BoxRec

I always thought the WBC had the most prestige but different organisations have had excellent champions and over the years all have had their scandals.

Ricky_ wrote:

Taki... wrote: Never mind any of that beating the man to be the man nonsense, eh?

Nonsense is exactly what it is.

I agree for the most part, and I find it funny when people crap all over the ABC belts yet worship so-called lineal titles. They are just another set of titles and unlike most others come with no obligations, allowing fighters to face pretty much anyone with no standards for title defenses. I don't really put much stock into titles in terms of where I rank fighters, and I think that should be done based on who they face and the nature of their performances, regardless of what labels are attached to the winner. Hence, being lineal champion shouldn't add to a fighter's credibility independent of their level of opposition and impressivness of their showings.

If GGG beats Canelo for the lineal title people shouldn't evaluate the former and his win any more highly than they would if Canelo wasn't considered lineal champion but all else was the same.

Woh, look at all the ggg fanboys raging like tweens when someone has a pop at One Direction.
The FACT is that only one fighter can lay any kind of claim to being 'the only champion' at MW and it's quite simply not ggg.
It's also rather disingenuous to suggest I implied anything other than that.
Lets be honest, shouting 'troll' in a high pitched voice isn't a reasoned argument.

palooka wrote:I don't think it's nonsense but it does throw up some champs who are clearly inferior and often there is a blurring between who 'the man' is - eg when a title is vacated. I think Golovkin is the beat at 160 as Cotto and Alvarez have been fighting catch weight bouts.

I don't disagree with anything you've written, but the claim was that Golovkin was the ONLY champion at MW. Golovkin is neither undisputed nor lineal making the claim baseless.

Taki... wrote:

palooka wrote:I don't think it's nonsense but it does throw up some champs who are clearly inferior and often there is a blurring between who 'the man' is - eg when a title is vacated. I think Golovkin is the beat at 160 as Cotto and Alvarez have been fighting catch weight bouts.

I don't disagree with anything you've written, but the claim was that Golovkin was the ONLY champion at MW. Golovkin is neither undisputed nor lineal making the claim baseless.

Canelo and Jacobs are very good fighters, Saunders is also a skilled boxer. Canelo beat Cotto at a catch weight under the middleweight limit, Jacobs got an excellent win v Quillan but has been stopped himself, Saunders won a dire bout last night and has limited experience at top level. Golovkin hasn't yet had any really top drawer competition but has cut a swathe through decent fighters at the middleweight limit he also had plenty of top level amateur experience. If you view Alvarez as the true champ that's OK and I understand the reasoning but I do think Golovkin is the better fighter and has a better middleweight resume.

Taki... wrote:Woh, look at all the ggg fanboys raging like tweens when someone has a pop at One Direction.
The FACT is that only one fighter can lay any kind of claim to being 'the only champion' at MW and it's quite simply not ggg.
It's also rather disingenuous to suggest I implied anything other than that.
Lets be honest, shouting 'troll' in a high pitched voice isn't a reasoned argument.

your that other crazy dude spewing sick stuff.
get a life dude.
What would you think the odds would be. any present fighter vs. 3g at mw, 154 or 168 ? ( pick any you choose )
Who is the best mw right now and why ?
try and answer these rather simple questions without insulting anybody, talk complete nonsense and be honest.
I bet you cant !

Taki... wrote:Woh, look at all the ggg fanboys raging like tweens when someone has a pop at One Direction.
The FACT is that only one fighter can lay any kind of claim to being 'the only champion' at MW and it's quite simply not ggg.
It's also rather disingenuous to suggest I implied anything other than that.
Lets be honest, shouting 'troll' in a high pitched voice isn't a reasoned argument.

That the lineal champ is the one true champion is simply an opinion, as is the belief that the true champion is the best fighter, as is the belief that the true champion is the one that has made the most title defenses in the division, and so on.

palooka wrote:

Taki... wrote:

palooka wrote:I don't think it's nonsense but it does throw up some champs who are clearly inferior and often there is a blurring between who 'the man' is - eg when a title is vacated. I think Golovkin is the beat at 160 as Cotto and Alvarez have been fighting catch weight bouts.

I don't disagree with anything you've written, but the claim was that Golovkin was the ONLY champion at MW. Golovkin is neither undisputed nor lineal making the claim baseless.

Canelo and Jacobs are very good fighters, Saunders is also a skilled boxer. Canelo beat Cotto at a catch weight under the middleweight limit, Jacobs got an excellent win v Quillan but has been stopped himself, Saunders won a dire bout last night and has limited experience at top level. Golovkin hasn't yet had any really top drawer competition but has cut a swathe through decent fighters at the middleweight limit he also had plenty of top level amateur experience. If you view Alvarez as the true champ that's OK and I understand the reasoning but I do think Golovkin is the better fighter and has a better middleweight resume.

I don't think I'd claim anything definitive. As you pointed out Alvarez's route to the title leaves some question marks. But he at least can point to something concrete. That's just not true for Golovkin.
I don't think speculating as to who is better, or who beats who changes that.

Taki... wrote:

palooka wrote:

Taki... wrote: I don't disagree with anything you've written, but the claim was that Golovkin was the ONLY champion at MW. Golovkin is neither undisputed nor lineal making the claim baseless.

Canelo and Jacobs are very good fighters, Saunders is also a skilled boxer. Canelo beat Cotto at a catch weight under the middleweight limit, Jacobs got an excellent win v Quillan but has been stopped himself, Saunders won a dire bout last night and has limited experience at top level. Golovkin hasn't yet had any really top drawer competition but has cut a swathe through decent fighters at the middleweight limit he also had plenty of top level amateur experience. If you view Alvarez as the true champ that's OK and I understand the reasoning but I do think Golovkin is the better fighter and has a better middleweight resume.

I don't think I'd claim anything definitive. As you pointed out Alvarez's route to the title leaves some question marks. But he at least can point to something concrete. That's just not true for Golovkin.
I don't think speculating as to who is better, or who beats who changes that.

GGG could claim that he is the true champion, because among the current 'Big 4' belt holders he's successfully defended one of his MW titles the most times.

Is that concrete enough?

crusader wrote:

Taki... wrote:Woh, look at all the ggg fanboys raging like tweens when someone has a pop at One Direction.
The FACT is that only one fighter can lay any kind of claim to being 'the only champion' at MW and it's quite simply not ggg.
It's also rather disingenuous to suggest I implied anything other than that.
Lets be honest, shouting 'troll' in a high pitched voice isn't a reasoned argument.

That the lineal champ is the one true champion is simply an opinion, as is the belief that the true champion is the best fighter, as is the belief that the true champion is the one that has made the most title defenses in the division, and so on.

There is a difference between expressing an opinion and making a statement.
And really if you're going to make an argument its usually a good idea to be able to back it up by using tools such as logic, reason or facts.
Using your criteria that the true champion is the one who has made the most defences could mean that Wilder is the true champ at HW. Easy to make that statement, but less than easy to formulate any kind of convincing argument to back it up.

if wilder had beaten almost the whole top 20 of the hw division it would make sense wouldnt it. who is the big mw guns that 3g hasnt met ? please do answer !

crusader wrote:

Taki... wrote:

palooka wrote:
Canelo and Jacobs are very good fighters, Saunders is also a skilled boxer. Canelo beat Cotto at a catch weight under the middleweight limit, Jacobs got an excellent win v Quillan but has been stopped himself, Saunders won a dire bout last night and has limited experience at top level. Golovkin hasn't yet had any really top drawer competition but has cut a swathe through decent fighters at the middleweight limit he also had plenty of top level amateur experience. If you view Alvarez as the true champ that's OK and I understand the reasoning but I do think Golovkin is the better fighter and has a better middleweight resume.

I don't think I'd claim anything definitive. As you pointed out Alvarez's route to the title leaves some question marks. But he at least can point to something concrete. That's just not true for Golovkin.
I don't think speculating as to who is better, or who beats who changes that.

GGG could claim that he is the true champion, because among the current 'Big 4' belt holders he's successfully defended one of his MW titles the most times.

Is that concrete enough?

How exactly is that concrete. Calzaghe was a better SM than RJJ because he had more defences? As criteria goes its fatuous at best.

Butterbean wrote:if wilder had beaten almost the whole top 20 of the hw division it would make sense wouldnt it. who is the big mw guns that 3g hasnt met ? please do answer !

Well according to boxrecs rankings ggg has beaten precisely none of the other top 5 ranked MWs. Not that it makes any difference to the point I have so eloquently been making.

Golovkin just tweeted:

Great fight last night! Congratulations to @bjsaunders_ on the win #LeeSaunders

Fair to say his English still needs some work, he's definitely using the word 'great' incorrectly there.

Taki... wrote:

crusader wrote:

Taki... wrote:Woh, look at all the ggg fanboys raging like tweens when someone has a pop at One Direction.
The FACT is that only one fighter can lay any kind of claim to being 'the only champion' at MW and it's quite simply not ggg.
It's also rather disingenuous to suggest I implied anything other than that.
Lets be honest, shouting 'troll' in a high pitched voice isn't a reasoned argument.

That the lineal champ is the one true champion is simply an opinion, as is the belief that the true champion is the best fighter, as is the belief that the true champion is the one that has made the most title defenses in the division, and so on.

There is a difference between expressing an opinion and making a statement.
And really if you're going to make an argument its usually a good idea to be able to back it up by using tools such as logic, reason or facts.
Using your criteria that the true champion is the one who has made the most defences could mean that Wilder is the true champ at HW. Easy to make that statement, but less than easy to formulate any kind of convincing argument to back it up.

Perhaps you should listen to your own advice, because in none of your posts have you used facts and logical reasoning in a way that makes your arguments strong ones. You basically asked a question, then asked a rhetorical question, then moaned about trolls and people not using logic and facts even though you're short on those yourself.

There is no unarguable, universal law concerning who the 'true champion' is in cases like this, nor is there overwhelming consensus which has established a clear convention. There are, however, many conceptions of the label that can be weighed against each other in terms of which one best captures the essence of what the true champion is, which is of course subjective. One can make arguments based on lineage, but one can also say, with at least as much force in my view, that the person (some may just limit this to major title holders) who has most separated themselves from their peers based on the quality of their opposition and the nature of their performances at the weight deserves to be called division champion more than any other.

How exactly is that concrete. Calzaghe was a better SM than RJJ because he had more defences? As criteria goes its fatuous at best.

Do you know what concrete means? If you do I'm not sure why you can't understand my point.

Going by number of title defenses would reduce vagueness and help add objectivity to the determination of who the true champ is, whether the champ is considered the best fighter in the division or not. As you acknowledge, however, a measure can be concrete yet inappropriate to use, and nowhere did I suggest that it would be ideal to go by title defenses even though doing so would be fairly concrete. By the way, if Gabe Rosado upset Saul Alvarez at 155 a few months from now wouldn't it also seem fatuous to say that Rosado is better than GGG?

Taki... wrote:

Butterbean wrote:if wilder had beaten almost the whole top 20 of the hw division it would make sense wouldnt it. who is the big mw guns that 3g hasnt met ? please do answer !

Well according to boxrecs rankings ggg has beaten precisely none of the other top 5 ranked MWs. Not that it makes any difference to the point I have so eloquently been making.

well, what were the rankings of many of them at the time he met them ?
you just failed big time dude.
tah tah.

heck, many of them more or less stopped fighting after he did them.
and this you musy please answer, please.
how many top five mws has canelo faced ?
how many top five mws has any of the other mws faced ?
and last, but not least, could you please explain the meaning of "eloquently" ?

Taki (aka kooli) your arguement that Alvarez is the best is floored by Alvarez himself, his reason for not fighting GGG first was that HE wasn't a true MW, so how can he be the best, your labelling him something he's not willing to call himself

Butterbean wrote:heck, many of them more or less stopped fighting after he did them.
and this you musy please answer, please.
how many top five mws has canelo faced ?
how many top five mws has any of the other mws faced ?
and last, but not least, could you please explain the meaning of "eloquently" ?

You, and it appears a few others, are entirely missing the point. So let me try to explain... again.

The claim was made that ggg is the only MW champion.
Factually this can be achieved in one of two ways. That's either undisputed or lineal.
Now whilst ggg can claim to have achieved neither of those two criteria. Alvarez by contrast can lay claim to one.
Any other criteria is either speculative -- ggg is better, ggg would beat Alvarez, etc -- or arbitrary -- ggg has better opposition, ggg has more defences.
That argument is both reasoned and factual.
As for eloquence? It's wasted here.

Pureist wrote:Taki (aka kooli) your arguement that Alvarez is the best is floored by Alvarez himself, his reason for not fighting GGG first was that HE wasn't a true MW, so how can he be the best, your labelling him something he's not willing to call himself

I'm not arguing 'Alvarez is the best'. I know its confusing to see an opinion that's not based on bias or speculation, but if you read the reply I gave to butterbean maybe the mists will clear.

Taki... wrote:

Butterbean wrote:heck, many of them more or less stopped fighting after he did them.
and this you musy please answer, please.
how many top five mws has canelo faced ?
how many top five mws has any of the other mws faced ?
and last, but not least, could you please explain the meaning of "eloquently" ?

You, and it appears a few others, are entirely missing the point. So let me try to explain... again.

The claim was made that ggg is the only MW champion.
Factually this can be achieved in one of two ways. That's either undisputed or lineal.
Now whilst ggg can claim to have achieved neither of those two criteria. Alvarez by contrast can lay claim to one.
Any other criteria is either speculative -- ggg is better, ggg would beat Alvarez, etc -- or arbitrary -- ggg has better opposition, ggg has more defences.
That argument is both reasoned and factual.
As for eloquence? It's wasted here.

this is just mad son. youre repeating and contradicting yourself over and over. why dont you just try and answer the questions i asked you. is it really that hard.

almost none of what you state is real, and the rest is a mix of reallity, imagination and your need to fit these things in your you vs. everybody else world. take care. one last word from me to you. once again do as i wrote you. get help.

Canelo is the lineal 155 champion. He's never had a middleweight fight. Undisputed 155 champion of the world

crusader wrote:

Taki... wrote:

crusader wrote:
That the lineal champ is the one true champion is simply an opinion, as is the belief that the true champion is the best fighter, as is the belief that the true champion is the one that has made the most title defenses in the division, and so on.

There is a difference between expressing an opinion and making a statement.
And really if you're going to make an argument its usually a good idea to be able to back it up by using tools such as logic, reason or facts.
Using your criteria that the true champion is the one who has made the most defences could mean that Wilder is the true champ at HW. Easy to make that statement, but less than easy to formulate any kind of convincing argument to back it up.

Perhaps you should listen to your own advice, because in none of your posts have you used facts and logical reasoning in a way that makes your arguments strong ones. You basically asked a question, then asked a rhetorical question, then moaned about trolls and people not using logic and facts even though you're short on those yourself.

There is no unarguable, universal law concerning who the 'true champion' is in cases like this, nor is there overwhelming consensus which has established a clear convention. There are, however, many conceptions of the label that can be weighed against each other in terms of which one best captures the essence of what the true champion is, which is of course subjective. One can make arguments based on lineage, but one can also say, with at least as much force in my view, that the person (some may just limit this to major title holders) who has most separated themselves from their peers based on the quality of their opposition and the nature of their performances at the weight deserves to be called division champion more than any other.

How exactly is that concrete. Calzaghe was a better SM than RJJ because he had more defences? As criteria goes its fatuous at best.

Do you know what concrete means? If you do I'm not sure why you can't understand my point.

Going by number of title defenses would reduce vagueness and help add objectivity to the determination of who the true champ is, whether the champ is considered the best fighter in the division or not. As you acknowledge, however, a measure can be concrete yet inappropriate to use, and nowhere did I suggest that it would be ideal to go by title defenses even though doing so would be fairly concrete. By the way, if Gabe Rosado upset Saul Alvarez at 155 a few months from now wouldn't it also seem fatuous to say that Rosado is better than GGG?

Are you being deliberately obtuse?
Well let me edify you anyway.

Firstly, the only factual case that can be made for a single champion at MW is that for Alvarez.
As I've pointed out previously there are in fact only two ways of becoming the 'true champion' -- your choice of words not mine.
Undisputed and lineal.
Neither of those ways is either speculative or arbitrary. They are -- sans a disputed result -- definitive.

Now you can wax poetic about 'conceptions' and 'limiting vagueness' all you want, but every example you try to give is either the aforementioned arbitrary or speculative.

Factual is concrete. Did Alvarez beat the man who beat the man,etc? Yes. It's a matter of fact.

Whoever beats Alvarez within the MW limit can lay claim to the lineal middleweight championship. As to whether that person is better than Golovkin? Well we're back to speculation again aren't we?

Logical, reasoned, factual. Consider yourself edified.

Lineal champions are result of fans' imagination. There are no official rules on how lineage is initiated and passed, for example if you can win a MW lineage by fighting at 155 limit and avoiding the best opposition. There are cases of disputed or multiple lineages. Read this:

http://www.arcaneknowledge.org/sports/linealprob.htm

Butterbean wrote:

Taki... wrote:

Butterbean wrote:heck, many of them more or less stopped fighting after he did them.
and this you musy please answer, please.
how many top five mws has canelo faced ?
how many top five mws has any of the other mws faced ?
and last, but not least, could you please explain the meaning of "eloquently" ?

You, and it appears a few others, are entirely missing the point. So let me try to explain... again.

The claim was made that ggg is the only MW champion.
Factually this can be achieved in one of two ways. That's either undisputed or lineal.
Now whilst ggg can claim to have achieved neither of those two criteria. Alvarez by contrast can lay claim to one.
Any other criteria is either speculative -- ggg is better, ggg would beat Alvarez, etc -- or arbitrary -- ggg has better opposition, ggg has more defences.
That argument is both reasoned and factual.
As for eloquence? It's wasted here.

this is just mad son. youre repeating and contradicting yourself over and over. why dont you just try and answer the questions i asked you. is it really that hard.

almost none of what you state is real, and the rest is a mix of reallity, imagination and your need to fit these things in your you vs. everybody else world. take care. one last word from me to you. once again do as i wrote you. get help.

Hmmmm... Precisely nothing you've written in anyway relates to my post. You've given no specific examples of faulty reasoning. Nor have you addressed a single point.
Making a sweeping statement is the kind of thing any idiot can do -- infer from that what you will.