How do you view the World Title scene?

Winning a vacated belt isn't as difficult in general as beating the man who it was stripped from. You can point out Cotto beating Quintana. Cool. Berrio defeating Stieglitz is not the same as him fighting Calzaghe. And it certainly isn't as hard as fighting 3 seperate champions to unify, which is what I just said.

You showed that many times YOU think a fighter was stripped for a good reason. And in the cases of Lewis, Wright, Taylor, Casamayor, etc. they weren't. Many times they aren't. We already know this. So it's not a valid point.

Yah, some champions avoid others. That is a different story all together. I already said there were exceptions and said this was one of them, just like Lewis and Bowe. For some reason, you can't let it go.

Now you tell me why someone winning a vacant title is as impressive as someone beating the man who holds the belt.

 

Yes, but as we can see here by this poll, most don't view it that way. I guess it's easy for a fan to actually FOLLOW HIS SPORT and know who the champions are, and not just buy into some trinket that was given out.

 

BS argument. You didn't ask me who could beat whom. You asked me who was greater. His accomplishments speak for themselves. I don't need to see SRR to know that he accomplished a great deal and compare his resume and accomplishments to others. I guess in your mind, history doesn't count and all those fighters accomplishments should be erased? Reading about a fighter isn't enough for you. But we aren't talking about you....we are talking about me.

Stop being a baby. I never diminished Wilts accomplishments. I said he was ARGUABLY not the greatest ever at his position and you threw a ***** fit. I never said he wasn't great or didn't accomplish alot. I put his numbers in perspective from era to era using FACTS. With stats and numbers, you can do that. Boxing is not basketball. There are no conversion tables. We don't have any way converting the old timers extensive resumes into modern day standards, or vice versa. And if you knew as much about me as you seem to think you have gleamed from all your sarcastic exaggerated BS over the past week, you would know I don't like comparing boxing era's for this very reason. But if I have too, Langford is my answer.

Would you like to keep harping on Jones every chance you get? Cuz we can surely talk about your boy Hopkins if this is your tactic instead of cordial back and forth.

 

Tell me what's more impressive Jones beating Hopkins for a vacant title or Toney beating Michael Nunn for the Lineal title. We can do this all day. And Glen Kelly was not IBF champion. Reggie Johnson was.

 

You don't need to break anything to me. Contrary to your beliefs, I can disagree with you and still be intelligent. And I disagree. The average boxing fan does come to sites like these. The GENERAL boxing fan may not, but those guys don't know who is who. Now are we going to argue about our different opinions on boxing fans too? Or is it ok for me to think for myself?

Not to mention, who said I was polling the average fan? I am trying to gather what people who follow the sport on a regular basis think of the title situation.

 

H2H is a factor on your list not mine. ATG lists and P4P lists are entirely different things for me. Something I have stated over and over. Who is more or less skilled is extremely subjective.

No there isn't a lot of footage on Langford. I have only ever heard of 2 fights. But as I said, that is not relevant for me for an ATG ist.

I did ask you who you thought was better. My mistake in reference to that.

You're being a baby because you overreacted then and you are doing so now by saying I am doing something I never did. I never diminished what Wilt did. I put it in perspective in a mathmatical sense. I never said it wasn't impressive. I just said I don't think it was more impressive in an overall sense than some of the other ATG centers. With boxing, there aren't statistics per match before Compubox (and those aren't accurate). There is no way of mathmatically bringing eras together to compare like there is basketball. Briging up what I said about Wilt is not a fair and accurate comparison here since the sports are entirely different. If it was Football, you would have something.

I already qualified my answer. And Langford fought in an era with one title. So if I have to compare eras, this will be taken into account. Jones accomplished more because his era gave him that opportunity. But as I have said, even as one of the biggest Jones fans here, objectively, he never won the Lineal title. And that was the only title available to Langford to win. So they are even to me. Resume wise Langford has him IMO. Again, its not the same as Basketball where if forced to compare eras, there are numbers to at least give you an idea.

I haven't diminished Jones accomplishments at all. I never talked about them until you brought them up. I don't know why you keep bringing him up. He never won the Lineal title. That's a fact. I also said he was still viewed as the top fighter in his division and in the world. That is also true.

 

It's not a flawed question. I have already said things are case by case basis. But if you gather up each case, you will come to a general rule because some things happen more than others. I pointed out a case of a fighter taking a belt from a champion to oppose your fighter winning a belt vacant. As I said, when you face a belt holder, you most often are facing a better fighter than just facing a contender for a vacant one.

And no, it isn't more impressive than Jones beating Hopkins. Of course, Johnson only has his belt because it was stripped from someone else and he beat someone who won it vacant. Stripping makes things complicated. Again, case by case basis.