Separating the beltholders

He beat Oscar Leon for an interim belt, then was elevated to full champion when Juan Manuel Marquez got stripped for failing to defend against John. He then went on to beat Marquez almost immediately after Marquez got stripped.

Personally, I put guys like John and Abraham in the legitimate titleholder basket. Yes, they officially won paper titles, but if you actually defend against a bunch of top 10 guys in the division, it legitimizes the belt. In John's case, he beat the rightful beltholder in the ring fair and square, so I see no reason why John should get punished because the WBA stupidly stripped Marquez for failing to defend against a fighter who he was about to fight.

 

Pav and Arum's fault. It's their fault because they haven't even tried to make the fight with AA. Arum talked to another promoter, and gave them their alternative/reasoning on how to build this fight when AA called Pav out more than once, and AA has been champ longer than Pav. The public isn't blaming AA for this fight not being made. You used the word "negotiation(s)" I believe in response to an earlier post on this subject. I never used that word, you did.

 

Brick, you are the man. Reg is too. Also big up to the others who chimed in. This is high level stuff in his thread.

 

Good stuff...I like the ring champions for sure...I wish they'd have 2 belts and a ring champ...itta make this alot easier...

 

You're not going to like my answer, but I think it's a feel thing, and I don't think it's particularly common. Most guys who win paper titles aren't that good, but eventually it just becomes silly to call someone a paper titlist when they've beaten all comers for several years. If they keep beating mandatories and quality optionals, then obviously they're the top dog in that sanctioning body.

Still, there isn't much leeway to change things. There's still a cluster**** in the LHW division, and as much as I'd like to say that Erdei isn't the champ, Erdei's still the champ (and neither Jones, Hopkins nor Calzaghe has ever been the champ at LHW, unfortunately). As bogus as I think it is that Narvaez has defended his belt 15 times and faced maybe 3 legitimate challengers in that period, he still won his belt in the ring.

 

Main belts in boxing are WBC,WBA,IBF,WBO and the ring mag. thats what i thought anyways

 

The way I've understood it is anyone who has a title but isn't recognized as the legit lineal heir to the title is a paper champion. So by that definition most alphabet titleholders today would qualify as paper champs.

 

Imo it is a feel thing. It all depends on how the public views you, and who you are beating. AA literally falls under the term paper champion, but nobody believes he is one. Lennox Lewis was called a garbage picker for picking up Bowe's vacated title...yet, Lewis was ranked #1 and was not given a shot by Bowe. Lennox eventually lost, and then redeemed himself as the true champion over the course of time, but back then, what was Lennox supposed to do?

 

Aw man shut up. We've been there and done that.

 

Reg, we have no problem believing you when you call a guy a paper champion. But...there is a top 10, and when that champion refuses to fight a mandatory for what ever reason, that champion is not viewed as a true champion in my book unless he is fighting someone viewed as being tougher. Now, this backfires also on Lewis's part because Ruiz won his title because Lennox decided to fight Grant instead of his mandatory Ruiz I believe. Now the public wanted to see Lennox fight Grant because he beat Golota. But during that time, I thought Lennox should've faced Ruiz before Grant.