MOVING OF THE GOALPOSTS WHEN IT COMES TO 'CHAMPIONS'

[loaded_gloves]

Hello all, browsing around boxing sites these days I notice that Vitali Klitschko is now considered a 'three time heavyweight champion' and only the 'fifth' man to ever achieve this in boxing.

For boxing purists presumably there can only be three men who have achieved three time champ status: Ali, Holyfield and Lewis. Saying five men have done this means certain people are now including Michael Moorer and Klitschko for winning WBO belts earlier in their careers, at a time when the WBO was not considered a major belt. Does this cheapen the heavyweight championship in your opinion?

When Moorer beat Schulz to win the vacant IBF belt in 1996 nobody was calling him 'the second man in history to win the heavyweight title three times'. So why is he now a 'three time champ'? Likewise, when Lewis and Holyfield were contesting the undisputed title in 1999, nobody was asking how they could be 'undisputed' without holding Herbie Hide (and later Klitschko's) WBO belt.

Is it good for boxing or it's history that so many fans are willing to recognise B-class fights as having been major world title wins/reigns now? Beating Herbie Hide or Smokin' Bert now is the same as beating Sonny Liston or Mike Tyson? Really?

It seems since Oscar de la Hoya and Hopkins fought for the undisputed middleweight title in '04 and included the WBO belt it seems to have retroactively gained some sort of credibility. Given the appalling list of title fights they have allowed since 1989, and that it has been a sort of marketing tool for some very popular fighters in recent years that perhaps their team didn't want to throw in with elite fighters, is it fair that a boxer who wins one of these trinkets is put up there as an equal with boxing historys authentic world champions? I can understand lazy sports journalists glancing at a record on Boxrec and listing the WBO or IBO title as a major title because, unless they're hardcore boxing fans, how on earth can they know the difference? But reading actual boxing websites, shouldn't we know better?

What do you think?

[stujones]

There has always seemed to be a difference for the Heavyweights with regards to the WBO. I guess its because the WBO rated Diamani (or however you spell it) as champion above Tyson in 1989. It didn't hold it in good stead.

At the moment I do classify the WBO as a legitmate heavyweight belt, there has been a couple of occasion in which the WBO champion has been considered the #1 in the division. Like when Bowe was champion - many people had Bowe ranked ahead of Foreman, Lewis etc and now that Klitshcko is champion - I have him as the #1. He was also quite a long standing #2 (or #3) to Lewis/Holyfield during his first reign.

In terms of the legitmasing of the WBO in other weight devsision - well that occured way before DLH vs Sturm (do I detect an attempt to negatively assess DLH's career?) - was Naz a geniune world champion before he fought Tom Johnson. Did Chris Eubank ever win a world title and ever deserve to be called a world champion? What about JC - only a world champion in 2006 was he?

Differences with the Heavyweights is we has a non fragmented champion when the WBO was formed and in Tyson's lineage we had a list of all time great fighters who didn't fight for the WBO title - Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis, Foreman etc. So this is what took the attention, in the other weight devisions - slightly different because the titles were fragmented.

[banjo]

I thought it was just Ali who legitamately claim 3-time champ status

If we start from when Larry Holmes was the undisputed champion you've got

Holmes
Michael Spinks
Tyson
Douglas
Holyfield
Bowe
Holyfield
Moorer
Foreman
Briggs
Lewis
Rahman
Lewis

and that's it, there is no undisputed champion currently.

[Datsue]

was Naz a geniune world champion before he fought Tom Johnson. .

No. Beat a bloke who won his title from a fella who won his vacant belt from a fella a division below (who had failed twice at Euro level anyway) in a set-up TV title fight. Not Robbo's fault he upset the script, but to claim that somehow made Robbo a legitimate champion is ludicrous, Stu. So, yah. Naz = not world champ for beating Steve Robinson, I'm afraid. Beating Vazquez, Johnson, Kelley etc etc = world champ. Simples.

If we start from when Larry Holmes was the undisputed champion you've got

Don't mean to nitpick mate but Holmes was never undisputed champ. He gained recognition because he beat the former champ coming out of retirement (& thereby "legitimising" his claim in the eyes of pedants, boring twats & old people), in much the same way Ezzard Charles had to beat the retired Joe Louis. & also 'cos every other title holder was either fat, a crack-head or a fat crack-head who couldn't hold onto their belt for more than five minutes, while Holmes turned back challenger after challenger.

[banjo]

was Naz a geniune world champion before he fought Tom Johnson. .

No. Beat a bloke who won his title from a fella who won his vacant belt from a fella a division below (who had failed twice at Euro level anyway) in a set-up TV title fight. Not Robbo's fault he upset the script, but to claim that somehow made Robbo a legitimate champion is ludicrous, Stu. So, yah. Naz = not world champ for beating Steve Robinson, I'm afraid. Beating Vazquez, Johnson, Kelley etc etc = world champ. Simples.

If we start from when Larry Holmes was the undisputed champion you've got

Don't mean to nitpick mate but Holmes was never undisputed champ. He gained recognition because he beat the former champ coming out of retirement (& thereby "legitimising" his claim in the eyes of pedants, boring twats & old people), in much the same way Ezzard Charles had to beat the retired Joe Louis. & also 'cos every other title holder was either fat, a crack-head or a fat crack-head who couldn't hold onto their belt for more than five minutes, while Holmes turned back challenger after challenger.

Larry did beat every heavy worth fighting, I'd say that classes him as undisputed and then ironically lost to a light heavyweight.

[Datsue]

Oh yeah, I agree vaguely with the thrust of the OP.

But such pub arguments as "Who's the proper champ" bore me to tears, in that no-one running the sport or even involved in a fighting capacity has appeared to care about such things for years, so I don't see why we should have to.

I mean, you start thinking of Shannon Briggs having some kind of claim to heavyweight champ status & sanity leaves the building, no?

[banjo]

Oh yeah, I agree vaguely with the thrust of the OP.

But such pub arguments as "Who's the proper champ" bore me to tears, in that no-one running the sport or even involved in a fighting capacity has appeared to care about such things for years, so I don't see why we should have to.

I mean, you start thinking of Shannon Briggs having some kind of claim to heavyweight champ status & sanity leaves the building, no?

Well I've always been fond of Shannon you see, two reasons 1) he has a girls name and 2) Shannon the Cannon is an awesome nickname and therefore I reward him with the title "Heavyweight Champion of the World(for a bit)"

[Datsue]

Fair play. Deciding questions of legitimacy --legitimacy! Bizarre, innit? The only people who care about legitimacy are aristocrats deciding on primogeniture & fvcking boxing fans! As if the heavyweight championship were a tangible "thing"you could lose down the back of a sofa, rather than a title conferred by one's deeds!-- on the basis of a nickname is about as sane as the traditional methods used, imo.

[johnswan1]

WBO or WBC, who gives a fornicating shit?

Did Matthew Hatton and Saul Alvarez really do enough to be fighting it out at the weekend for the vacant WBC championship of the world at Light Middleweight?

It's all bullshit.

We now have a prospect holding the WBC belt, being touted as the youngest in history etc., but the reality is that he is still on the learning curve and there isn't a chance in hell that his promoter would put him in with the top rated guys in the division such as Angulo, Cintron or Cotto.

Although it has it's flaws, the Ring ratings are the most relevant in my opinion as one doesn't need to pay sanctioning fees or backhanders to stay in the ratings.

The Ring has WBC title holder Alvarez ranked 10th in the division, so that goes to show how much a WBC title is worth these days.

Historically the WBC was the most prestigious of belts but let's take a look at how their current champions are ranked by the Ring:

Strawweight Kazuto Ioka February 11, 2011 - 2nd, no champion
Light flyweight Gilberto Keb Baas November 6, 2010 - 2nd, Giovani Segura is champion
Flyweight Pongsaklek Wonjongkam March 27, 2010 - champion
Super flyweight Tomás Rojas September 20, 2010 - 3rd, no champion
Bantamweight Nonito Donaire February 19, 2011 - 2nd, no champion
Super bantamweight Toshiaki Nishioka December 18, 2008 - 2nd, no champion
Featherweight Hozumi Hasegawa November 26, 2010 - 11th, no champion
Super featherweight Takahiro Aoh November 26, 2010 - 9th, no champion
Lightweight Humberto Soto March 13, 2010 - 3rd, Juan Marquez is champion
Super lightweight Timothy Bradley January 29, 2011 - 2nd, no champion
Welterweight Andre Berto June 21, 2008 - 4th, no champion
Super welterweight Saul Alvarez March 5, 2011 - 10th, no champion
Middleweight Sebastian Zbik January 17, 2011 - 7th, Sergio Martinez is champion
Super middleweight Carl Froch November 27, 2010 - 4th, no champion
Light heavyweight Jean Pascal June 19, 2009 - champion
Cruiserweight Krzysztof Włodarczyk May 16, 2010 - 4th, no champion
Heavyweight Vitali Klitschko December 12, 2008 - 2nd, Wladimir Klitschko is champion

So there you have it. In the 17 divisions, the WBC has just 6 of their champions rated as the highest ranked guy in their division. These are:

Strawweight Kazuto Ioka
Flyweight Pongsaklek Wonjongkam
Bantamweight Nonito Donaire
Super bantamweight Toshiaki Nishioka
Super lightweight Timothy Bradley
Light heavyweight Jean Pascal

[earsjohn]

Totally agree. There is no such thing as the "Proper Champ". I simply use my own judgement and probably a significant amount of bias and recognise someone who I consider to be the most accomplished at a certain weight. But I don't publish my ratings and rarely do they come up in standard conversation, so it's just something that keeps me entertained while reading Boxing News and arguing with americans on Boxrec.

As an example, Sergio Martinez is the best middleweight in the world. If Dzinzuruk beats him he has a decent claim. Sturm doesn't come into consideration because he's dull and fights nobodies. Nobody else comes into consideration. I'm like those Amazonian tribesman when it comes to ratings - they have words for the numbers "one", "two" and "three", but after that it's just "more". With boxing ratings, I have a "one", a "two" and maybe a "three" but the rest are the same. What is the point of being ranked Number 6 at Lightweight (as John Murray is by the Ring for that man who considers the Ring the best ratings), especially if you've not fought Number 5 or Number 7. How can anyone legitimately say that 6 is better than 7 but not so good as 5?

[johnswan1]

This thread gave me the idea of looking at a league table of governing bodies based on how highly their fighters are rated by the Ring. The results are interesting and are posted under a new topic.

[stujones]

Datsue - two of those fighters you mentioned were only defences of Naz's belt. Kevin Kelley especially hadn't won a world title belt in years. Okay Vasquez was the lineal WBA title, but I think him being stripped was karma for a one of the worst judges decisions I've seen - on the Holyfield vs Moorer II bill.

I think a fighter proves himself a world champion, and I think Robinson's reign as WBO champion and the quality defences he made - certified him as a champion - I'm bias there no doubt.

Datsue - What about Eubank? Never a world champion then. Before the BBBoC realised there was a load of money on the table for Benn vs Eubank they refused to sanction Benn's world title defenses - refused to recognise the WBO (Ironic how things turned out). Eubank beat a guy who had, just the year previously lost his commonwealth title to an unheralded fighter. The BBBoC wouldn't recognise him as a world champion.... so as a consquence, was Eubank?

[Tommy Gunn13]

Datsue - two of those fighters you mentioned were only defences of Naz's belt. Kevin Kelley especially hadn't won a world title belt in years. Okay Vasquez was the lineal WBA title, but I think him being stripped was karma for a one of the worst judges decisions I've seen - on the Holyfield vs Moorer II bill.

I think a fighter proves himself a world champion, and I think Robinson's reign as WBO champion and the quality defences he made - certified him as a champion - I'm bias there no doubt.

Datsue - What about Eubank? Never a world champion then. Before the BBBoC realised there was a load of money on the table for Benn vs Eubank they refused to sanction Benn's world title defenses - refused to recognise the WBO (Ironic how things turned out). Eubank beat a guy who had, just the year previously lost his commonwealth title to an unheralded fighter. The BBBoC wouldn't recognise him as a world champion.... so as a consquence, was Eubank?

Totally agree with what your saying about Robinson.he beat all are top boxers who was all world class around that time&if im honest i backed all of them to beat him..

[Datsue]

Datsue - What about Eubank? Never a world champion then. Before the BBBoC realised there was a load of money on the table for Benn vs Eubank they refused to sanction Benn's world title defenses - refused to recognise the WBO (Ironic how things turned out). Eubank beat a guy who had, just the year previously lost his commonwealth title to an unheralded fighter. ?

As all this is academic & kinda sad anyway, but now you've asked, no, no I don't. But then again I don't really care about such things other than as something to argue pointlessly & endlessly about on amessage board.

[Matt W]

I follow this sport pretty closely yet realised the other day just how few current 'champions' I can name. Reason? I couldn't give a toss anymore about who holds what belt. They have no credibility at all for me with all of the interim / super etc etc bullsh1t. All I care about is good, competitive fights.

Is this good for the sport? Absolutely not - to the casual fan the first question they will ask regarding a fight is 'who's the champion then?'. I've given up even trying to answer. The whole thing is an utter, utter farce.

One of my earliest experiences as a fan was reading history of boxing books as a 10 / 11 year old and finding out about the history of each division and it's champions. What will the sport's history look like to the fans of 40-50 years' time? The 'governing' bodies are completely ruining the sport's heritage.

[m1kee50]

I follow this sport pretty closely yet realised the other day just how few current 'champions' I can name. Reason? I couldn't give a toss anymore about who holds what belt. They have no credibility at all for me with all of the interim / super etc etc bullsh1t. All I care about is good, competitive fights.

Is this good for the sport? Absolutely not - to the casual fan the first question they will ask regarding a fight is 'who's the champion then?'. I've given up even trying to answer. The whole thing is an utter, utter farce.

One of my earliest experiences as a fan was reading history of boxing books as a 10 / 11 year old and finding out about the history of each division and it's champions. What will the sport's history look like to the fans of 40-50 years' time? The 'governing' bodies are completely ruining the sport's heritage.

like a cross between a railway junction and a jeremy-kyle-style family tree, splits, new lines coming out of nowhere, turning back into itself for a few years then unravelling again (Hopkins, Lewis, etc)