Separating the beltholders

As we all know, there are way too many so-called champions in boxing. Not only does every division have 4 ABC belts as well as the Ring belt, but some orgs have decided to have Super Champs, regular champs, and interim champs. This or course is ridiculous. There can only be one real champ. So how do we separate the legit champs from the beltholders? Here's a guide to help you out;

Faux Titleist

Anyone who aquired a belt from an ABC org when that ABC org already had a beltholder. Therefore, interim champs and regular champs get the faux titleist label. They are not really champions. The interim champ used to have a purpose. Now, it's just a way to get sanctioning fees from the no.1 contender. The same goes for the regular champ. He is just a guy that the org. can milk for money while allowing the org's real champ to skip out on mandos. EX; Paul Williams, Sergio Martinez, Yuri Nuzhnenko

Paper Titleist

Anyone who aquires their belt without beating an actual beltholder. There are many ways people define a paper champ. This is one of them. With boxing politics the way they are, guys get stripped of titles all the time. As a result, titles are constantly vacated and swooped up by contenders. Sometimes, they aren't even deserving contenders. The org's don't seem to be consistent with their rankings and some promoters will pay step aside money so that their fighter can fight for a vacant title(even if their fighter isn't highly ranked). . Ex; Miguel Cotto, Arthur Abraham, Joshua Clottey, Andre Berto, Mikkel Kessler.

edit; After some thought, as well as input from other posters, I guess it should be possible for a paper titleist to legitimize his belt and become a titleist without beating a beltholder. If a paper titleist defends his belt against a good amount of acceptable opponents, then he can shed the paper titleist label and become a titleist


Titleist

Anyone who beats a beltholder other than the recognized, without reestablishing lineage, to get their title. There is fine line bewteen paper titleist and titleist. However, if you at least beat a reigning champ to get your belt, it separates you a bit from a paper titleist. Taking someone's belt is tough. Guys will fight more determined when their belt is on the line and they tend to get the benefit of the doubt in close rounds. Ex; Chad Dawson, Daniel Santos, Shane Mosley, Timothy Bradley.

Champion

Anyone who aquires their belt by beating the lineal champ, or someone who reestablishes a lineage in a particular division. The champion is not neccesarily the best fighter in the division, but he is the truest champion in my estimation. Like in the movie Highlander, "there can be only one". The same holds true for boxing. There can only be one true champ. The tricky part is determining how to reestablish lineage. Some believe a boxoff the top two fighters in a division is sufficient. Others believe you have to unify the IBF/WBA/WBC belts. And some others think all 4 major belts need to be unified in order to reestablish lineage. However, that's another discussion. The point is, if you beat the recognized champ, or you reestablish a lineage then you become the recognized champ. Ex; Kelly Pavlik, Ricky Hatton, Tomasz Adamek, Juan Manual Marquez, Vic Darchinyan.

I hope this guide helps.

 

Williams is a Faux Champion. Did you not read the guide?

No, the public does see Pavlik as the true MW champ. He beat the undisputed champ for his belt. It takes two to tango. It's pretty unfair to simply blame Pavlik for a fight between he and Abraham not happening. The fight needs to happen. However, just because it hasn't happened yet does not mean that Pavlik loses his status as the true champion. That status can only be lost in the ring.

Pavlik is a champion. Abraham is a beltholder. There are a million reasons why fights don't come off right away. You think Leonard vs. Hearns just magically happened overnight?

 

Your welcome

It matters because there is too much confusion in the sport. Even people on the board call Paul Williams a 154 lb. champion. This he is not. He is the interim beltholder. Buy why? The Dzindziruk isn't hurt or incapacitated?

That's precisely the point. Just because someone is good, does not make them a champion. The Lakers, Celtics, and Cavaliers are all good NBA teams. They are the top 3 teams in the league. Should we just call all of them champions just because they're all good teams?

Who cares? He's not the top guy. The champion is suppsed to be the top guy, not someone close to the top.

Did you actually read the explanations? I said there's a fine line between paper champ and titleist. Disregard the negative conotations for a minute and pay attention the explanations.

 

Technically, Cunningham was a titleist. He fought for the vacant title, lost and then won in a rematch. So technically he beat a beltholder which would make him a titleist. And yes, according to my explanation, Adamek would be the recognized champ. I explained that one way to reestablish lineage would be to have a boxoff between the top two fighters. I also explained that the recognized champ is someone who got his title by beating the recognized champ or by reestablishing lineage. Adamek and Cunningham were considered the top two fighters. Therefore, under that standard, Adamek reestablished lineage by beating Cunningham and thus became the recognized champ.

 

As I already stated, there is a fine line between titleist and paper champs. Beating a reigning champ is harder than beating a contender as the champ will fight harder to keep his belt and many times gets the benefit of the doubt in close rounds.

 

I'm happy to hear that you are privied to the negotiations between the two parties. Could you please shed some light on your inside information?