How do you view the World Title scene?

Calzaghe is the best fighter a 168. Kessler is the second best fighter. Bute is the third best fighter. Mundine is the fourth best, I think.

Calzaghe was unofficially "The Champion" because he was considered the best in the division, by most. He became officially "The Champion" when he beat Mikkel Kessler who was the second best in the division at the time, according to most. Calzaghe is not "The Champion" because o anything to do with "lineal", but because he is universally considered the best, having beaten the universally considered the second best, in a head-to-head.

Calzaghe is also "Undisputed Champion" because he has three of the four belts.

Kessler used to be "a Champion" because he had two of the four belts and it wasn't obvious he could not beat Calzaghe, on the day. He was good enough to be very competitive to Calzaghe, who could also be considered "a Champion", if you disagree he was the best in the division, before the Kessler fight.

Bute, for example, is "IBF Champion" or "beltholder" or "titlist". If he were to beat a "Contender" (clear top 10 fighter), his belt would be worth more. If he beat a clear top 5 fighter, he would be "a Champion". He would also be "a Champion" if he beat another legitimate beltholder (someone who became a beltholder by beating a Top 10 contender (like Bika, for example) and another beltholder (like Berrio), whether that beltholder is "a Champion" or not.

Bute can also be called "a contender" when you call "Champion" only one man - "THE Champion". In this case, Calzaghe is "The Champion", and Kessler, Bute and Mundine are "contenders". Froch and Inkin are "world class fighters" who hope to become "contenders". etc. etc.

But these are just labels and they don't matter one jot, really. You can disagree with them or not, it makes no difference. What matters is who the best in the division is, who the second best, third best, etc. are. This is the only important thing, I think.

 

i agree with you on that.. i guess the better thing to do is to set up a standard that is acceptable for everyone. and fact of the matter is, it will be hard..:think

 

The way I look at it is: fighters who hold an ABC belt are just title-holders, only achieving champion status if they hold the majority of the belts or have beaten the consensus best in the divsion.

The problem with that is that is so subjective that it is pretty pointless (have a quick read of titles of the topics in any boxing forum and we quickly see that people don't agree on who is 'champion'!).

The problem for me is the absolute shite that the ABC bodies come out with for rankings. They don't rank the other title holders, then the top 10s they come out with are an absolute pile of twat:
The WBA:
1. NICOLAY VALUEV
2. SERGUEI LIAKHOVICH
3. JOHN RUIZ
4. KALI MEEHAN
5. TARAS BIDENKO
6. MICHAEL MOORER
7. ALEXANDER DIMITRENKO
8. ANDREW GOLOTA
9. KEVIN JOHNSON
10. DAVARYLL WILLIAMSON

The WBC has a list of people who aren't included in their ratings, wtf is that about, are they people who won't do 'favours' for Sulaiman? Here it is:

Alexander Povetkin (Russia) * NA - IBF
Eddie Chambers (US) * NA - IBF
Tony Thompson (US) * NA - WBO
James Toney (US) * NA - Medical
Luan Krasniqi (Germany) * NA - Medical
Lamon Brewster (US) * NA - Medical
Evander Holyfield (US) *NA - WBO
Nicolay Valuev (Russia) *NA - WBA
Sergey Lyakhovich (Belarussia)
Ray Austin (US)
Matt Skelton (GB)
Shannon Briggs (US)

The WBO doesn't even have Sam Peter, Valuev or Povetkin in the top 15! Selecting the likes of Matt Skelton and Kali Meehan instead I presume...

Champ SULTAN IBRAGIMOV RUS
Interim
1 Tony Thompson USA
2 Alexander Dimitrenko (Int-Cont) UKR
3 Vladimir Virchis UKR
4 Serguei Lyakhovich BEL
5 Matt Skelton GB
6 Kali Meehan (NABO) AUST
7 Eddie Chambers USA
8 J.D. Chapman USA
9 Hasim Rahman USA
10 Shannon Briggs USA
11 Vitaly Klitschko UKR ???????????????????

The IBF is pretty crap too, why the hell is #2 NOT RATED? Why don't they just move everyone up one place...

1 Alexander Povetkin Russian Federation
2 NOT RATED
3 Vladimir Virchis Ukraine
4 Hasim Rahman United States
5 Alexander Dimitrenko Ukraine
6 Sultan Ibragimov United States
7 Eddie Chambers United States
8 Calvin Brock United States
9 Tony Thompson United States
10 Juan Carlos Gomez

Basically, we are not going to fix the ABC problem any time soon as it is clear that the sanctioning bodies have resorted to paying primates with banannas to randomly pick their rankings. I know most people would never accept it but I think the only solution is rankings done ala the IBO (i.e computerised), at least then the element of subjectivity and the influence of outright bribery and corruption would be all but eliminated. It can't be worse than the shambles we have now surely?

 

Have you see the IBO rankings? They are ****! Computerisation is NOT a solution because, unlike in chess, you don't fight tens of fights every year against a great variety of opponents, some picked at random, in elimination tournaments. So...someone has to make a list in the first place, saying where everyone belongs quality wise, and then the computer takes over. Also...the computer doesn't look at performance...it looks at results only. Computerised systems in boxing are the worst...this is why the IBO rankings are the worst.

In boxing, to draw up lists, you need knowlegdeable, objective, fair analysts. The better the analysts, the less corrupt, the more objective and fair and the stricter they are in applying their own criteria and enforcing mandatories and other regulations, the better the lists, the better the sanctioning body, the better their Champ and the better the sport.

 

Who you "perceive" to be the best of the champion lot at each weight is irrelevant. As long as he has fellow "champions" at his weight he has done nothing to make himself stand out and by that he should not be considered a standout.

Until we stop calling titles lineal and start calling beltholders, beltholders, we will have beltholders avoiding others in a popularity contest.

 

I disagree with this. However, the rest of the post is excellent. Great observation.

 

So far, more people voted that the lineal is the only title that matters over any other choice. So if the lineal champ is the only champion, then Roy Jones Jr. has never won a championship. I guess that would make him the best fighter never to win a championship.

 

I know you do. He is "Undisputed Champion" in the sense that he beat the number one conteder in the division - Kessler. Bute and Mundine aren't considered as good or dangerous to Calzaghe, so their credentials aren't enough to dispute Calzaghe's.

However, what Calzaghe isn't, and neither is David Haye, for example, is "Unified Champion" i.e. he doesn't have all four belts. But Bute isn't considered enough of a threat to Calzaghe and neither is Cunningham to Haye to warrant the respective Champion feeling his title is "disputed", so I am OK with that term.

Now you might say: who cares about the WBO? But some WBO beltholders were in fact the best in their divisions: e.g. Calzaghe or serious threats to the man in that division: e.g. Guzman.

So...the WBO is as much a belt as the other three, now.

 

I quite agree with you! I for my part dont care a fig whether a fighter is called a " Ring belt holder" or the lineal champ.
The best fighter in a weight division is the one who has collected the most impressive skalps-who gives a **** whether he holds a title called WBC,WBO,CIA,or FBI.

 

:deal :deal :deal :deal :deal

 

The Lineal Champ is the Champ. The rest are just titleholders.

The Ring has the best rankings and their Champion is usually the Lineal Champ.

 

I could'nt disagree more with all that you've written!