Breaking news: Lawrence Murphy gets Farnell

kevo · Post by **kevo** » 12 Jan 2004, 11:09

ypu're half right. I'm an Everton supporter

Don't get me wrong, he can be quite entertaining at times, I've just never been his biggest fan.

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 12 Jan 2004, 11:10

I hate the WBU and all the other phoney belts (WBF, IBO, etc). Someone like Hatton wins a British title and rather than go for the European, takes a step down (the WBU is worth less than the European in my opinion) and fights an aging super-featherweight, Tony Pep, to win his 'world' title.
I suppose when you see someone like Howard Eastman being mucked around as WBC number one, you can see why some promoters go for the lesser world titles.
But something still needs to be done to combat these joke titles. I don't know what. Any ideas?

kevo · Post by **kevo** » 12 Jan 2004, 11:18

I reckon that if you hold any of these joke titles, you forfeit your ranking with the major sanctioning bodies, so you'll never get to fight for one of the big three. It allready happens if you hold the WBO belt

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 12 Jan 2004, 11:20

Kevo wrote:I reckon that if you hold any of these joke titles, you forfeit your ranking with the major sanctioning bodies, so you'll never get to fight for one of the big three. It allready happens if you hold the WBO belt

That's an excellent suggestion.

kevo · Post by **kevo** » 12 Jan 2004, 11:26

I know its not the ideal solution, as we'll still have more than one champ per weight, but its a start.

JimStone · Post by **JimStone** » 12 Jan 2004, 11:31

Somebody once said to me: "The best way to massively reduce corruption, ludicrous law suits and other civil actions, not to mention the proliferation of phony belts would be to outlaw the involvement of Jewish people in boxing."

Lugh · Post by **Lugh** » 12 Jan 2004, 11:37

bennie wrote:
Kevo wrote:I reckon that if you hold any of these joke titles, you forfeit your ranking with the major sanctioning bodies, so you'll never get to fight for one of the big three. It allready happens if you hold the WBO belt
That's an excellent suggestion.

Yeah but Bennie (aged and venerable scribe! I am asking because I don't know for sure and assume you guys may remember) wasn't the same thing being said about the IBF/WBC/WBA when they were new?

You lot are asking for solutions to a problem that IMO has (theoretically) been solved - The Ring recognises champions not belts - and thats clearly the way forward.

Kind of sad that Barrerra - the guy who tried to break the mould - didn't (IMO) get enough kudos for just fighting the best (well Kelley and Tapia aside)

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 12 Jan 2004, 11:49

Lugh wrote:
bennie wrote:
Kevo wrote:I reckon that if you hold any of these joke titles, you forfeit your ranking with the major sanctioning bodies, so you'll never get to fight for one of the big three. It allready happens if you hold the WBO belt
That's an excellent suggestion.
Yeah but Bennie (aged and venerable scribe! I am asking because I don't know for sure and assume you guys may remember) wasn't the same thing being said about the IBF/WBC/WBA when they were new?

You lot are asking for solutions to a problem that IMO has (theoretically) been solved - The Ring recognises champions not belts - and thats clearly the way forward.

Kind of sad that Barrerra - the guy who tried to break the mould - didn't (IMO) get enough kudos for just fighting the best (well Kelley and Tapia aside)

That's true, Lugh. But I think we now know it was a case of the devil we know. In some ways, having two - and to a lesser extent, three - fine champions at one weight was actually acceptable because it allowed you to compare them and the champs would often meet.
More than that, the situation wasn't confused. It's the confusion that's the real killer.

Lugh · Post by **Lugh** » 12 Jan 2004, 12:06

I think that the real issue here is that "modern" fans think that if we just had one belt - we'd get more meaningful bouts, better competition and a "real" sense of who the best was.

In actual fact it is my understanding that it was no different then than it is now, with splinter bodies, champs ducking contenders, and blokes (conveniently) claiming they were being ducked!

How many "world champs" would we have had over the last ten years if it weren't for the alphabet boys?

I say stay as we are - it is as it always was.

Loynesy · Post by **Loynesy** » 12 Jan 2004, 12:13

FlawedG - and the person that gave you that quote has the intelligence of a donkey.

MightyWarrior · Post by **MightyWarrior** » 12 Jan 2004, 12:45

Looking back, we never realised we had it so good in the 70's/80's. It was two titles only - WBA or WBC. But even then is was seen a ridiculous situation: How can you have two world champs??!

But it led to blockbuster unification matches like Leonard v Hearns and Spinks v Braxton, which was no bad thing.

These days it's just surreal - IBO/WBU unification matches for instance...how long before we get a.......WBU Super Champion?!