i was furious when during the countdown to jmm-pac they said...

If you start giving people credit for winning titles that they never won, the sport becomes confusing and ridiculous. Look at the LHW division. If we apply this logic to that division, then Edrei unified the WBA,WBO,IBF titles and is the undisputed champ. Now anyone will tell you that this is upsurd.

 

Who's the champ at LHW?

 

What I said to you is that Ring is not a sanctioning body AND not part of the sport. They are media. The Lineal title IS part of the sport, and was part of it BEFORE we had multiple sanctioning bodies. You are not going to trick me with word games. Waste of your time.

The Lineal championship comes from when boxing had one title and it was called the World Championship. When boxing split off into different sanctioning bodies, the Lineal title still stayed with the man who beat the original World Champion. And it goes down that line. Fans didn't create it at all.

And YOU were the one being technical. I am just following the line of reasoning you're using. Hopkins and the Ring title obviously counts. But if you want to be technical, we can do that.

 

no its not rediculous.

First of all, Erdei isn't the one who unified the titles, it was DM. Also, they never had the WBC.

A case can be made that Jones became the undisputed champ when he unified the WBA, WBC, and IBF titles at LHW but its is not as crytal clear as the situation where Hamed clearly unified the titles.

 

How the hell is the ring not a part of the sport? They have a belt that fighters wear, networks bill the fights as championship fights(the Mayweather/Hatton fight annouced as being for the ring belt). There are rules for obtaining and losing the belt, that is decided by a panel. This seems pretty similar to the sanctioning bodies.

Regardless, the lineal title is very much flawed. What happens when a fighter retires? That's right, a new lineage starts when someone unfies the belts. Wait a minute, I thought the ABC titles were meaningless. Yet somehow they're used to determine the lineal champ which is supposed to be the real champ?

 

That's because he never did. You say he should get credit for the WBA belt even though the guy he fought was stripped of the belt. Shouldn't that same logic apply at LHW. DM has 3 belts, and is stripped of two. So shouldn't the guy who beat him now get credit for all 3 belts? What about the guy who beats that guy? Do you only get credit if the guy you beat is only stripped of 1 belt?

 

the ABC titles are not completely meaningless they are a great way of determining who the top contenders in the division are.

 

they do get credit. DM unified 3 titles, Gonzales gets credit for all 3 and so does Erdei, even though he is not the one who unified them. But after much time goes on, and someone else comes along and reunifies the titles, then it adds a twist to it. As if to say "well you haven't fought any real challengers in so long that someone else has come around and had time to reunify the belts" Thats exactly why i said that in Hamed's case, its crystal clear, while in the LHW division its not as clear.

Its funny how you think that there is a double standard being applied here while in fact there is none.

 

Yes, but as I said, YOU were being technical. It's a fact that boxing recognizes a fighter who is stripped of his title as still being the champion. You disagree with this, but agree with the Ring title, which technically isn't involved at all? You recognize it because the boxing establishment does, and so then you should recognize champs who are unfairly stripped just like boxing does.

No, the ABC titles don't matter. I had this argument before and there is definitive proof that if the Lineal title is VACATED, you don't have to unify all the belts to win the lineal title. All you have to do is have a consensus fight between the #1 and #2 fighters in that division. Hill beat Maske to win the Lineal title at LHW, and they only had 2 of the 3 belts, and it reestablished lineage. It has happened throughout history and even recently.

The ABC orgs can help sort out who #1 and #2 are, but they aren't necessary. Sometimes the #1 fighter holds no belt, most often because of stripping.

 

Please re read this crap that you wrote, and tell me you don't see the problem. You just simply made up your own rule. So according to your made up rule, Hopkins is now a unified champ at LHW. He should be credited with having the WBC,WBA,and IBF titles. This, according to you, should stay like this until someone else unifies the titles.

 

Number 1, I never said anything about agreeing with the ring title. Number 2, who decides who the no.1 and no.2 two guys in the division are?

 

You think i am making up rules, but i am simply using logic. I am not casting rules in stone like Moses. I am simply using a logical thought process in order to establish when there is truly a champion and when there is simply a titlist.

I would say that for LHW to truly cast away all doubts there should be a fight between Hopkins and Erdei. But say Hopkins and Erdei stay in their shell and avoid all challengers, get stripped of their belts, and then someone like Chad Dawson starts sweeping up the belts and unifies all 4 titles, then i will not hesitate to call Chad Dawson the true champion.





A good example is Floyd. I consider Floyd the champion at WW. if Floyd no longer defends his WBC strap and gets stripped, I will still consider him the WW champion. However if PBF stays inactive at 147 and eventually Cotto unifies by beating the WBC, IBF, and WBO titleholders, then I would consider that Cotto is now the WW champ, no longer Floyd.


I consider Hatton the champ at 140. But if he keeps fighting the Lazcanos of this world and meanwhile Witter goes out and beats Malignaggi, Torres, and Gavin Rees before they lose their titles, then I would say Witter is the champ at 140.




imo by always trying to determine what is the fixed set of rules that determines who is the champion you are cheating yourself. Hamed may not have worn the WBA belt but he beat everyone there was to beat at 126 and therefore he was the champ.

 

Number 1, you listed the Ring champion as a champion when I asked you the question about the LHW. So you recognized it.

Number 2, the same boxing establishment who decides everything else. The ABC's help in this regard. When it is unclear who the #1 and #2 are, there can be no re-establishment unless all the contenders fight. When it becomes obvious who the #1 and #2 are, then no titles are needed. The boxing establishment has always let us know when there are consensus #1 and #2 fighters in a division. Calzaghe-Kessler is a good example of this.

 

I thought stripping people of their belts was a no no? Why is it okay for fans to call for a fighter to be stripped but not sanctioning bodies? Furthermore, I've argued with plenty of Haye fans who claim he has the rightful claim to the IBF belt. However, Bell was stripped for not fighting anyone. He fought no one for 15 months. Furthermore, Haye never beat Bell. He beat Mormeck, who beat Bell. So what about that situation? Should Haye get credit for unifying the IBF title?

 

Bell gets credit for unifying the titles when he beat Mormeck. Haye beat the man who beat the man.

It doesn't matter that Bell was stripped of the IBF belt before his rematch against Mormeck