Even if you tweak definitions in the hope of providing some clarity, as long as the underlying presumption is that "the recognised champion" is better than "the titleist", who in turn is better than "the paper champion", who in turn is better than "the faux champion", your whole utopic project is doomed to failure. I say "utopic" because you are harking back to a golden age when there was only one or two world titles, both of which were usually held by Americans, who couldn't avoid fighting each other, an age in which promoters' actions couldn't affect market realities as much as today, an age in which keeping hold of your belt was more important than keeping in the good books of TV companies, etc. That age is long gone and it's impossible to recreate those conditions no matter how obstinately you try. These days, boxing is global, not American-dominated. Boxing is global but broken up in spheres of influence, with Europe and America being the biggest, and with Germany and Britain being the biggest overall, given their size. It doesn't usually pay for the European based champion to travel to America to fight his American based rival, nor does it pay the American based champion to travel to Europe to fight his European based rival. Each is better off making big bucks in front of the home fans, with their own TV networks backing them. These days, holding on to a contract with HBO or Showtime is more valuable than holding on to your title. These days, most people recognise four different titles equally, and so do the other beltholders who are happy to call a fight with any other Big Four beltholder a "unification" fight. That's why talk of the different importance of belts, titles, Ring titles (which are not titles at all, but just prizes given by a magazine), lineal titles, etc. is a waste of time. As I said before, the only thing that matters is how good your opponent is when you fight him, how well he performs on the night, how well you perform on the night and who wins. Titles can be a motivator, but so can the the fact that you're live on Showtime, or on a PPV, for example. Forget belts and titles. They're a red herring. Level of performance is all that matters in trying to judge who the best fighter is in a division.
Well whats the point of trying to classify chmpions if your gonna say there is a fine line between paper and titleists. Well you tell me who is the top welter when margo beat cotto, mosley beat margo and cotto beat mosley. But according to you Cotto is nothing more than a paper champ!? kind of really demeans his abilities as a fighter. Then you have guys like hopkins who isnt a champ but in many peoples minds a top 10 p4p. A fighter wins a vacant belt and is a paper champ then in his next fight loses to the same guy in a rematch. By your classification this guy who wins the rematch is a titleist!!! DOES NOT MAKE SENSE!!!!! atsch
They're a legitimate titleholder, but not the champion. There's only one champion, and that's the lineal titleholder. There are a bunch of beltholders. The issue is in the original classification. I agree with just about everything BigReg said in the original post, but the names would be more clear if they were: - Faux Titleholder - Paper Titleholder - Titleholder - Champion
You're too caught up in the negative conotation that's related to the term paper champ. It has nothing to do with a fighter's skill level and everything to do with how they got their title. You can be the best fighter in the world and still be a paper champ. You can have no belt and still be very talented. You can have a belt and be nothing special.
There's no doubt that Cotto is a paper titlist at the moment though. He didn't win his title in the ring - it was given to him (nominally he had to fight someone for it, but that someone was a nobody who was only in a title fight because Bob Arum pulled strings to get Cotto another belt). It doesn't mean that he's any less of a fighter, and his previous title reigns were very legitimate, but presently he's a paper title holder. Beating Clottey would legitimize that title.
What about the scenario i gave you which i underlined? Its all technicalities that really dont need to be explained when really if your gonna get technical then as long as the belt they hold says champion then they are a champion. Because technically their belt that they won says ....champion and they fought in a championship contest, no matter what level or grade.
To be honest, it's freak occurence. You can't expect any guidlines to fit perfectly into every scenario. There are bound to be some fluke occurences. If you want to call someone a champion becaue they have a belt, that's your perogitive. However, it's very confusing when there's 8,9,10 different so-called champions in a division. In some divsions, the WBA has given out championship belts to 3 fighters. What do you do if a guy unifies all the titles and then is stripped becaue he's injured or because he takes on a tough fighter that the fans want to see him fight instead of some cupcake mando? Do we now dillute his championship status by calling another fighter in his division champ even though he acted in the manner of a true champ? It's because of the complicated politics of the sport, and the proliferation of belts that I seek to indentify the true champ and separate him from beltholders.
Such a freek occurance that it is what happened with Steve Cunningham. And when adamek beat him and you classed him as the linear or whatever you did. Go figure?? Thats why the WBA has a super champ, regular champ and interim champ. Ranking in that order. But who the hell pays attention to 3 WBA belts? We all know who is the so called real champ in this case.
I know that, but it doesn't happen often Did you read the explanantion for a Champion? One of the ways to reebstablish lineage is to have a fight between the division's top two fighters. Cunningham and Adamek were considered 1 and 2 when they fought. It is for this reason that I have him listed as a Champion. No one pays close enough attention, that's the problem.
I can go with that, but here is the thing. Had Lewis been American, Bowe would've been vilified imo. America saw Bowe and Holy as the two best heavies at that time, so this argument holds water. But like what Brick said in a nutshell...basically it goes fight by fight.
I think people can establish between super, regular and interim as the words pretty much define those champions like ur tryin to do yourself. My point with cunningham is that he lost in a vacant title bout, then had a rematch against the same guy (PAPER CHAMP) and won, and by your classification he is now a titleist even tho the two fought for the vacant title. Then he beats one more fighter and has a fight with adamek where the winner is the linear champ. Yet cunningham 2 fights b4 he fought a paper champ. So cunnningham was fighting a fight to classify a linear champ against a non titleist or champion, yet two fights ago fought a paper champ!??
Reg, Sdsfinest, Brick, Armele, Box3, Cobbler...there aren't too many posters that I can say that I like debating with, but you guys are ok by me. You may see me argue with guys and post down to their level in other threads and say, "Damn, why is Nallege acting like a kid" lol. Trust me, there is a method to my madness. But you guys...you guys have my respect. I respect all fans of the sport, but not all opinions.
Cheers, its good to have a healthy debate or discussion where people make valid points and try to explain themselves without resorting to ignorance or nuthugging or trash talkin! Just gotta say that chick in your avatar is fine!