Greatest Fighter Never T Be Champion??

Are you claiming agreement with all the rules and regulations of the ABC sanctioning bodies?

I don't see the point in your whining and exaggerating.

 

**** the sanctioning bodies, they're crooks, and they're corrupt. Take the WBC. They setup a tournament involing Bowe, Holyfield, Lewis, and Ruddock. Bowe was to fght Holyfield, and Lewis was to fight Ruddock. The winners were to face each other to determine the top dog in the division. Bowe won and became the undisputed champ. Lewis dusted off Ruddock in two. Bowe then decides to cancel the tournament early. He throws his WBC belt in the trash, and runs away with his other two belts instead of fighting Lewis. He then goes on to fight some ******* name Ferguson.

Clearly, Bowe was still be the real WBC champ. You can't lose a title until you lose in the ring. Who cares if he only got his title shot to begin with because of the tournament, who cares if he publicly ducked the no.1 contender and cancelled the tournament early, who cares if he threw the WBC belt in the trash on T.V, who cares if his next fight was against a can. Clearly, he is still the WBC champ. All that other nonsense is irrelevant. The WBC should be ashamed for not picking that belt out of the trash, handing it back to Bowe, and telling him that he can defend the belt whenever he wanted against whomever he wanted.

 

You failed to answer the question I posed.

Hey, while you're on rant mode, tell us how the IBO and WBU champion should be recognized as true champions too....I mean, they are no different that the other sanctioning bodies. We should have as many champions as we have belts right?

PS. Vacating a belt is not the same as being stripped. But I applaud your effort in gross exaggeration to play the either/or card. There are no case by case situations in boxing or any sport. There is either the Reg way or the wrong way. Thanks for enlightening me.

 

The IBO and WBU champions are just that, IBO and WBU champions. Unfortunately no one gives a **** about those champions. And no, they are not like the other sanctioning bodies. The other sanctioning bodies are bigger, and have a lot more notiriety. Maybe one day the IBO will be a major sanctioning body. For now, they are another second rate governing body. The WBC/WBA/IBF are a staple in boxing. The WBO is catching up. So don't try to act like all the governing bodies are the same. There's a big difference from being the WBC champ and the IBO champ, and you know this.

 

Notoriety matters now? Majority view is in the picture? This now on the table?

Ok then.....just making sure, since you have been ignoring it throughout all this childishness.

 

They are all the same. They all have the same function. Just different histories and public perceptions of their relevance. Where do we draw the line?

Don't try and act like all champions are equal. They aren't. A fighter who wins a vacated title that is stripped from a champion who won it is not the same as a fighter who beat the champion to get it. They are totally different accomplishments. And in most cases (case by case basis) the Lineal champion is an entirely different accomplishment and viewed entirely different by the public than belt holders. No one views Cintron and Quintana the same as the Mayweather in the WW division. They are title holders, he is champion. You seem to draw the line at the sanctioning bodies based on public perception, but not the champions.

 

Concerning the first highlighted point, this is not always true. Are you going to tell me Quintanna should be considered a more credible champ than Cotto because he beat the WBO champ, even though Cotto destroyed Quintanna to win the vacant WBA title?

Concerning the second highlighted point, they are not considered the same as Mayweather because they are nowhere near as good or as famous as Mayweather.

Lastly, all governing bodies are not the same. Try telling someone like Burt Sugar that the IBO and WBC are the same.

 

I am not going to argue with you on public perception Reg. If you want a true answer to that, start a poll. I am not talking about fame or how good they are. I am talking about their standing in the WW division. Mayweather is viewed as champion by a majority. The other 3 title holders are considered just that, title holders.

Cotto-Quintana is an exception to the rule, not the rule itself. What Cotto did is not the same as what Mayweather did nor should it be viewed that way. That is how most see it. With Cotto and Quintana, we already know who the better fighter is. It is still in general better to win a title in the ring against the champ then win a vacated title.

I already explained this. They all serve the same function. Difference is perception and history. That same difference can be applied to the difference in title holders and Champions. Lineal champions in general have far more history behind them and involve better fighters in general than just winning one of the belts. Too many fighters who aren't that great holding ABC trinkets because there are too many. And where is the line?

 

is that you benny? from the giants MB? lol didnt know you were a fight fan. oh yeah its me Out of Exile

anyway tua is a lazy ass thats why he never won a title

 

I used to enjoy Rubin Castillo, he was good fighter.

 

Jerry Quarry is a great pick. Forman recently said Quarry was the only guy he ever intentionally avoided. Quarry was like a man born out of time. His best days came during a time when Ali, frazier, and Formen ruled the heavyweight division, and there was no cruiserweight division.

Boo

 

Roy Jones Jr.