Timeline of the premiere WW in the world.

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by lufcrazy, Nov 19, 2011.


Page 7 of 7
  1. GPater11093

    GPater11093 Barry Full Member

    38,034
    93
    Nov 10, 2008
    Yeh massivly
     
    GPater11093, Nov 30, 2011
    GPater11093, Nov 30, 2011
    #91
  2. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace

    82,092
    22,236
    Sep 15, 2009

    Yeh I remember considering him in some detail actually.
     
    lufcrazy, Nov 30, 2011
    lufcrazy, Nov 30, 2011
    #92
  3. Mr Butt

    Mr Butt Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,678
    186
    May 16, 2009

    splintered tittles are not new are they, lists like these are never easy
     
    Mr Butt, Nov 30, 2011
    Mr Butt, Nov 30, 2011
    #93
  4. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace

    82,092
    22,236
    Sep 15, 2009
    I haven't watched them yet, but based on what I've read it seems the first fight was close and could have gone either way. The rematch was clear win for L Rod, the rubber was a clear win for L rod and the 4th could have gone either way also (considering the point deduction).

    So that gives rod an extra year as top man.

    I wouldn't like to make any snap decisions before watching them but it certainly seems like the 3rd fight was a clear cut robbery.
     
    lufcrazy, Nov 30, 2011
    lufcrazy, Nov 30, 2011
    #94
  5. GPater11093

    GPater11093 Barry Full Member

    38,034
    93
    Nov 10, 2008
    I thought LMR clearly won the fourth although it was a messy scrappy close fight.
     
    GPater11093, Nov 30, 2011
    GPater11093, Nov 30, 2011
    #95
  6. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace

    82,092
    22,236
    Sep 15, 2009
    not at all, people rattle on about the "good old days" when there was one champ per division. There was maybe an era of 30 years max but for the most part boxing has been fractured.

    In the pioneer days you had white and black champions. In the first quarter of the century you had champions hiding behind nws decisions because they didn't wanna risk their belts. In the 40's you had world and duration titles. then from the 60's onwards you've had alphabet era's.

    I understand that linearity has a credible idea "he beat the champ so has the best claim" and I also understand it's one of the easier lists to compile (especially if you disregard any no decision nor catchweight fights) I just don't see it telling the full story.

    I do believe 9 times out of 10 if you beat the best you become the best, but my criteria differs slightly from the more traditional linear champions (no guys sitting on belts etc)
     
    lufcrazy, Nov 30, 2011
    lufcrazy, Nov 30, 2011
    #96
  7. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace

    82,092
    22,236
    Sep 15, 2009

    Made a slight change in 2009 as it isn't fair to punish shane for inactivity when it was pac who turned the fight down.
     
    lufcrazy, Nov 30, 2011
    lufcrazy, Nov 30, 2011
    #97
  8. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace

    82,092
    22,236
    Sep 15, 2009
    LMR definitely won the rubber match with emile.
     
    lufcrazy, Nov 30, 2011
    lufcrazy, Nov 30, 2011
    #98
  9. Stonehands89

    Stonehands89 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    10,776
    322
    Dec 12, 2005
    --Let's not overstate this. In terms of identifying the true world champions, this era just may be the worst since the days of the London Prize Ring Rules.

    It is easier to identify the champion circa 1890 through the 1910s than it is today with the sanctioning bodies and their shenanigans. Back then, title claimants would often seek each other out to get recognition as the world champion. Sure, there were tank jobs and frame-ups (boxing was practically an outlawed activity) but at least they were not forbidden from fighting one another.

    After the Walker Era passed in 1920, the champions prove to be far, far easier to identify than they would be from the 70s on. That's a half-century of comparative clarity! After 1977 the WBA and the WBC were given inordinate influence due to the networks and the Ring magazine scandal, and that encouraged new bodies to form and now we have a damn mess.

    And that's what it is -a damn mess- where the best don't fight the best -if they are not barred from risking their titles against real threats, then they have no need to fight a real threat because they already have a "world" title. I just never realized that there are 4 worlds one can be champion of.

    The result? Thrones remain vacant for 20 years because the top guys who are seduced into becoming fake champions represent apparently different worlds that DON'T COLLIDE.
     
    Stonehands89, Nov 30, 2011
    Stonehands89, Nov 30, 2011
    #99
  10. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace

    82,092
    22,236
    Sep 15, 2009
    Issues with the colour line certainly muddy the waters early doors.

    If you're happy to let the champ keep his belt during the war then yes it's still easy at that point. If you have no view on catchweight losses then yes it's still easy.

    I maintain the sport has spent the majority of it's history as a fractured sport.

    You say thrones go vacant, that is wholly dependant upon criteria.
     
    lufcrazy, Nov 30, 2011
    lufcrazy, Nov 30, 2011
    #100
Page 7 of 7