BoxRec

bripez wrote:

Fergz16COTJ wrote: Quigg himself said after he thought he won the fight v Salinas and therefore he considers himself world champion

He might say that, but I don't believe that is what he believes in his heart.

He was given his title, drew his next fight - and the fight after, beating a boxer just inside the world top 100 doesn't make you a world champion.

Quigg is a good boxer and there are good fights out there - Frampton being the obvious one - but that is unlikely as they both separately pursue a "title" when in fact neither boxer will be the "real" champion.

Well Frampton is #2 with IBF and WBC, those are the routes he will be pursuing, no super champions there with LSC and Kiko as it stands now

Fergz16COTJ wrote:

bripez wrote:

Fergz16COTJ wrote: Quigg himself said after he thought he won the fight v Salinas and therefore he considers himself world champion

He might say that, but I don't believe that is what he believes in his heart.

He was given his title, drew his next fight - and the fight after, beating a boxer just inside the world top 100 doesn't make you a world champion.

Quigg is a good boxer and there are good fights out there - Frampton being the obvious one - but that is unlikely as they both separately pursue a "title" when in fact neither boxer will be the "real" champion.

Well Frampton is #2 with IBF and WBC, those are the routes he will be pursuing, no super champions there with LSC and Kiko as it stands now

And frampton gave kiko a lesson recently did he not

Fergz16COTJ wrote:

jameswilson wrote:

expe wrote:So Martin Murray is fighting in Monaco, with no world title on the line against an unnamed opponent.

Ah yes. I should explain to the un-initiated that expe doesn't consider anything other than the Super-title (assuming one is in existence at the weight class) to be a World title.

He doesn't mention this often. Only about 600 times on a 4 hourly cycle.

And i am of the same opinion as expe

Yeah I think you're missing the point. I'm not disputing his opinion isn't valid. But banging on and on and on and on about it......

macaca wrote:

Fergz16COTJ wrote:

bripez wrote: He might say that, but I don't believe that is what he believes in his heart.

He was given his title, drew his next fight - and the fight after, beating a boxer just inside the world top 100 doesn't make you a world champion.

Quigg is a good boxer and there are good fights out there - Frampton being the obvious one - but that is unlikely as they both separately pursue a "title" when in fact neither boxer will be the "real" champion.

Well Frampton is #2 with IBF and WBC, those are the routes he will be pursuing, no super champions there with LSC and Kiko as it stands now

And frampton gave kiko a lesson recently did he not

I wouldnt say he gave him a lesson, it was a much more even fight than I thought it would be - until the KO!

Fergz - hadnt realised you were on this forum, you rabid Jackalite!

Lost all interest in this interim, silver this, super that ....... to the point that I do not investigate what the fornicate belt is up for grabs anymore, any of the big 3 that choose this path of multiple this and that are only being destructive to their respectability they currently hold with the non casual boxing fan.

jameswilson wrote:

Fergz16COTJ wrote:[quote="jameswilson]
Ah yes. I should explain to the un-initiated that expe doesn't consider anything other than the Super-title (assuming one is in existence at the weight class) to be a World title.

He doesn't mention this often. Only about 600 times on a 4 hourly cycle.

And i am of the same opinion as expe

Yeah I think you're missing the point. I'm not disputing his opinion isn't valid. But banging on and on and on and on about it......[/quote][/quote][/quote]

No i got the point completely...just gave my two penneth worth on the same issue

slapbangwhallop wrote:

macaca wrote:[quote="Fergz16COTJ
He was given his title, drew his next fight - and the fight after, beating a boxer just inside the world top 100 doesn't make you a world champion.

Quigg is a good boxer and there are good fights out there - Frampton being the obvious one - but that is unlikely as they both separately pursue a "title" when in fact neither boxer will be the "real" champion.

Well Frampton is #2 with IBF and WBC, those are the routes he will be pursuing, no super champions there with LSC and Kiko as it stands now

And frampton gave kiko a lesson recently did he not[/quote]

I wouldnt say he gave him a lesson, it was a much more even fight than I thought it would be - until the KO!

Fergz - hadnt realised you were on this forum, you rabid Jackalite![/quote]

I get everywhere, me

I'm assuming as its Monaco this is another Hatton Promotions /Fondu arrangement.
Rabchenko on as well ?

jameswilson wrote:

expe wrote:So Martin Murray is fighting in Monaco, with no world title on the line against an unnamed opponent.

Ah yes. I should explain to the un-initiated that expe doesn't consider anything other than the Super-title (assuming one is in existence at the weight class) to be a World title.

He doesn't mention this often. Only about 600 times on a 4 hourly cycle.

I think I've mentioned it about 4 times before, plus explaining the WBA situation a couple of times. So how about you fornicate off moaning and shut your gob.

expe wrote:

jameswilson wrote:

expe wrote:So Martin Murray is fighting in Monaco, with no world title on the line against an unnamed opponent.

Ah yes. I should explain to the un-initiated that expe doesn't consider anything other than the Super-title (assuming one is in existence at the weight class) to be a World title.

He doesn't mention this often. Only about 600 times on a 4 hourly cycle.

I think I've mentioned it about 4 times before, plus explaining the WBA situation a couple of times. So how about you eff off moaning and shut your gob.

No. You seem to be suggesting you want it to be how it was before with there being 1 WBA champ, and saying Quigg and Froch wouldn't be WBA champs under the old scheme. Quigg I agree with but under the old scheme Ward would have been stripped of his WBA title due to his injury absence. So to say Froch isn't WBA champ fine, (who knows how the WBA would have gone about reinstating a champ under the old system) but don't say Ward is the champ over him because that's how it would have been before. Because it wouldn't have.

If Ward were stripped, would we see posts to the effect of "Who is the super middleweight champion of the world?"

Exactly.

macaca wrote:Lost all interest in this interim, silver this, super that ....... to the point that I do not investigate what the eff belt is up for grabs anymore, any of the big 3 that choose this path of multiple this and that are only being destructive to their respectability they currently hold with the non casual boxing fan.

Exactly. The casuals will cheer Quigg to his World Title wins in blissful ignorance.

If Murray officially jumps to Eddie Hearn (has he already gone) and wins the WBA title ordinary whatever it is called.... how much credit will matchroom and the fighters give to the promoters who got him the interim title fight in the first place.

There was no mention of it regarding Scott Quigg.

Bobbyptsd wrote:If Ward were stripped, would we see posts to the effect of "Who is the super middleweight champion of the world?"

Exactly.

Wilson - Under the old system Ward would have been stripped by the WBA?
Bobby - Whoaaaaa are you saying he wouldn't be the man?!?!?
Wilson - #facepalm.

Bobbyptsd wrote:If Ward were stripped, would we see posts to the effect of "Who is the super middleweight champion of the world?"

Exactly.

Wilson - Under the old system Ward would have been stripped by the WBA?
Bobby - Whoaaaaa are you saying he wouldn't be the man?!?!?
Wilson - #facepalm.

jameswilson wrote:

expe wrote:

jameswilson wrote:
Ah yes. I should explain to the un-initiated that expe doesn't consider anything other than the Super-title (assuming one is in existence at the weight class) to be a World title.

He doesn't mention this often. Only about 600 times on a 4 hourly cycle.

I think I've mentioned it about 4 times before, plus explaining the WBA situation a couple of times. So how about you eff off moaning and shut your gob.

No. You seem to be suggesting you want it to be how it was before with there being 1 WBA champ, and saying Quigg and Froch wouldn't be WBA champs under the old scheme. Quigg I agree with but under the old scheme Ward would have been stripped of his WBA title due to his injury absence. So to say Froch isn't WBA champ fine, (who knows how the WBA would have gone about reinstating a champ under the old system) but don't say Ward is the champ over him because that's how it would have been before. Because it wouldn't have.

Ward went 9 months without defending after the Froch fight and 14 after Dawson, although Rodriguez didn't make weight, making it a non title fight. Frankie Liles did exactly the same around 1997-99 and wasn't stripped.

There are obviously isolated instances of fighters keeping their titles and you have found one but historically the IBF and under their old guise the WBA always were pretty strict. The WBC would turn a blind eye for their favourites and the WBO have had loads of instances of not enforcing obligations.

jameswilson wrote:

Bobbyptsd wrote:If Ward were stripped, would we see posts to the effect of "Who is the super middleweight champion of the world?"

Exactly.

Wilson - Under the old system Ward would have been stripped by the WBA?
Bobby - Whoaaaaa are you saying he wouldn't be the man?!?!?
Wilson - #facepalm.

Well you can post this to twitter if you want I suppose. My point was that the belt is meaningless.

Bobbyptsd wrote:

jameswilson wrote:

Bobbyptsd wrote:If Ward were stripped, would we see posts to the effect of "Who is the super middleweight champion of the world?"

Exactly.

Wilson - Under the old system Ward would have been stripped by the WBA?
Bobby - Whoaaaaa are you saying he wouldn't be the man?!?!?
Wilson - #facepalm.

Well you can post this to twitter if you want I suppose. My point was that the belt is meaningless.

Thus your point had nothing to do with mine.