What is your opinion on Intriem/Regular Titles?

Just curious on people's thought process regarding these, me personally I don't consider them real Champions just high rated contenders but that is my opinion.

For example Robert Guerrero calls himself a 4/5 division World Champion by way of winning interim Titles in 2/3 divisions, do you consider him Legitimate 4weight Champ based off that or do you only count the real Titles he won at FW/SFW.

another example is Daniel Jacobs right now he has an intriem/regular WBA Title, yet the whole world knows Golovkin is the WBA Champion at 160.

Do you considered them both Champions or just GGG seeing as he's the actual Champ?

What say you.

 

I ask this because it seems like people change it depending on if they like the fighter or not.

Using Guerrero again as an example when he won the intriem WBC Title by beating Berto noone considered him a real Champion, yet when Thurman won an intriem WBA Title he was looked at as a real Champion.

Look at fighters like Lara who people consider a real Champion based off holding an Intriem WBA JMW Title, even Golovkin who people are talking about breaking the MW defense record when 75% of those were in defense of an intriem title.

At what point do you consider these guys more than contenders? And do you think they should get the same status as guys who won the actual title?

 

Good points politics do come into play as weak as that is, its absurd that fighters get stripped over not fighting a mando when they guy the pick to fight is better.

 

I'm not for bad matchups under the excuse of being mandatory but that is a whole other subject.

Just a scenario say Josesitto Lopez was mandatory for Brooks IBF Title and Brook fought Bradley in a unification. If the IBF Title stripped Brook for fighting Bradley over Lopez that would be bullsh!t.

Me personally I don't follow any of the individual org rankings, a guy not even in the top 20 in a division can somehow be #1 contender. I wouldn't defend a worse matchup for that reason.

In the Kovalev situation why would you be against two P4P fighters fighting, over a lesser bout.

 

That is a bit idiotic to say you'd put a club fighter over Ward, when one has clearly shown to be an Elite fighter.

To each his own and the reason why I ask but let me put another scenario out there for you.

If Brook fought Pacquiao a guy who is no longer Champion but is clearly top 3 at WW, over Dan who isn't even top 20 would you be OK with Brook being stripped for taking on a tougher and better opponent?

If given the option of seeing the #1 vs #2 fighter for no title or being forced to see #1 vs #15 because of a mandatory which one are you picking?

 

I think it works hand and hand it's hard to be considered a top fighter if you've never been or beaten a World Champ.
Sure not every Champion is equal but 80% of the time the actual Champion is one of 5 best in the division, in almost every ranking 3/4 title holders make up the top 5 universally there is not one division today where that isn't the case.