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

Number 1, you asked me who the LHW champ was. I said that there was 3 alphabet champs and 1 ring champ. I made no mention of my feelings towards the ring.

Number 2, who the **** is the boxing establishment? How do they come to a consensus as to who the no.1 and no.2 fighte is?

I'm going to stop stringing you along. I don't want to be going at this all night. Basically, the process you described is how the sanctioning bodies came along in the first place. There is hardly ever a consensus. There is constantly disagreements as to whom is the best or who is no.1 and no.2. This is why there is so many sanctioning bodies. All these standards that you guys are rattling off is the same rhetoric that the founders of the orgs had when they first came up with the WBA,WBC,IBF, and WBO. Do you not see the connection?

 

Is this a really big deal to be furious about?


You know we're still in a war with our guys dying on a regular basis over in Iraq.

 

This guys a douche, Hamed beat the guys who HELD, at the TIME HE FOUGHT them all 4 major belts. This is fact, the point that they didn't award him those titles because of politics doesn't change the fact he beat the CURRENT belt holder.

He unfied all 4 belts, althought he never held them at the same time, he didn't lose from the time he won the first until he fought MAB, and in that stretch he fought and won against all the major belt holders.

This cat is nothing but a boxrec-*****, who doesn't know ****.

 

:huh

 

At you stringing anyone along here. Clearly things are done on a case by case basis. If you hadn't been so busy trying to be technical with the stripping of belts and who the champion is, you would have realized that's where you were being led. In the end, you ended up saying it yourself through all your questions. (They all had answers, but you failed to recognize the significance of that) Linear thought is not always best. Either way, Pacquiao was the Lineal champ when he stepped in the Ring with JMM that night.

BTW, if I ask you a question about what you think and you answer? It's what you think, and you listed the Ring title. So you recognize it. It's a hindsight copout to change it now. You have no need to mention how you feel about it. If you didn't think it was a title, you wouldn't have mentioned it at all.

As for the boxing establishment, you know who they are. The networks, commissions, etc. People who put actual money directly into the sport and are directly involved with the sport.

 

And if this was a forum about that, it would matter. It's not.

 

Incorrect, Vazquez was stripped of his title before he even fought Hamed. So no, he didn't hold the title when Hamed fought. Some of you guys don't even know what these terms mean. You simply rattle off bull**** that someone else told you, and question the intellect of someone who disagrees. Anyone who says that Hamed unified all 4 belts clearly doesn't know what unified means. There is a definition for the word unify. It is from that definition that the term "unified champ" came about. Open up a book and educate yourselves before you start criticising others.

 

Hit the nail on the head.

 

Complete bull****. There are a ton of people on this site that swear by the ring belt. If you ask me who the champ is at LHW and I mention the ABC titlest and don't mention the ring champ, I'm opening myself up to further attacks that have nothing to do with the issue at hand. There are 4 ABC champs and 1 ring champ. This is in no way a relfection on how I feel about the ring belt. It's stating a fact. I've posted before how the ring is just a magazine and I don't give it much credence.

 

Where in my post did I say that you said that the linear and ring mean the same thing? Also, stop saying Hamed won all four belts. You and I both know this never happened.

 

your right he won all never lost them but was stripped ala JC . so lineal is correct:yep

 

There is no justification for saying that Hamed never won the WBA title, when in fact he never did. Yeah, Hamed never winning the WBA is a fact. There is no justification for saying that Hamed never unified all 4 titles, when Hamed never in fact held all 4 belts at the same time. Yes Illmatic, that's another fact.

The problem we have here is that we're arguing two separate issues. My reasoning is based clear cut, black and white issues. You create a gray area, and come up with your own interpretations. A unified champ is one who holds more than one belt at the same time. In order for someone to unify all four belts, they have to hold all 4 belts at the same time. For someone to win a title, the title has to be on the line. These are all facts. However, you've decided to go beyond the actual definition of these terms and create your own exceptions, and thus created your own definition of these terms.