Can Wlad Break Joe Louiss Record Of 25 Title Defences? Manny Steward says he can!!

The BBBC, IBU, and NSC are anything but ignored in mine -Though the NBA and NYSAC held the most status for some years, the NSC are an authority of choice in the late 19th and early 20th century. The IBU, EBU, and Boxing News figure into the same era particularly regarding the Flyweights but remain factors in subsequent years (Sid Smith, for ex. and Peter Kane in the 30s, Terry Allen as late as 1950). There are times when a European claim is more sensible than the American claim and again, both tended to come together often enough.

I consulted with a damn good British authority throughout the effort and he was good enough to check any American bias and wipe my lens now and then.

 

I still maintain my viewpoint that the championship system has regressed a hundred years to the days of claimants.

3 or 4 guys per division think they're the best champion. It's up to us to rank, rate and judge ourselves who is the best of the bunch with the ultimate hope that they'll unify the claims.

I'm not a big believer in lineage mainly because i've no respect for the sanctity of official results and the greed of cherry picking promoters.

In any lineal system a guy can pick up a dodgey decision and face bogus opposition for a considerable time.

Boxing today, like it's inception, is much more fluid and a rigid claim, whilst interesting, isn't the be all and end all.

For me, a championship is something for active boxers to pursue, not something that determines greatness.

By stone's system, robinson picked up the belt against a guy ranked outside the top 5, arguello was never a sfw champion, and briggs v foreman had more championship merit than holyfield v tyson!

If you view a championship purely as a means of tracing through a succession of official victories, that's fine. If you use it to judge the worth of a fighter, it isn't.

That's my opinion but I like the claimant system. "my claims better than your claim" it's a good way of building up fights and earning much needed revenue for those risking their lives for our enjoyment.

 

Agreed, but see follow-up point at bottom.

Unification, defecation. What's the difference? There's a simpler way that completely undercuts the ABCs that are allowed to confuse everyone.

Absolutely -a championship is what fighters aspire to and what the public want (clarity). The fact that some guys get lucky and styles make fights has always been a part of boxing. History teaches us that the lucky champs usually get toppled soon enough.

Robinson was universally recognized by the whole world. Arguello's omission and Brigg's inclusion is not the fault of my system, but the fault Hof the corrupt bodies who hijacked the sport and relish confusion. Tyson and Holyfield are in the lineage.

Agree 100%.

The reality is that this era is nothing like the early 20th century. Why? Because back then, claimants were more often than not itching to get at each other. Read McGrain's Welcome to Hell series about Ketchel's wars for starters! Today, they are specifically discouraged by jerk-offs like Jose Silly-man from fighting each other. That's why we have well over 100 belt-holders! THE CURRENT SYSTEM LIVES ON IRRATIONALITY. Until it is abolished, boxing will continue to be a poor man's UFC in terms of fan-base.

 

The difference is the climate boxing is fought in. Lineage currently has no prestige which alters the landscape considerably.

The clarity is key. Lineage today doesn't give clarity because there's noone to promote and maintain it.

The unifications should happen. The fact they don't is disappointing but it doesn't change the purity of the situation.

If the ring had more of a mainstream following backed by networks and promoters, it would work, but it doesn't change the arena we live in today.

Your way might be simple and good in an ideal world but the fighter's today don't share the aspiration of fighting for a mythical title.

I'm confident enough to pick the best of a bunch of title holders. The fight just solidifies that confidence if it comes off.

 

NO,

fight only the best, nearly always the best, do it regularily as in 3-5, to 6 weekly bases, when Comp were better than todays champs, do it year after year and see "IF" you remain on top(???)

it's so different now, it's just not equal comparisons, simple!

RJJ, among others shows that they did get exposed, so imagine IF they would have done that against TRUE threats every 2 months, they would never have lasted the year upon year that these past fighters did.

Golfers can smack a golf ball 350 yards and more, because of better CLUBS & Golf Balls, OK, make the holes longer, then compare with past golfers...

IF it's not on the same EQUAL Terms, the it's not an equal comparison!!!

No, No, and again, NO.

 

Today you are right. I hope that tomorrow you are wrong.

 

You are a broken ****ing record

 

I hope so too.

Boxing did leave the claimant climate once so it's not beyond reason it will do so once again.

I think all it would take is the big networks such as hbo and showtime refusing to recognise champions unless they wear a ring belt. Interview questions like "to be a real champion, cotto, we need to see you fight alvarez" as cringeworthy as it would be at first, eventually it would take off.

A general consensus view of champion policy would lead to general consensus dismissal of titles and recognition of champions.

Maybe then people would look back at the 80-20 era as confusing claimant with dispute over who was the champion at any given point.

That aside in general speak, specifically speaking wlad is just as accepted as a champ as larry was. 4 belt unification against genuine top 3 hw's is as clear as it gets especially when the only other beltholder beat a guy wlad had already beat and has denounced his challenge to the throne.

We can argue semantics about championship status till we're blue in the face (i'm sure both of us would relish the debate) but for me the thread is asking if wlad can compare with louis's great achievement. If wlad racks up 14 more defences it compares in my book.

 

Sorry, but so is everyone else that refuses to recognize certain facts.

Discussion is one thing but when it calls for defending or REPEATING the truth, does that mean we should bow down just because it might be unpopular.

are you a politician, or follow the crowd type person?
I don't think you are, so when a lot of people are spewing out their thoughts or favour, I simple just stick to what I know to be insolveable fact.

Sorry. :deal

 

Larry Holmes. Anyone recognizing him as Ali's successor after the Norton fight ought to know that he was recognized soon after Leon Spinks beat King Ali. It was the WBC who recognized him --after they stripped Spinks for the high crime of granting Ali a rematch. They're jerk-offs.

Ali wins back the title and then retires. And the WBA makes the brilliant decision to recognize Tate after Tate defeated Coetzee.

Once again, it is the Alphabets that made a mess of things for Holmes. But at least Holmes beat Ali. Wlad not only never fought or beat Lennox, he has yet to fight the #1 contender.

Screw.
The.
Belts.

--Let sense begin with you, man. Stop enabling those imbeciles by acknowledging them and their nonsense.

 

In this case the wbc were bang on. Young and norton had both put up winning efforts against ali. Both were better than ali and leon.

Going against blind judging was a great decision.

Wlad never beat a shot lewis on the decline, he instead beat the prime opposition who were challenging his ranking.

 

So you would allow a flagrantly self-interested, corrupt organization like the WBC to overrule judges and replace champions? Or would you allow for that only when you agree that it was a bad decision? How about when they strip champions because they face someone other than their first contender (richer with fake opportunity, poorer with big bribe) -is that alright too?

Let chaos and confusion reign!

If you are intent on confusing the premiere fighter in a given division with the "rightful" champion, then you face an impossible task. They are not necessarily the same man. Everyone knows that. I think that your model is a valuable one in that it attempts to identify the premiere fighters year by year. It could be a great addition to the research, but if you use it to create a bogus new lineage, you'll relegate it to the void.

More to the point here, if you are going to strip champions throughout history who were the benefactors of gift decisions, then you better get to work.

--You can begin 80 years ago with Sharkey-Schmeling II and proceed to remove both Jack Sharkey and Primo Carnera from the list of heavyweight champions. Sound good?

 

What i'm saying is that the wbc made a completely reasonable decision inlight of gift decisions.

I'm not confusing my premiere fighter, what i'm saying is that wlad beating a succession of top 5 rated claimants is just as worthy as larry beating a shot fighter who hadn't looked championship level for 5 years.