BoxRec

Captain Hook wrote:

FLINT ISLAND wrote:

MrBoxingUK2 wrote:are paper champions good for boxing? bit of a stupid question

Yes but the flip side of it is this - it has allowed fighters like :

Gary Lockett
Enzo Maccarenelli
Takloo
Anthony Farnell
Gavin Rees
etc
etc

to have "World" Champion status which gives them a bit of celebrity and allows them to cash in and make alot more money than if they were just a run of mill fighter.

Dont get me wrong - you should be able to make a good living as a British Champion - but these days its not as attractive as being a World Champion

We all know the above fighters when they have really stepped up have never been real World Class Champions

Takloo acquitted himself ok against Daniel Santos but was never gonna win

Maccarenelli and Lockett were both destroyed when they fought the NO 1 in their division.

Gavin Rees done ok - but was found out against Kotlenik

And Anthony Farnell never fought a World Class fighter because he was found out before he got a chance too.

But even though they got exposed at World level - they still managed to have a World title and make a good living in the mean time - more money they would have made without one.

So there is a plus side to having these bogus World titles about.....................for the fighters at least.

Rees was WBA champ fair and square so what are you talking about?

crusader wrote:

Captain Hook wrote:

FLINT ISLAND wrote: Yes but the flip side of it is this - it has allowed fighters like :

Gary Lockett
Enzo Maccarenelli
Takloo
Anthony Farnell
Gavin Rees
etc
etc

to have "World" Champion status which gives them a bit of celebrity and allows them to cash in and make alot more money than if they were just a run of mill fighter.

Dont get me wrong - you should be able to make a good living as a British Champion - but these days its not as attractive as being a World Champion

We all know the above fighters when they have really stepped up have never been real World Class Champions

Takloo acquitted himself ok against Daniel Santos but was never gonna win

Maccarenelli and Lockett were both destroyed when they fought the NO 1 in their division.

Gavin Rees done ok - but was found out against Kotlenik

And Anthony Farnell never fought a World Class fighter because he was found out before he got a chance too.

But even though they got exposed at World level - they still managed to have a World title and make a good living in the mean time - more money they would have made without one.

So there is a plus side to having these bogus World titles about.....................for the fighters at least.

Rees was WBA champ fair and square so what are you talking about?

Virtually all titlists are champions fair and square given that they won the belt from someone. Rees was no where near the level of the top fighters in the division and even at his best would be unable to compete with the top 140 pounders of today. He was probably near the very bottom of the top ten after he won the belt, so he was basically someone who benefited from the abundance of world titles in boxing today. He was a "world champion", but he was no where near being the best in the world

Therefore I think its accurate to say he fits in with the "paper champion" crew.

bigjack wrote:

FLINT ISLAND wrote:All these paper titles out there - IBA , WBF, WBU , WBO, , etc, etc..........even WBA, IBF and WBC have been lost alot of their worth into todays crazy World title climate.

On one hand these paper titles they are cluttering up the sport and confsuing fans and completly devaluing what it is to be a "World" Champion: I dont know of any other sport in the World where being a World Champion can come so cheaply.

On the other hand they give fighters - from these shores - the chance to call themselves "World" Champions and make a decent living off the back of their new found status as a "World" Champion - when the reality is they can never be really competitive at World level.

So are you for or against these numreous low rent cheap "World" titles ?

I'm all for fighters earning money from so called 'world titles'.true hardcore fans know who the real champs are,but the general public can be fooled into thinking that say for instance khan is the best in his weight division.

Captain Hook wrote:

crusader wrote:

Captain Hook wrote:
Rees was WBA champ fair and square so what are you talking about?

Virtually all titlists are champions fair and square given that they won the belt from someone. Rees was no where near the level of the top fighters in the division and even at his best would be unable to compete with the top 140 pounders of today. He was probably near the very bottom of the top ten after he won the belt, so he was basically someone who benefited from the abundance of world titles in boxing today. He was a "world champion", but he was no where near being the best in the world

Therefore I think its accurate to say he fits in with the "paper champion" crew.

We're talking WBU and IBO etc, they are the joke belts......the WBA isn't so therefore he is not a paper champion. He may have not been deserving of a belt in your opinion but he's not in the same league as a Matthew Hatton or Audley Harrison....

crusader wrote:

Captain Hook wrote:

crusader wrote: Virtually all titlists are champions fair and square given that they won the belt from someone. Rees was no where near the level of the top fighters in the division and even at his best would be unable to compete with the top 140 pounders of today. He was probably near the very bottom of the top ten after he won the belt, so he was basically someone who benefited from the abundance of world titles in boxing today. He was a "world champion", but he was no where near being the best in the world

Therefore I think its accurate to say he fits in with the "paper champion" crew.

We're talking WBU and IBO etc, they are the joke belts......the WBA isn't so therefore he is not a paper champion. He may have not been deserving of a belt in your opinion but he's not in the same league as a Matthew Hatton or Audley Harrison....

Well there is no exact definition of what a paper champion is, but I consider some of the WBA, IBF, WBC, title holders to be paper champions if they are barely top ten in their division. Paulus Moses is a WBA world champion at 135, but he is not one of the best fighters in the division, and therefore he is a paper champion in my opinion. I consider Rees to have been in the same boat, he would never be able to beat any of the top flight guys at 140 like a true champion would.

Just because you hold one of the "better" titles, doesn't mean you are more than a paper titlist. Yuri Nuzchencko was a WBA title holder as well, but most people didn't rank him in the top ten even after he won a belt.

ourkid1984 wrote:You can only be one world champion in football (world cup), Rugby (world cup), Cricket (world cup), Athletics (World Championships), Other athletic sports have their individual world championships, snooker (world championships) and many more, there are things like darts (if you call it a sport) that have more than one world champion and for most of them that have 2 or more world champions have 1 truely good sanctioning body and the rest are pretty poor. This is the same for boxing, expept in boxing it depends on the weight class what is the best sanctioning body/best champions.

The 4 main bodies in boxing is too much but unless you go back to the old system of one world champion per weight then there's not much you can do, it's too late.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

bigjack wrote:

FLINT ISLAND wrote:All these paper titles out there - IBA , WBF, WBU , WBO, , etc, etc..........even WBA, IBF and WBC have been lost alot of their worth into todays crazy World title climate.

On one hand these paper titles they are cluttering up the sport and confsuing fans and completly devaluing what it is to be a "World" Champion: I dont know of any other sport in the World where being a World Champion can come so cheaply.

On the other hand they give fighters - from these shores - the chance to call themselves "World" Champions and make a decent living off the back of their new found status as a "World" Champion - when the reality is they can never be really competitive at World level.

So are you for or against these numreous low rent cheap "World" titles ?

I'm all for fighters earning money from so called 'world titles'.true hardcore fans know who the real champs are,but the general public can be fooled into thinking that say for instance khan is the best in his weight division.

How many TRUE HARDCORE FANS ARE THERE? Not enough to ensure the future success of the sport. When a casual sports fan tunes into a 'world title fight' and sees a bunch of crap, it reinforces their negative opinions about boxing.

Sure, it's all well and good for the fighters to make nice purses, but why should they get money for old rope. At the end of the day, titles don't make money - good fights and promotion make money. Hopkins earnt jack all as a belt holder, until he beat Trinidad, before that nobody knew who he was. Hatton made money from packing in fans, and I don't think his WBU strap really had much to do with it, they enjoyed watching him fight.

TV companies insist on titles, they are as much to blame as promoters and sanctioning bodies. What they don't realise is that people just want to see good competitive fights between fighters they've heard of.

oliverfennell wrote:

ourkid1984 wrote:You can only be one world champion in football (world cup), Rugby (world cup), Cricket (world cup), Athletics (World Championships), Other athletic sports have their individual world championships, snooker (world championships) and many more, there are things like darts (if you call it a sport) that have more than one world champion and for most of them that have 2 or more world champions have 1 truely good sanctioning body and the rest are pretty poor. This is the same for boxing, expept in boxing it depends on the weight class what is the best sanctioning body/best champions.

The 4 main bodies in boxing is too much but unless you go back to the old system of one world champion per weight then there's not much you can do, it's too late.

Who is "the" world champion in tennis? Golf?

ourkid1984 wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:

ourkid1984 wrote:You can only be one world champion in football (world cup), Rugby (world cup), Cricket (world cup), Athletics (World Championships), Other athletic sports have their individual world championships, snooker (world championships) and many more, there are things like darts (if you call it a sport) that have more than one world champion and for most of them that have 2 or more world champions have 1 truely good sanctioning body and the rest are pretty poor. This is the same for boxing, expept in boxing it depends on the weight class what is the best sanctioning body/best champions.

The 4 main bodies in boxing is too much but unless you go back to the old system of one world champion per weight then there's not much you can do, it's too late.

Who is "the" world champion in tennis? Golf?

There is none and that's why I didn't mention them but with both of them, there is only 1 or 2 stand out players, so if anyone was to be any world champion it would bound to be one of them so for tennis it's either Nadal or Federer and for golf it's Tiger Woods when he's playing and if he's not then it can be anyone from about 20 players.

It is easier to define champions for those sports because everyone can play against anyone and if you want to win a grand slam in tennis or a major in golf then you have to compete against the very best in the world, the nearest boxing comes to that is the super 6 competition.