BoxRec

Riddick Blowe wrote:
I never credited them as 'world champions'. Everyone is a title holder until either beating the current widely recognised division's #1, or where there isn't a clear one, beating a rival who is claiming the same distinction (As Calzaghe finally did with Kessler). In these cases, you can call yourself the world champion of the division, and you will get recognition for it from Ring.

Thats a fine point, just hope you did post your criticisms of BBC/ITV/Sky when they were calling Witter, Woods and Froch world champions.

I think the Ring Magazine and the Ring championship is flawed though.... for me Ottke beating Mitchell was everybit the same achievement as Calzaghe beating Lacy... but one didn't get the ring championship, the other did. Then Vitali gets it for beating a part time golfer for a vacant WBC title. Hopkins can retire for a year but still call himself the "ring champion".

I know this isn't your point here, just saying even "independent" bodies have their flaws IMO. Glad your being consistent, just a shame nobody started a thread criticising Witter, Froch and Woods world title creditials.

stujones wrote:
and would it only be #1, #2 or #3 - if there is a WBO champion also ranked #4, if Kessler beat him would he be champion?

Also is it only a defeat that can make a fighter lose the "championship" - did you class Hopkins as "the champion" the night he fought Joe, even though it was a comeback? What about Hatton who did move out of the 140 devision, doesn't he get stripped? Or what happens in a scenerio where the "champion" continues to win fighting substandard opponents and someone else unifies all four titles (as the champion is just the IBO champion or something).

I'm not saying your wrong or criticising, just questions really. As I said, your showing consistency which is all what I was looking for in this thread.

No, that would be stretching it too far. Balzsay has done nothing to be top 5, and anyway, #1 beating #4 doesn't establish who is the best in the division, which is what crowning a champ is all about. #1 beating #3 only does so IMO when #2 and#3 are very close, like Margarito/Cotto/Williams were last June. I had Margarito at #3, and when he beat Cotto (my #1) I considered him the champ.
Bernard wasn't champ, but he was #1, and because Calzaghe was the super middleweight champ, he had the credibility to make it a title fight IMO, as he was a clear champ at his previous weight and there was nobody at LHW as good as him IMO except for Hopkins.
Hatton was clear that he intended to come back, it was not a permanent departure, so he retained his title.
The last scenario is highly unfortunate for the guy who unified the titles, but the champ remains the champ IMO. This is like the situation in the early 20th century, when the white HW champions drew the colour line and didn't defend against Wills, Langford, McVey etc. because they were black, despite them beating the best fighters of the era..

hitman09 wrote:

sg1985 wrote: amir khan will be a world champion if he beats kotelnik. fact

I would expect statements like that from nobody but casual fans and Khan nuthuggers. Kotelnik is not a world champion, and never has been.

spot on. even khan said he is the worlds worst ever champ ? what does that tell us all. it took khan mins to think of that question ? i mean wait till khan faces another prescott he will get ko'd again. i though we were getting a rematch. ?

decent point about lacy vs mitchell. I think the general thought was that Calzaghe and Lacy were the two best titleholders, even though Lacy and Mitchell both picked up their straps in vacant title fights of dubious distinction. Lacy got more exposure and was hyped up as a killing machine, so it was probably natural for him to be more highly thought of than Mitchell. Could Mitchell have beaten Lacy? Possibly, it was close.

The 'part time golfer' comment re Sanders though is missing the point. Sanders and Vitali were seen as the two most clear claimants to the world champion claim because Corrie had just beat up Wlad, he had more credentials than anyone else based on that one win. That he was a fat golfer is beside the point, he earned that fight because he did marginally more than anyone else.

leforge wrote:I can't see Khan winning, why not fight Jon Murray or Jon Thaxton or Euro champ at lightweight.

ideal fight i guess. well khan prob thinks that murray after a hugh pay day. i think that khan should have won a euro belt first instead of a world title shot.

Riddick Blowe wrote:decent point about lacy vs mitchell. I think the general thought was that Calzaghe and Lacy were the two best titleholders, even though Lacy and Mitchell both picked up their straps in vacant title fights of dubious distinction. Lacy got more exposure and was hyped up as a killing machine, so it was probably natural for him to be more highly thought of than Mitchell. Could Mitchell have beaten Lacy? Possibly, it was close.

The 'part time golfer' comment re Sanders though is missing the point. Sanders and Vitali were seen as the two most clear claimants to the world champion claim because Corrie had just beat up Wlad, he had more credentials than anyone else based on that one win. That he was a fat golfer is beside the point, he earned that fight because he did marginally more than anyone else.

The cynic in me thinks that the reason why the Ring changed their rules not to award Ottke with the title was because they didn't want to see "their" championship in Germany defended against no names... where as the runner up in the 2005 fighter of the year would have looked good to hold the ring belt. I honestly think had it been Calzaghe and Ottke in Germany then Ring would have found a loop hole.

As for the Heavyweight, yes I can see what your saying... but for me Ring again changed their original premise just so they could have a "ring" champion at the prestigious devision. Sure I can see your point, it is actually Vitali who was less deserving to fighting for the title... I would argue that Byrd was more worthy - having beaten Vitali. Vitali had lost his only 2 fights at world class at that stage.

hitman09 wrote:

stujones wrote:
and would it only be #1, #2 or #3 - if there is a WBO champion also ranked #4, if Kessler beat him would he be champion?

Also is it only a defeat that can make a fighter lose the "championship" - did you class Hopkins as "the champion" the night he fought Joe, even though it was a comeback? What about Hatton who did move out of the 140 devision, doesn't he get stripped? Or what happens in a scenerio where the "champion" continues to win fighting substandard opponents and someone else unifies all four titles (as the champion is just the IBO champion or something).

I'm not saying your wrong or criticising, just questions really. As I said, your showing consistency which is all what I was looking for in this thread.

No, that would be stretching it too far. Balzsay has done nothing to be top 5, and anyway, #1 beating #4 doesn't establish who is the best in the division, which is what crowning a champ is all about. #1 beating #3 only does so IMO when #2 and#3 are very close, like Margarito/Cotto/Williams were last June. I had Margarito at #3, and when he beat Cotto (my #1) I considered him the champ.
Bernard wasn't champ, but he was #1, and because Calzaghe was the super middleweight champ, he had the credibility to make it a title fight IMO, as he was a clear champ at his previous weight and there was nobody at LHW as good as him IMO except for Hopkins.
Hatton was clear that he intended to come back, it was not a permanent departure, so he retained his title.
The last scenario is highly unfortunate for the guy who unified the titles, but the champ remains the champ IMO. This is like the situation in the early 20th century, when the white HW champions drew the colour line and didn't defend against Wills, Langford, McVey etc. because they were black, despite them beating the best fighters of the era..

I think Chad Dawson, having beaten 3 Top #5 Light Heavyweights and a couple of others in the top 10 had a legitimate case of being above Joe Calzaghe, who'd never fought at the weight. He had a legitimate case to be #1 after Hopkins retired.

I think when a fighter retires, even if he comebacks, he sould be stripped of any title... a governing body title, or a "Boxing fans" title.

Halloween 3 is alright. Better than the other sequels. Sadly the great Nigel Kneale's script was toned down of the Celtic mythology by producer John Carpenter, and the remains were handed over to Carpenter's PA/best friend/tea boy/whatever, Tommy Lee Wallace for directorial duties. There was a great film in there somewhere - it just wasn't brought out. The story was vague & somewhat muddled, and it could have been a sci-fi classic, though it does have an eerie charm.

It can be hard to get that song out of your head - "Happy happy Halloween, Halloween, Halloween - Happy happy Halloween - Silver Shamrock".

Where the hell has the Halloween talk come from?

stujones wrote:

hitman09 wrote:

stujones wrote:
and would it only be #1, #2 or #3 - if there is a WBO champion also ranked #4, if Kessler beat him would he be champion?

Also is it only a defeat that can make a fighter lose the "championship" - did you class Hopkins as "the champion" the night he fought Joe, even though it was a comeback? What about Hatton who did move out of the 140 devision, doesn't he get stripped? Or what happens in a scenerio where the "champion" continues to win fighting substandard opponents and someone else unifies all four titles (as the champion is just the IBO champion or something).

I'm not saying your wrong or criticising, just questions really. As I said, your showing consistency which is all what I was looking for in this thread.

No, that would be stretching it too far. Balzsay has done nothing to be top 5, and anyway, #1 beating #4 doesn't establish who is the best in the division, which is what crowning a champ is all about. #1 beating #3 only does so IMO when #2 and#3 are very close, like Margarito/Cotto/Williams were last June. I had Margarito at #3, and when he beat Cotto (my #1) I considered him the champ.
Bernard wasn't champ, but he was #1, and because Calzaghe was the super middleweight champ, he had the credibility to make it a title fight IMO, as he was a clear champ at his previous weight and there was nobody at LHW as good as him IMO except for Hopkins.
Hatton was clear that he intended to come back, it was not a permanent departure, so he retained his title.
The last scenario is highly unfortunate for the guy who unified the titles, but the champ remains the champ IMO. This is like the situation in the early 20th century, when the white HW champions drew the colour line and didn't defend against Wills, Langford, McVey etc. because they were black, despite them beating the best fighters of the era..

I think Chad Dawson, having beaten 3 Top #5 Light Heavyweights and a couple of others in the top 10 had a legitimate case of being above Joe Calzaghe, who'd never fought at the weight. He had a legitimate case to be #1 after Hopkins retired.

I think when a fighter retires, even if he comebacks, he sould be stripped of any title... a governing body title, or a "Boxing fans" title.

He did have a case, but he would not have been far above Calzaghe if he had been, so my point re Froch/Taylor, Kessler and Bute applies to that situation too.

Although not if Dawson should be classed #1, which I think is a case given Bernard hadn't fought in a year and voluntarily announced his retirment. Will Scott Harrison be classed as the #1 Featherweight in the UK if/when he comesback without at least one warm up fight? Do we have rankings with asterix and say *#1 untill Lennox Lewis/Hopkins/Mayweather/Ray Leonard comeback.

stujones wrote:Although not if Dawson should be classed #1, which I think is a case given Bernard hadn't fought in a year and voluntarily announced his retirment. Will Scott Harrison be classed as the #1 Featherweight in the UK if/when he comesback without at least one warm up fight? Do we have rankings with asterix and say *#1 untill Lennox Lewis/Hopkins/Mayweather/Ray Leonard comeback.

I would base rankings on who I think the best fighter is. I thought Hopkins was a better fighter than both Calzaghe and Dawson before that fight, hence I rated him #1. Similarly, I would rate Manny Pacquiao as the #1 challenger to Hatton at LWW, despite never fighting at that weight.

Even though he retired? If its the Scott Harrison of old who comesback (if he comesback at Feather) then he would be the best Feather in the world... but it is an if.

Did you have Vitali as the #1 Heavyweight when he came back (before the Peter fight?).

Yes, I do think you need some sort of "guideline" to give a fighter a chance to say "okay that was spare of the moment, I'm not retired".. like if Joe Calzaghe unretired I would install him as the Super Middleweight champion - but Hopkins was nearly retired a year. For me if Mayweather fights again he would need at least one credible fight under his belt before I install him as #1... at whatever weight he fights.

stujones wrote:Even though he retired? If its the Scott Harrison of old who comesback (if he comesback at Feather) then he would be the best Feather in the world... but it is an if.

Did you have Vitali as the #1 Heavyweight when he came back (before the Peter fight?).

Yes, I do think you need some sort of "guideline" to give a fighter a chance to say "okay that was spare of the moment, I'm not retired".. like if Joe Calzaghe unretired I would install him as the Super Middleweight champion - but Hopkins was nearly retired a year. For me if Mayweather fights again he would need at least one credible fight under his belt before I install him as #1... at whatever weight he fights.

I didn't rate Vitaly #1 before his fight with Peter, or even top 10, due to being gone for 4 years, but if Mayweather came back, I would rate him as #1 challenger to Mosley at WW. I wouldn't install Joe as champion, he vacated, but rather as #1 contender for the vacant belt at either LHW or SMW.

hitman09 wrote:

stujones wrote:Even though he retired? If its the Scott Harrison of old who comesback (if he comesback at Feather) then he would be the best Feather in the world... but it is an if.

Did you have Vitali as the #1 Heavyweight when he came back (before the Peter fight?).

Yes, I do think you need some sort of "guideline" to give a fighter a chance to say "okay that was spare of the moment, I'm not retired".. like if Joe Calzaghe unretired I would install him as the Super Middleweight champion - but Hopkins was nearly retired a year. For me if Mayweather fights again he would need at least one credible fight under his belt before I install him as #1... at whatever weight he fights.

I didn't rate Vitaly #1 before his fight with Peter, or even top 10, due to being gone for 4 years, but if Mayweather came back, I would rate him as #1 challenger to Mosley at WW. I wouldn't install Joe as champion, he vacated, but rather as #1 contender for the vacant belt at either LHW or SMW.

I'll agree to disagree, for me if a fighter has retired for over 6 months a new number #1 has to be made.