Jack Loew: I don't like the Mora fight, Abraham would be easy work.

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by BigReg, Mar 16, 2009.


  1. J.R.

    J.R. No Mames Guey Full Member

    15,033
    5
    May 26, 2008
    The simple fact that Pavlik is the lineal champ does make Arthur Abraham a paper champion ya schmuck!
     
  2. BigReg

    BigReg Broad Street Bully Full Member

    38,117
    5
    Jun 26, 2007
    So Abraham didn't work his way up to the top of the rankings, he wasn't in line for a title shot, and he now only has a belt due to chance. Abraham is a good fighter. But he's still a paper champ. He got his belt as a result of boxing politics. The Florida Gators won the National title in football this year. Now what if the NCAA decided they used an ineligible player, stripped them of their title and handed it to Oklahoma? Would you really look at Oklahoma as the same caliber of champion as a team who actually won their title on the field, in the traditional manner? A similar theory holds true for boxing. There are way too many belts, and too much politics. Champion status has become completely diluded in this sport because of it. The real champs and the champs who are benefactors of boxing politics needed to be separated.



    I completely disagree. Beating guys who aren't even championship caliber fighters for vacant title does not make you a legit champion. It makes you a benefactor of a flawed system.

    No one is discriminating, I'm simply giving out appropriate labels. These paper champs need to be exposed in order to provide clarity to the sport. The networks are starting to do this by calling only certain fighters champions and refering to others as titlists. Titlist is just a euphamism for paper champ.

    To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't neccesarily call someone who beats a paper champ a legit champ. There can really only be one legit champ per division. However, if you've at least beaten a reigning champion, I wouldn't label that fighter as a paper champ. What's really dissrespectful in my opinion is one when certain guys work their asses off and beat a real champ to reach the pennicle of their division only to have some other guy beat some random contender and also call themselves a champion.

    Unfortunately all of his titles where vacant.

    Calling paper champs legit champs is degrading to actual champions, whether that's your intention or not.

    No they are not. Take Miguel Cotto. How can you call him a legit champ when Top Rank waited for Williams to be forced to vacate and then pounced all over an undeserving challenger who was basically a domestic level fighter? So Miguel loses to Margo, and then fights a domestic level fighter in his next fight and now he's a legit champion? I think not. There are plenty of more examples I can use.
    I'll try to get to the bottom line one more time...

    It's not about disrespect, it's bringing order to an unorganized sport. Again, watch ESPN, HBO, or Showtime. All of the belt holders to not get refered to as champions. Some are labeled as champs, some are labled as titlist. Whether you call them titlist or paper champs, the implication is still the same; which is that these titlist are not legit champions.

    No, they are a beltholder for a particular organization.

    You keep talking about what's fair. Life is not about what's fair. It's about what is, and what isn't. A champion is term that is designated to someone who is at the top of what they do, they finish in first. You cannot have multiple champions.

    Personally, I don't label guys who beat champions as paper champs for simplification purposes. However, even if you beat a paper champ, you won't get full credit of a champion until you beat the one legit champ in the division.

    You're entitled to whatever opinion that you want to hold. Personally, I have no problem labeling guys champs and/or titlists. I don't find it dissrespectful at all. These guys know they're not the true champ.
     
  3. NALLEGE

    NALLEGE Loyal Member banned

    31,396
    3
    Aug 26, 2008
    This thread is just about dead. Pav fans are talking lunacy. When you have never boxed before, and you give percentages, and ratios to satisfy your minds...something is wrong. In boxing, the most important thing you have to do is win. Many champions are not motivated to fight their best fight when they are fighting someone they can't get up for. Pav's fans have overrated and lied about AA's performance. Rubio was scared, and didn't fight Pav back. Was it PAv's fault...NO! That is a top performance according to PAv's fans.

    Everyone here knows who the frauds are when it's time to talk boxing. You have 3 frauds here in this thread who don't ever deserve respect when talking about their hero PAv because if you read their posts, they can't be objective. Fine...these were the same gys who ran and hid when Pav lost badly to Hop. IMO Pav can't box, or deal with movement...and he only knows one way to fight. This is why I pick AA to beat him. This is nothing against Pav. I always believe boxers beat punchers. That won't ever change.

    Jermaine Taylor as good as he was at mw was not a compelte fighter. He got tired in fights, and he arm punches. JT had no inside game to deal with a fighter who came forward. Styles make fights. Hop beat the tar out of Pav because he could fight inside and out. AA can fight inside and out. I just hope that both Pav and AA are healthy going in to their superfight at 160. I don't have a problem calling the winner the better fighter. Just don't overrate Pav's performance against Rubio, and down play AA's performance. It's phony lol. They both WON...lol.
     
  4. pavlik fan

    pavlik fan Active Member Full Member

    1,392
    0
    May 4, 2007
    you are right this thread is dead....u just made it that way......
     
  5. cuchulain

    cuchulain Loyal Member Full Member

    36,459
    11,499
    Jan 6, 2007
    Other paper champs, by your reasoning:

    Wlad Klitschko
    Vitali Klitschko
    Chad Dawson
    Mikel Kessler
    Shane Mosley
    JMM


    and others.
     
  6. BigReg

    BigReg Broad Street Bully Full Member

    38,117
    5
    Jun 26, 2007
    Mikkel Kessler is most definately a paper champ. The way he got his title is pretty dubious and he hasn't defended it against anyone worth a damn.
     
  7. Rui

    Rui Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,755
    2
    Apr 3, 2008
    Wladimir Klitschko is debatable -- there are some who consider him the true champion and others who feel that he needs to face his brother (which will never happen). But what is agreed is that he's without a doubt the best heavyweight on the planet.

    Vitali Klitschko, Chad Dawson, and Kessler are all paper champions.

    Shane Mosley is also debatable. I personally view him as the true champion, but I can see why others may disagree. There was a huge commotion concerning Ring Magazine's decision not to recognize the winner of Margarito/Mosley as the true champion.

    Marquez is the true champion; his title's lineage traces back to when Jose Luis Castillo and Juan Lazcano were the consensus top two lightweights in the world and Castillo prevailed against Lazcano. If that wasn't convincing enough, Diego Corrales defeated Castillo when they were the best two lightweights in the world. The lineage goes through them and then to Casamayor and now to Marquez.
     
  8. NALLEGE

    NALLEGE Loyal Member banned

    31,396
    3
    Aug 26, 2008
    I see Vitali as the true heavyweight champion.
     
  9. Rui

    Rui Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,755
    2
    Apr 3, 2008
    How so? All he did was beat Sam Peter.
     
  10. link2296

    link2296 Boxing Addict banned

    5,713
    1
    Apr 10, 2007
    He was also the last recognized ring heavyweight champ.
     
  11. NALLEGE

    NALLEGE Loyal Member banned

    31,396
    3
    Aug 26, 2008
    When Lennox retired, Vitali and sanders fought for the lineal title. Vitali won the lineal title before he fought Peter. Peter was the paper champ lol...
     
  12. Rui

    Rui Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,755
    2
    Apr 3, 2008
    He was also one of the most controversial Ring Champions in terms of gaining the title. There were numerous people, myself included, who felt that he did not deserve the Ring belt because he didn't face the #2 heavyweight in the world.

    Not only that, but he retired. He has no claim to the lineal heavyweight title.
     
  13. NALLEGE

    NALLEGE Loyal Member banned

    31,396
    3
    Aug 26, 2008
    Exactly, and I was starting to believe Vitali wasn't the true champ because he kept postponing his fight with Rahman who was the mandatory at that time. Vitali retired because of injuries.
     
  14. Rui

    Rui Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,755
    2
    Apr 3, 2008
    They didn't fight for the lineal title, they fought for the Ring title. Often both the ring and the lineal titles are established through the same match, but there are exceptions.

    The heavyweight rankings at the time were Vitali #1, Chris Byrd #2, and Corrie Sanders #3. Seeing how Byrd already held a win over Vitali (albeit Vitali was ahead on all scorecards when he quit), does it make any sense that Vitali could become lineal champion without facing the #2 heavyweight when that guy had already defeated him once?
     
  15. NALLEGE

    NALLEGE Loyal Member banned

    31,396
    3
    Aug 26, 2008
    Well, if you(fans) considered Wlad number 2 at that time, but I also believe Byrd wasn't either. Sanders destroyed Wlad who was second. I agree that Sanders wasn't the second best heavy, but Sanders did beat who many called THEE best heavy(I didn't) in Wlad. What do you do when a champ retires? You establish a lineage. That is who they picked, and that is the fight the public wanted to see.