Re-establishing linearity in the heavyweight division

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by ChrisPontius, Jun 30, 2007.


  1. ChrisPontius

    ChrisPontius March 8th, 1971 Full Member

    19,412
    97
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Oct 4, 2005
    In 1905, after Jim Jeffries retired, Jack Root and Marvin Hart fought for the vacant title. Hart had a win over Jack Johnson (although disputed by some), over Ruhlin and Fergusson. Root had wins over Gardiner (although he lost to him also), Marvin Hart a few years earlier, a green Flynn and McCoy.

    In 1930, after Tunney retied, Max Schmeling and Jack Sharkey fought for the vacant title. Sharkey was somewhat inconsistent but had wins over Stribling and Loughran coming into the fight, and Schmeling had one win over Uzcudun.


    In 1956, after Marciano retired, Archie Moore and Floyd Patterson fought for the vacant championship. Moore had several good wins coming into this fight (Valdes 2x, Baker), Patterson had only one SD over Tommy Jackson and the other time he stepped up he lost to Maxim, although some dispute the decision.




    It is fair to say Lewis will not make a comeback. He was offered a ****load amount of money to fight Vitali Klitschko but didn't take it. He, in fact, recently posted a video at his Myspace page in which he expressed again that he wouldn't come back.

    I would say the current top5 looks like this:

    1. Wladimir Klitschko (IBF champ)
    2. Ruslan Chagaev (WBA champ)
    3. Sultan Ibragimov (WBO champ)
    4. Oleg Maskaev (WBC champ)
    5. Samuel Peter

    Next october, the number 2 & 3 will face off in the first heavyweight unification match since 1999.
    Chagaev has notable wins over Valuev (WBA), Ruiz and Virchis.
    S. Ibragimov has notable wins over Whitaker and Briggs (WBO).

    Both of their resumes are comparable to the fighters given above who have fought for the vacant title in the past.
    Historically, one fight between two top contenders has been enough to re-establish the true champion. This is exactly that, and it is a unification match which is rather seldom.

    Since there is not much difference between this situation and the ones in history, i have no problem recognising the winner of Chagaev-Ibragimov as THE champ.
    The only thing that itches is that the one whose resumes and ability is clearly a step above the rest, Klitschko, is not involved.

    If you don't recognise the winner of this fight as the champ, say Klitschko beats Brewster and fights the winner of this fight; would you consider the winner of that fight to be the true champion of the world?
     
  2. janitor

    janitor Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    61,508
    8,322
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Feb 15, 2006
    Yes. Any other claim would loose all credibility.
     
  3. ChrisPontius

    ChrisPontius March 8th, 1971 Full Member

    19,412
    97
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Oct 4, 2005
    As i pointed out above, Ibragimov and Chagaev have no weaker claim than Moore/Patterson, Schmeling/Sharkey, Burns/Root did.

    So why would that claim lose all credibility?
     
  4. seb melmoth

    seb melmoth New Member Full Member

    40
    0
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Mar 16, 2007
    Yes, he'd be the champion imo.





    What about the fight between Vitaly Klitschko and Corrie Sanders to determine the new Champ in 2004?
     
  5. janitor

    janitor Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    61,508
    8,322
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Feb 15, 2006
    In the scenario you describe one fighter would hold the WBA, IBF and WBO belts. I think in that scenario that man would be regarded as the man at heavyweight.

    Anybody who put up a rival claim based on the Whetabix Boxing Council heavyweight title would have little credibility.
     
  6. Asterion

    Asterion Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,485
    4
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Feb 5, 2005
    Janitor, do you have a bigger version of your avatar?
     
  7. Asterion

    Asterion Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,485
    4
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Feb 5, 2005

    Why the two oldest ones and not only the oldest one or the three oldest ones? What makes the WBC more important than the IBF, and what makes the past more important than the present?
     
  8. ChrisPontius

    ChrisPontius March 8th, 1971 Full Member

    19,412
    97
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Oct 4, 2005
    Forget all the belts, and this is to Janitor as well:

    Fact remains this is a fight between two top contenders and since Lewis is not coming back, i see no reason not to recognise the winner of them as the champ just like they did in the old days.
     
  9. Pat_Lowe

    Pat_Lowe Active Member Full Member

    1,194
    6
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Feb 26, 2006
    I agree with this and the unification of the WBA and WBC is what is needed to establish linearity. Do you consider Kessler the champ in the super middleweight division?

    Also, its very difficult to hold the WBA in high regard these days. The ridiculous super champ concept is an absolute farce. Its a joke and really decreases the WBA's standing
     
  10. Jack Dempsey

    Jack Dempsey Legend Full Member

    7,217
    12
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jun 13, 2005
    The SMW divison is interesting in terms of Linearity, does it come from Kessler or Calzaghe????

    Do you hold the Ring champion as any kind of a guide??
     
  11. Pat_Lowe

    Pat_Lowe Active Member Full Member

    1,194
    6
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Feb 26, 2006
    I don't know but the ring magazine was just looking for a champ in that division so they sanctioned #1 vs #3 for the ring belt, going against their own policy. The WBO belt is ridiculous, I really don't like Calzaghe, I absolutely hate his style I think its a joke (he slaps), I hate his attitude and I really hope Kessler beats him. At the moment I don't consider there to be a champ at super-middle. This upcoming matchup should change that though.
     


Advertisement