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

The worst part, is they are both technically "right" in a way. Hamed never "won" the WBA belt, but he BEAT the guy who held it, the guy who never lost it in the ring... thus he "would have" won the WBA strap if the WBA wasn't such a *****. Hamed was undisputed, but **** get's muddied as the belts redisperse after strippings.. once other champions are crowned, and time goes on, people forget the "real" history of the belts.

None of that changes the facts that Hamed beat or fought guys for all 4 belts, or atleast fought the guys who HELD the belt.

The fact he never carried all 4 at once is political ABC bullcrap, but fans know he was still undisputed at the time Barrerra stomped his ass, thus rightfully Barrera was the king, Pac beat him, thus again the lineage continued.

 

The thread was about why JMM was called champion and Pacquiao challenger. You said Pacquiao had no belt. (He did) You said Boxing is confusing enough without calling people who have no belts champions. You clearly insinuate you don't recognize people without belts as champions, or at the least, you don't think they should be, and even say that a belt is the ultimate representation of being a champion. It's not anymore and hasn't been for a while. If this isn't what you meant, then what was your point in those statements? Why did you immediately point out he had no belt, instead of pointing out his Lineal status as true champion? Unless you don't feel this makes you true champion. If so, what does?

The announcer introduced JMM as champion because he was told to. Everyone recognized that Barrera was the champion before even without his belts, and everyone recognized Pacquiao as champion even without a belt. (ABC Belt) It's as simple as that. Someone can argue all they like, but it's a fact that Lineal champions are recognized in this way. It's also a fact that when you beat a champion who didn't lose his belt in the ring, you are recognized as champion. If we go the way you keep wanting to, there will be NO undisputed champions soon. Oh, I know there have been, and they have been stripped causing even more confusion, and if we decide not to recognize the stripped champion as undisputed after he is stripped then the undisputed status meant nothing in the first place. Earning it in the ring can't be undone by losing it on paper. Paper champions are NOT champions. Sure there are oddball cases and those are treated differently. But in general, stripping a champion of his belt doesn't remove his championship status.

 

It does remove his status, atleast it shouldn't.. but it's obvious to some that a belt equals champion, when it doesn't. It should, but it doesn't. If the ABC's let champs fight without interference, and ranked other beltholders in their rankings, and didn't strip fighters for BS reasons, this would never be an issue, but the ABC's continue to screw any legitimicy that boxing gains, by mudding up the field over and over again, and hurting themselves in the process for short-term gains.

A few fighters can make it despite the ABC's, but the fact is, they still made their names bigger by winning ABC belts. Guys like Pac, Oscar, and Floyd (speaking current cross-over stars) don't need to put up with the BS of the ABC's... thus why they don't care as much about the trinkets, they can make money without them, but other guys NEED the belt to legitimize them to the public, without the belt, no matter how much guys on boxing sites say they are meaningless, they ain't **** to the general public. They have to play the game, and that makes them have to get in bed with shady promoters and play the game with the ABC's, because if they ever have a chance of getting a big fight, or gaining national attention, they need those ABC fights, and sadly a lot of guys get ****ed in the process.

 

And if this was his argument, I would absolutely agree. A general boxing fan might not realize that Casamayor is the champion at LW cuz he has no belt. People might even have considered Diaz the better fighter (until recently of course) and real champion. But he wasn't the real champion....and here we, the actual boxing fans who follow the sport, should know this. Yes there are exceptions, but Pacquiao's case clearly wasn't one of them.

 

Be serious. First off, you said that the ring isn't a part of boxing, and that the belt doesn't count. I responded by saying that if that's the case, then Pac had no belts(there is no lineal belt so don't even go there). As far as the first part of highlight is concerned, you stated that this is a fact. Well, what champion are you recognized as when you don't win a title from an official governing body? Since it's fact, then give me an officialy recognized entity that will recognize this fighter as a champion. Without this information it's just an opinion. The second half of the highlighted part is completely bogus. Haye, Calzaghe, and Campbell are all 1 victory away from undisputed status under my standards. With the creation of the WBA super champ, it's even easier for a fighter to gain undisputed status. So don't act like it's so hard to achieve.

 

You're funny, not hard to achieve? It takes a ****ing act of Congress to get the ABC's to let guys unify.

Few people get the chance, and it's not just from not wanting too.

 

I've been watching boxing since 1988. Here is a list off the top of my head of fighters who have attained undisputed status since 1988:

HW - Tyson, Douglas, Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis

CW - Bell

LHW - Jones

SMW - Calzaghe*

MW - Taylor, Hopkins

JMW - Wright

WW - Spinks, Judah

JWW - Tszyu

It's not easy to do(which is why it's such a great accomplishment). At the same time, it's no impossible.

* I'm undecided on this one.

 

Your posts were the 6th and 7th posts in this thread. You made those statements at that time. You were not responding to me. I wasn't even in the thread yet. My post was the 8th, and I said I thought Pacquiao had the Ring belt in response to your saying he had no belt. I then watched as Illmatic pointed out that Hamed did beat the WBA champion who was never stripped. I agreed with him and then you started disagreeing with me. That is where the point of contention comes from. Pacquiao entered the Ring as champion, something I already pointed out. Are you disputing this, because this is the point of the whole thread.

I watched you argue the "technicallity" of being stripped removing you as champion. I then said:

You were being technical by arguing stripping removed the champions status though no one beat him, so I took a technical standpoint to prove that it really had no standing, since obviously the Ring champion is a recognized champion and you would recognize that technicalites are BS. I came back later in the thread and said this, and even pointed out that Boxing does recognize their belt. It was never an actual point of contention between us, but a way to try and get you to understand my point. I clarified that already once.

What you highlighted IS fact. The Lineal champion is the one true world champion. Once the sanctioning bodies split up, it was used to designate the man who beat the man. It is recognized by boxing, and the point is proven throughout many articles in the history of boxing. Examples of them are as such:

Lewis was not considered Lineal champ until he beat Briggs, who had no belt, but won the Lineal title from Foreman.

Tyson was not considered Lineal champion until he defeated Spinks. Notice when they interviewed Spinks after or before one of Tyson's fights, the called him the Heavyweight Champion. He had no belt.

Casamayor was referred to as Lineal champion this past weekend numerous times. He has no belt. It is clearly recognized and has been throughout history.

As for the last point. Yes it's an opinion. A good one. Yes, Calzaghe is one belt a way from being undisputed. But he already won all four belts. Now you want him to go and win them again even though he never lost them? By your standard, a champion can be undisputed one day, then not the next without stepping in the ring. If we go by that standard, we will never have undisputed champions, at least not in the ring. The ABC's strip these guys every time they win all the belts. It's not acceptable.

 

And nearly all those guys were stripped. And according to you, they were no longer undisputed champions because of this. So the next guy has to go back and unify belts that the other fighter never lost. You become champion in the ring, not by pen and paper.

And if we keep with your standard, the ABC orgs will only get worse knowing they can make more money with mutiple champions and will simply strip everyone before they can unify. And THAT'S why I said if we go by this, it will be impossible to get a unified undisputed champion.

Edit:

I go into another thread and now you're saying this?

So losing all your belts doesn't removes your undisputed status? But if someone beats you, they don't get the status? How and why? What reason would you NOT lose the status, but it can't be gained by the fighter who defeats you? Whatever reason you don't strip that fighter of his status is the same reason it has to go to fighter who defeats him (if in the same weight class)

 

The lineal champ is, many times, an opinionated designation. Lineage gets broken all the time when a champ retires, or moves up in weight. How a new lineage is formed is all a matter of opinion. As a result, it's merely someones opinion as to whom the linear champ is most of the time. As far as my standards for what makes an undisputed champ, check out the thread I made about the definition of an undisputed champ. I'm sure you'll be enlightened.

 

I'm not going to address the first paragraph, read my thread on what defines an undisputed champ for clarity.

As far as your last paragraph is concerned; more nonsense. Almost every guy on my list who was stripped, was stripped for good reason. Find me one besides Taylor who wasn't justifiably stripped.

 

I wasn't enlightened. As to most in that thread, it makes no sense to me because it has little logic involved.

The argument is deeply deeply flawed. If an undisputed champion cannot be stripped of his status by losing his belts, then the guy who beats him gets it when he defeats him. Whatever reasoning you are using to not strip the fighter who lost the belt of his status is exactly the reasoning that would give the next fighter his status without the belt as well. Why does the fighter not lose his status?

All champions are opinions. The ABC orgs choose by their own opinion who is ranked where. A generally agreed upon #1 vs #2 creates a lineage when it's broken. Most often this involves the ABC's, but it doesn't always. Who decides the who #1 and #2 are? The general opinion of everyone involved in boxing it seems....there are no more specifics on this than there are in the ABC's, who you have no trouble recognizing. The Networks certainly play a part, as do the ABC's.

 

Your thread isn't clarity. Designating it so when most disagree certainly only presents it in an even poorer light.

My last paragraph makes your argument moot. You can't address it and won't. They weren't stripped "for good reason". What qualifies as a "good reason"? One that helps you?

 

PacMan is the challenger ... last time I checked all he had was a regional belt. He can't be considered the champ for beating two great fighters past their prime. PacMan has no leverage besides the fact that he has a wide fan base.

Marquez beat Barrera who was the WBC champion and the WBC title is on the line so how the hell is Pacquiao not the challenger.

 

Incorrect my friend. Floyd Mayweather is the WBC WW champion. This is a fact, not an opinion. I know you are smart enough to know the difference between a fact and an opinion. Don't out think yourself.

The reason I say undisputed champs can't be stripped of that status is because they won the 3 major belts and held them at the same time. If they are stipped of a belt and then lose, the guy who beat said fighter did not accomplish this feat.

Example;

Joe Schmoe beats the WBA/WBC/IBF champions, and takes their titles. He has won the title from the 3 major bodies and is now undisputed. Joe Schmoe is stripped of the WBA title, Johny Someone wins the vacated title. John Doe comes along and beats Joe Schmoe. Did John Doe win the WBA belt?

It is under this logic that John Doe does not obtain undisputed status despite beating the undisputed champ. The logic is there KG, you just have keep your eyes open.