
    #13
  14. Taylex

    Taylex Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,885
    1
    Oct 15, 2007
    The ring magazine is just that....... A MAGAZINE. I respect 95% of its rankings but you can not claim to be a world champ because the Ring magazine says your their number one. Please dont insult me I am just making a fair point.
     
    Taylex, Apr 22, 2008
    Taylex, Apr 22, 2008
    #14
  15. teeto

    teeto Obsessed with Boxing banned

    28,075
    54
    Oct 15, 2007
    Yea , but the reason we all wanted to follow lineal champs and not the alphabet mess is because we wanted it to be like the old days right??

    Well now that linear and ring champs are getting as much recognition as in a long time, we have that right??

    Well , isnt this the kinda thing that went on in the old days, guys just used to sit on their titles (when there was only 1 title per division) for years and occasionaly defend, like Dempsey did.

    Maybe we shoulda seen this comin'
     
    teeto, Apr 22, 2008
    teeto, Apr 22, 2008
    #15
Page 1 of 6