I keep hearing the winner of Calzaghe/Pavlik becomes ring champ over 3 weights...

Strange.

It depends at what weight the fight is fought at. If it's a Light-Heavyweight fight, than Pavlik may be able to hold the Light-Heavy/Middleweight belts.

But three at a time is not hapenning.

 

If Joe weights between 161-168 he will be a supermiddle. Not a light heavy or a middleweight.

If he weighs between 169-175 he's a light heavy not a sm or middleweight.

If he weighs 176 or above he defends no title.

The winner will have 2 belts regardless of who wins.

 

Well, no matter what The Ring says, Calzaghe is not the *real* champion at 175, so Pavlik's defeat of Joe wouldn't make him the man at LHW, either.

Also, if the fight is contested at 168, the 175-belt doesn't apply. If the fight is held at 175, the 168-bound doesn't apply. You can't have the 168-pound title changing hands at a higher weight class.

If you allowed that, then why couldn't Pavlik -- the new 168-pound king -- fight Chad Dawson at 175 for both the 175- and 168-pound titles?

Calzaghe cannot lose both Ring belts on the same night.

 

if the fight is held at 168, the 175 belt is in play. as the requirement for a title fiis that both fighters come in under or at the weight of said title. if both fighters weigh in at 168, then obviously they are below 175, therefore they cn fight for the lhw title the same night. the 160m title would be off limits as both fighters are over the limit

for those who doubt, srl v donny lalonde. fight at 168, both 168 and 175 titles on the line.

 

I strongly disagree with that interpretation. It isn't fair to fighters at heavier weights to have people taking belts beneath the division.

Let's follow: Roy Jones is champ at 175. He moves up to HW and grabs a belt off Ruiz. He moves back down to 175 and defeats Tarver in a LHW/HW unification. Tarver takes the belts from him and then ultimately cedes them to Hopkins.

Hopkins loses to, you guessed it, Calzaghe.

Thus, Pavlik vs. Calzaghe should be for SMW, LHW and WBA HW straps, correct? Unless you're going to strip someone for not fighting at the HW open limit, but then, if you can make defenses at lower weights than what the belts are for, why would anyone be stripped?

Common sense has to apply. At whatever weight the bout is contested is what's at stake. No more, no less. And if it's a catchweight, no belts are at stake.

 

weight classes have a maximum allowable weight. not a minimum. the 175 weight class for example, is up to 175, not 169-175.

and as far as it being unfair for a fighter from a heavier weight losing his title to a fighter from a smaller weight, maybe if the bigger man cannot beat the smaller man he does not deserve to hold the title. and your example is flawed. because in that scenario the hw title would have to be defended against a rated hw, it cannot be defended against a fighter from a ower weight.

 

the ring title is different. if JC held ABC titals they would have to agree that the belts able to be put on the line and if the fight was at 168 i cant see them agreeing to any 175 belts on the line.

joe beat the man who beat the man at 175 so got the ring belt and he can lose that at any weight below 175.

 

:deal :deal

that is exactly my understanding too from reading Pg. 3 from the Ring Magazines August 2008 Edition by Editor-In-Chief, Nigel Collins.

Just like ghostlybadge said, the Ring belt does not have to follow the same rules as ABC's. As long as a fight for Joe (assuming he doesn't give up one of them(he'd have to officially decide to stay at one weight or the other)) is contested below the 175 limit both belts are up for grabs.

 

Right. The LHW division has a maximum weight of 175 pounds. If a fight is contracted at 168 pounds, it is not a LHW fight. If Kelly Pavlik and Joe Calzaghe both choose to weigh 168 pounds to contest at a maximum weight of 175, fine. If they are not allowed to fight up to 175, they are not fighting for a 175-pound title. Again, common sense.

If Roy Jones and Bernard Hopkins had agreed to fight at 168 in 2002, neither fighter's championsip belt would have been on the line. Win or lose, both guys would retain their titles and have to defend at their chosen weight class.

That wasn't my point. What I'm saying is that it isn't fair to Chad Dawson, Glen Johnson, Antonio Tarver and everyone else for the LHW titlist to lose the belt at sub-175, as they may not be able to make that weight. If they could, maybe they'd be competing at 168. The divisions exist for a reason.

So you can win the 175-pound title while fighting at 168, even if you've never fought at 175 in your life, but you can't defend that title unless you fight guys at 175? That makes no sense at all.

 

Lamps, say Pavlik won, he would then either have to defend it against a 175er or the belt would become vacant. **the ring does NOT even have a policy currently to strip either, it says in there that they rely on the integrity of the Champ to give it up if needed to.

 

That is completely illogical. The LHW title is defined as the best fighter up to 175 pounds. If you set the limit at something lower than 175 pounds, you no longer have a LHW fight.

I understand the temptation to have both titles on the line. But consider my Jones example listed earlier, hypothetically considering that John Ruiz had held the linear HW belt at that time.

By your (and The Ring's?) logic, Jones could have brought the lineal HW strap into a 175-pound fight. No way!

How can someone who never has fought at LHW -- Pavlik, in this case -- become light heavyweight champion without ever fighting a single bout at that weight limit? It's ludicrous to even consider.

 

I appreciate the civil tone and can see how that makes sense on the surface, but think about it. Pavlik, a 160-pounder moving up to 168 and never having fought at 175, suddenly becomes the ruler of all fighers at 175 on down.

Sure, he'd have to defend it in order to keep it, but if he is LHW champion, even for one moment, that policy is way, way off.

 

This content is protected

 

the situation is such, and more confusing than need be because of the Ring's strict NO STRIP policy which it says they intend to keep.

the Jones example is dealing with two other titles than the one given out by the Magazine. (ABC HW, and lineal) Neither of those or any ABC has any bearing on what the Ring can do with it's belt.

In your opinion, since the Ring champs can only lose their title in the ring, do you feel Joe would have to lose once at each weight, to no longer hold either Ring belt?



All of this is explained (pretty well, could be more in depth TBH) in Ring Mag Pg. 3, August, 2008 edition. It's the fore-word by Editor-In-Chief Nigel Collins. Entitled "Calzaghe's Unique Situation".