More Rationalizations: Constitutional Interpretation or the Heavyweight Championship?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by cross_trainer, Dec 12, 2011.


  1. cross_trainer

    cross_trainer Liston was good, but no "Tire Iron" Jones Full Member

    18,216
    14,030
    Jun 30, 2005
    We have the "lineal" title (man who beat the man), the "undisputed" title, the Ring belt, the "best fighter in the world" standard, and so on.

    So what mental gymnastics do you go through to crown the Champ? What does the championship mean -- what's its purpose? How do you deal with the inevitable gaps in your theory (whichever one it is)?

    Was Shannon Briggs ever champion? For that matter, was Lewis? Klitschko? Both Klitschkos at the same time?
     
    cross_trainer, Dec 12, 2011
    cross_trainer, Dec 12, 2011
    #1
  2. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    80,964
    21,512
    Sep 15, 2009
    I think everyone has to subjective and true to their own beliefs here.

    The most objective way tracing linearity back to a point where it's generally accepted one man is the champion. However you then have to consider decisions which go against your own interpretation of a fight for the value to have any meaning.

    Me personally I believe in putting more value on who the best is at any given point and I consider the title of champion to be that which is worth only to the purists.

    In this day and age the truth is we have a surplus of official champions and it's our job to decide upon the worth of each one.

    I only use official results as interim until i've looked further into a fight by watching or reading reports and then i'll decide how to treat the fight.

    For example at fw shibata had a pretty solid claim tracing back whichever way it's sliced. He was the top active fw, he beat saldivar to take the lineal claim and his position at the top wasn't really dubious until the marcel fight.

    A fight i'm happy he deserved to lose so my recognition then passes to marcel who puts in some less than inspiring performances whilst jofre goes and secures a legendary victory at which point my recognition passes to eder and it remains with him until the combination of inactivity and marcel's great victory over arguello lead me to pass the claim back to ernesto.

    Once marcel immediately retires I think the top is olivares, a position he attains by rematching hafey in march.

    Now if I was the head of a sanctioning body this is how i'd hand out my belt; to the guy who's the best imo.

    But in terms of actual championship recognition, the most objective way is to follow lineage between undisputed claims and debate the claimants once a throne is vacant.

    I can appreciate briggs beat the man who... Beat holmes but by that stage it has to appreciated how worthless the title lineal champ was and i'd have placed every other belt holder above him because all he did, in reality, is get outboxed by a semi reretired 50 year old man.


    To summise: tracing linearity is good but I prefer the early 20th century claimant approach which is entirely subjective yet fun to debate :good
     
    lufcrazy, Dec 12, 2011
    lufcrazy, Dec 12, 2011
    #2