Is a champion who reigns and doesn't defend agaisnt his #1 contender a paper champ?

Depends a bit on the circumstances. If it's the same #1 contender for more than, say, 2 years, then the championship belt loses it's status as it doesn't represent the man who is proven and proving to be the best. However, if there is no clearcut #1 or every half a year there is a new #1 contender, then it's a different situation.

Of course, a lot also depends on the level of opposition faced instead. Especially when the #1 changes quickly, other top5 opponents are good too. If he keeps fighting unranked and low ranked contenders while the same #1 keeps winning , things become fishy.

At any rate, there are many factors, so i'd rather go for a case-by-case analysis.

 

Once a fighter has won the title he is the champion untill either he looses the title in the ring or retires.

It dosnt matter if he only defends against members of the womens institute.

 

To answer the thread, no. He is the champion wether we like it or not, but i would like to say that not defending against the number 1 is the thing that irritates me most in boxing. When a guy slogs his ass off and deserves his shot he deserves his shot. Why i despise Ricky Hatton

 

IMO a paper champ is a guy who never wins the title and is just givin to him over a fighters retirement or a guy being striped of a title

 

To some, maybe even most, people this is the way to go. I think that's bull**** however.


By that definition, the current world champion is someone who once beat another champion. I think the championship should represent something; being the best around and proving it.

 

I wish it were so, but fair has got nothing to do with it.

The curent Queen of England dose not have a legitimate claim to the throne but by recognising her as Queen we are merely recognising the practical reality.

 

And thats that, umfortunately

 

If the money is up, a champion should face the #1 contender eventually. Of course some #1's are real threats, and other #1's do not hold their position long enough to be real threats.

In the old time days, it was the champion who handed out the title shots. Some champions gave out title shots to the best people out there in general, others did not.

Today it is a bit different due to alphabet politics. In modern times, I am fine with a champion making an easy defense or mandatory, as long as he stays active and fights top a top contender once ever 12 months.

 

Although sanctioning bodies often go too far, i think stripping the champion of the title when refusing to face a top contender is one of the few areas in which modern boxing have an edge over ye olden days. For instance, i'm glad Bowe got stripped for not facing Lewis. Unfortunately, there are probably more cases of the champion unrightfully being stripped.

 

Yea, that is one positive thing the alpha-titles have going for them, in theory. The only problem is, stripping a guy of the strap hardly stops the guy from being rightful champion (if he was before he was stripped), in the eyes of purists im talking here

 

True, but at least the person is officially branded as an unrightful champion, whereas 90% of the people viewing Dempsey and Johnson as heroes know nothing about the way their ruined Wills, Langford, Jeannette and Mcvey's career by giving them the middlefinger and disgracing the championship in doing so.

 

You're right, so liife in boxing does go beyond being a purist after all!!!!

 

Eventually that champion should be considered a paper champion if there is another fighter facing better opposition. The champion should be the person proving to be the best. You can not claim to be the best if someone is beating better people than you are. Lineage is not as important as what you are actually accomplishing in the ring.

 

Joe Louis summed it up best:

"I won't consider myself Champion until I get
that "Smellin' " back into the ring.

To me, that is the standard all so-called champions
need to be held to.