If Lucian Bute is not the IBF Champ, then neither was Lacy and neither was Joe!

No, he isn't! Mundine cannot unify with Calzaghe! Bute can!

 

Is there anything I say that should be seen as controversial? I am just bemused that people would go so far as to lie saying that Joe is the IBF Champ and Bute isn't...why would anyone want to do that, whatever the worth of the "trinket"...?

 

I personally don't give unification much thought, because in itself it means little. But to answer your question: Joe could unify by beating Lucian Bute - the one who holds the 4th belt!

 

NO! Joe did not unify! He would have to beat the IBF Champ - happens to be a guy called Lucian Bute - to unify!

Now you might say: "**** Bute! He isn't that good anyway! Why would Joe bother! There's no point in unifying against a guy like Bute!"

...And I might agree with you! But please, stop this nonsense about Joe having unified - it is not true!

 

No, in an ideal world there would only be one belt, one title, one champion, mandatories would always be enforced, people couldn't suddenly climb up the ladder to get into te Top 15 to get a shot at Macca...etc....

 

They didn't strip Kessler when he fought Joe for the WBO! Why would they strip Joe for fighting for the IBF?

 

Let me make it even simpler... ...I am not saying that Joe is not "The Champ". I am not saying that Joe should fight Bute either or that Joe has someting left to prove at 168!

All I am saying is that Lucian Bute and not Joe is the IBF Champ and that if Joe wants to unify, he has to beat the IBF Champ - currently Bute. That is all!

What is so controversial or so strange about that? Am surprised I even had to put up a thread such as this, full of platitudes...but not as surprised as when I read some of the replies...:-(

 

Who stopped Joe from defending his IBF title, achillesthegreat? What politics? And did I ever say Joe was disputed? And wasn't Lacy a paper champ according to your criteria, when he won it? And if you beat a Champ, why does that make you a paper champ? Berrio was the IBF Champion when he was beaten by Bute...Bute did not pick up a vacant belt, like Lacy! So why is he a paper Champ? Just because Berrio had not defended the belt before he lost it? So...if Kessler were to beat Bute in their next fight, wouldn't he be a paper champ according to you, having beaten a paper champ who never defended? What an absurd thought!

 

It's like this...if you beat the IBF Champ, you are a strong Champ...the more defenses the previous IBF Champ has had, and the closer to his prime and peak condition he was when you beat him, and the fairer the decision and the more dominant your performance, the stronger a Champ you become. The more defences against live prime dangerous opponents you make, and the higher their quality, the stronger a Champ you become. Bute is a weak Champ now, but not a paper Champ. Berrio was a paper Champ because he didn't beat a Champ to get the title. He won a vacant title, just like Lacy. Joe was a strong IBF Champ because he beat a fairly strong Champ - Lacy - after the latter had made some good defences. It is up to Bute to beat strong, prime, dangerous opposition if he wants his title to mean anything (if titles mean anything at all these days - to you, achilles, they seem to do - at least some of them, some of the time!). But the fact that Bute is a weak IBF Champ doesn't change the fact that he is a real Champ and not a paper Champ, nor the fact that Joe, undisputed and the best as he is, is not unified, whatever that is worth. More importantly, just because Bute is a weak IBF Champ, doesn't mean that he will always be a weak Champ, or that he hasn't beaten decent opposition so far, in his first 21 fights, at 27...

:good