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

Exactly, and I never questioned Hamed being the lineal champ.

 

iight

 

so do you consider that Hamed was the one true champ at 126 when he fought MAB?

 

You're not relying on common sense. You're actually contradicting yourself. You claim that the sanctioning bodies are not credible yet you're complaining because they aren't recognizing certain fighters as champions. If the WBA isn't credible, then why do you care whether or not that fighter is considered of that supposedly corrupt organization?

On to a couple of your examples. If the orginizations aren't enforcing sanctioning fees, how do you propose they raise money? I mean they do need money to function. And Calzaghe was never stripped, he vacated his title.

This is the problem with a lot of fight fans. You don't use common sense. You think more with your heart instead of your mind. The way boxing is setup, no one is going to be totatlly happy.Lots of people complains about sanctioning bodies stripping fighters, yet others call for a fighter to be stripped when he isn't fighting the people they want him to fight. No one really tries to break down the reasoning behind some of these rules and standards. Intstead, they just simply look for something to complain about.

 

That, I have no problem with. If fans want to consider him the true champ, that's ok. Just don't give him credit for things he didn't accomplish. You can't call him WBA champ when he never won the WBA title.

 

you are seeing logical contradictions where there are clearly none.

 

you are getting caught up on the terminology. Who cares if he's the WBA champ in the end. If its already established that he is the undisputed champ, then the whole debate as to whether he was really the WBA champ or not is pointless since its simply a tool to determine the real champ.

You think Hamed is given credit for being WBA champ? no. he is given credit for being the undisputed champ, WBA is just a stepping stone. If Vasquez gets stripped right before the fight, its still the same stepping stone, regardless

If you want to say "Actually Hamed was never the WBA champ because Vasquez was stripped but you're right his win over Vasquez still added to his credibility as the undisputed champ because Vasquez held the WBA title before his fight against Hamed and never lost it in the ring."

my answer would be

"fine in that case i don't give 2 shits about whether Hamed held the WBA title or not. Its just pedantics"

The entire point of the thread is that Pacquiao was the champ, because Barrera was the champ, because Hamed was the champ. And therefore Pacquiao should be recognized as the champ, and Marquez as the challenger.

 

Whatever you say......Seems like you would have qualified it if you meant that. I stand by what I posted.

You want to stay on topic then lets do so. A majority of boxing fans, commentators, and everyone else believe that when you make a fight with a champion and he is stripped of the belt, he is still the champion and the winner of that fight is the rightful champion. It is what it is. The original thread was about Pacquiao and JMM. Pacquiao was more than the peoples champion. He was THE champion. Lineal AND undisputed in most people's eyes, because Hamed was undisputed. If we go by who has a belt, there will never be undisputed champions ever again. Pavlik is undisputed now regardless of the other 3 belts out there.

 

pac became linear and ring champ @126 when he beat barrera in 2003. Pac was therefore THE CHAMP when he fought jmm in 2004 although jmm held the wba/ibf belts.

 

This is completely untrue. There have been several undisputed champs in the sport's history, including a few in the past couple of years. Also, I never protested Pac being the lineal champion. However, it's pretty ridiculous to call him the undisputed champion when he not only doesn't have a belt, but when he never won one to begin with. You say mostly everyone would recognize Pac as the champ in that situation, yet this whole thread was started because the HBO narrator called him a challenger to JMM's titles. I'm pretty sure if you told the average fan who tuned into that fight that Pac was the champ and that JMM was the challenger despite the fact that JMM had the belts and was introduced by the ring announcer as the champ, they would argue with you.

 

Your point here is better than most in this thread, but it's still flawed. This thread was started because of the thread starter's objection with Pac being called the challenger. My contention was with him saying that Hamed unified all 4 titles. This is blatantly untrue for two reasons. No.1, he never won the WBA title. Yes, he beat a guy who was stripped of the WBA title. However, he never won the title and he never beat the WBA champion. No.2, he never even unfiied 3 titles. To unify a title, you have to hold at least 2 titles at once. Hamed unified 2 titles, but he never made it to 3, let alone 4.

Now, the tradiontal standard for being undisputed is holding the 3 major belts at once. If you want to call Hamed undisputed, just realize you're doing so by stretching the definition and adding your own interpretation. However, this can lead you down a slippery slope. Pac never beat any title holders at 126. Pac didn't beat a guy who beat all the title holders at 126. Pac beat a guy, who beat a guy, who beat 3 out of the 4 beltholders, and beat a 4th guy who was stripped of the title before Hamed fought him. For me, Pac is too far removed from the process to be considered an undisputed or unified champ. Lineal champ though is perfectly fine. A lineal champ is supposed to follow a linear succession.

In the end, this is a never ending battle. I'm basically up against people here who are perfectly willing to stretch, and alter meanings of the terms used in boxing to get a desired result. We're basically arguing two different things. I'm essentially arguing what is and what isn't, the people opposing me are arguing what should and what shouldn't be.

 

There was a good pic on ESB with Morales, Barrera, Marquez with bandanas. I just remember one of them had one with 'now fear' wrote on his.

If someone still has it, please share :good

 

i got dizzy reading....so what was it again???