Alphabet soup vs old-time partial titles

[oliverfennell]

Nowadays, we typically refer to any of the big 4 as "world championships". I know some of you (especially G,I) disagree with this, but like it or not, it's pretty much accepted.

But, prior to the parting of the WBC and WBA in the late 60s, there were other examples of breakaway championships, or "versions" of the world title, yet we don't usually consider them when discussing official world title bouts and histories. I'm thinking of the New York State "version" (e.g. Joe Frazier vs Buster Mathis), the British "version" (e.g Lee Savold v Bruce Woodcock), earlier incarnations of the NBA and IBU, and event the "coloured" championship, as held by Jack Johnson before he was allowed to fight for the "real" title.

Question - is there any reason for these titles to be less regarded than more modern versions of split championships? Is it merely because they were not widely accepted at the time, and thus are remembered in the context of their era? But if that is so, is it really fair to say, for example, Bruce Seldon v Joe Hipp was more legitimately a "world heavyweight championship" match than Frazier v Mathis??

[Goodnight, Irene]

Nowadays, we typically refer to any of the big 4 as "world championships". I know some of you (especially G,I) disagree with this, but like it or not, it's pretty much accepted.

But, prior to the parting of the WBC and WBA in the late 60s, there were other examples of breakaway championships, or "versions" of the world title, yet we don't usually consider them when discussing official world title bouts and histories. I'm thinking of the New York State "version" (e.g. Joe Frazier vs Buster Mathis), the British "version" (e.g Lee Savold v Bruce Woodcock), earlier incarnations of the NBA and IBU, and event the "coloured" championship, as held by Jack Johnson before he was allowed to fight for the "real" title.

Question - is there any reason for these titles to be less regarded than more modern versions of split championships? Is it merely because they were not widely accepted at the time, and thus are remembered in the context of their era? But if that is so, is it really fair to say, for example, Bruce Seldon v Joe Hipp was more legitimately a "world heavyweight championship" match than Frazier v Mathis??

I was just reading this & thinking, "No, no, no, no, no!" about your, "Big Four" statement, only to find my name crop up a moment later. Kudos for the acknowledgement. I won't rant as a result, except to say, "pretty much accepted" is just giving in to the HBO propaganda.

Anyways.

You are onto something. People recognised these belts for the break-away versions they were, & treated them as such. They were in a day when the term, "linear" actually meant something. These belts are, objectively speaking, no better --- but they have marketing on their side.

[Ezzard]

Agree with GI.

I don't think people count titles any more. I don't bother. I'm a fan of the sport and I don't know what half of them mean.

I do look back on the old "Coloured Heavyweight Title" that Johnson and Langford etc held and feel that it was as legit as any other.

[gilgamesh]

Well let me put it this way. There have been several " Title bouts" in the Heavyweight division in the last ten years. And the only 3 guys I've seen have any kind of legit claim to the Heavyweight Championship are Lennox, Wladimir and Vitali Klitschko, and Rahman for a brief spell.

Chris Byrd, John Ruiz, Lamon Brewster, Sergei Liakhovich, Oleg Maskaev, Ruslan Chagaev, Nicolay Valuev, and Samuel Peter. Were merely contenders for the Championship in my opinion.

[Diamond WEAPON]

Nowadays, we typically refer to any of the big 4 as "world championships". I know some of you (especially G,I) disagree with this, but like it or not, it's pretty much accepted.

But, prior to the parting of the WBC and WBA in the late 60s, there were other examples of breakaway championships, or "versions" of the world title, yet we don't usually consider them when discussing official world title bouts and histories. I'm thinking of the New York State "version" (e.g. Joe Frazier vs Buster Mathis), the British "version" (e.g Lee Savold v Bruce Woodcock), earlier incarnations of the NBA and IBU, and event the "coloured" championship, as held by Jack Johnson before he was allowed to fight for the "real" title.

Question - is there any reason for these titles to be less regarded than more modern versions of split championships? Is it merely because they were not widely accepted at the time, and thus are remembered in the context of their era? But if that is so, is it really fair to say, for example, Bruce Seldon v Joe Hipp was more legitimately a "world heavyweight championship" match than Frazier v Mathis??

I was just reading this & thinking, "No, no, no, no, no!" about your, "Big Four" statement, only to find my name crop up a moment later. Kudos for the acknowledgement. I won't rant as a result, except to say, "pretty much accepted" is just giving in to the HBO propaganda.

Anyways.

You are onto something. People recognised these belts for the break-away versions they were, & treated them as such. They were in a day when the term, "linear" actually meant something. These belts are, objectively speaking, no better --- but they have marketing on their side.

The modern titles mean more than just "HBO propaganda" which is a silly term anyway because Jim Lmpley, Max Kellerman, and the others frequently criticize the ABC orgs. and have recently at least began mentioning the Ring/Lineal titles more.

In other countries though the ABC titles mean a lot more. In Thailand, Japan, Argentiana, Colombia, SOuth Africa etc. the fans of fighters from their will proudly proclaim them as "World Champions" regardless of who else may be out there to stake their claim.

[oliverfennell]

Well let me put it this way. There have been several " Title bouts" in the Heavyweight division in the last ten years. And the only 3 guys I've seen have any kind of legit claim to the Heavyweight Championship are Lennox, Wladimir and Vitali Klitschko, and Rahman for a brief spell.

Chris Byrd, John Ruiz, Lamon Brewster, Sergei Liakhovich, Oleg Maskaev, Ruslan Chagaev, Nicolay Valuev, and Samuel Peter. Were merely contenders for the Championship in my opinion.

Agreed in principle, but what I'm getting at is that, say, Savold and Langford would also be by definition "merely contenders" too (and usually are considered as such), but they were no worse (and in Langford's case significantly better) than the above list, and yet they are never considered in "world title" histories. Even if you say that's fair enough and argue all examples of non-linear titles should be disregarded, I'd also submit that even the splintered belts in the "olden days" were of a higher standard than those today. Frazier-Mathis is a perfect example. Nobody's going to tell me that's a lesser match than Haye-Harrison, Brewster-Meehan, Rahman-Barrett, Valuev-Beck etc etc.

Anyway, my point is not to justify contemporary alphabet belts, and I suppose I'm not necessarily calling for a retrospective "promotion" of old-time non-linear title fights, either. I just think it's a bit hypocritical for the latter set to continue to be ignored in official record-keeping of "world championships" when, if anything, those fights were often better matches than a lot of what the alphabets serve up these days.

[Ezzard]

I think becuase of the number of belts today you can't compare them as achievements to the past.

Many fighters from history were frozen out of the champonship picture.

Better to not hold a title and beat all the other top contenders than hold a belt and fight nobodies.

[Diamond WEAPON]

I think becuase of the number of belts today you can't compare them as achievements to the past.

Many fighters from history were frozen out of the champonship picture.

Better to not hold a title and beat all the other top contenders than hold a belt and fight nobodies.

Yeah, it's hard to compare them. You have to look specifically at each fighter's record and whom they fought in their own time in order to compare them. Some modern fighters still manage to scrape together nice runs despite the fractured title picture, but unfrtunately those guys tend to get overshadowed by the ones who pick on obviously much lower classes of opposition.