BoxRec

jamamb wrote: ↑19 Dec 2018, 14:56 i always see ppl say that about the wbc but has there been a study or something? and where is it most coveted

In Poland most of fighters want a WBC belt, Glowacki, Wlodarczyk, Sulecki, Szeremeta, Fonfara, Szpilka, all of them said at least once that they prefer/like the green WBC belt more than other belts.

lol this 'new' poster has the same povetkin obsession too, defo a past troll

for me the most important belt is the one that i actually wear on myself, i don't really care about other belts

gilgamesh wrote: ↑19 Dec 2018, 14:51

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑19 Dec 2018, 14:51 You'd fight the one with the biggest paycheck.

Indeed

That's more true now than ever.

For me the Ring magazine's is the only one with any kudos, unless of course you're undisputed. But then you should be no 1 in Ring as well.

The rest are mere stepping stones to bigger fights and ways of avoiding more dangerous opposition / or irrelevant. For example Whyte v Chisora 2 doesn't need any belt to enhance it.

Thomastearns wrote: ↑19 Dec 2018, 15:53

gilgamesh wrote: ↑19 Dec 2018, 14:51

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑19 Dec 2018, 14:51 You'd fight the one with the biggest paycheck.

Indeed

That's more true now than ever.

For me the Ring magazine's is the only one with any kudos, unless of course you're undisputed. But then you should be no 1 in Ring as well.

The rest are mere stepping stones to bigger fights and ways of avoiding more dangerous opposition / or irrelevant eg Whyte v Chisora.

The Ring Magazine lost any and all credibility it could ever have as a legit Championship when it was bought by a promoter. When a promoter owns the magazine, it sucks all the potential integrity out of it.

It never OFFICIALLY meant anything anyway, but it at least had integrity, and good meaning before that.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑19 Dec 2018, 15:55

Thomastearns wrote: ↑19 Dec 2018, 15:53

gilgamesh wrote: ↑19 Dec 2018, 14:51

Indeed

That's more true now than ever.

For me the Ring magazine's is the only one with any kudos, unless of course you're undisputed. But then you should be no 1 in Ring as well.

The rest are mere stepping stones to bigger fights and ways of avoiding more dangerous opposition / or irrelevant eg Whyte v Chisora.

The Ring Magazine lost any and all credibility it could ever have as a legit Championship when it was bought by a promoter. When a promoter owns the magazine, it sucks all the potential integrity out of it.

It never OFFICIALLY meant anything anyway, but it at least had integrity, and good meaning before that.

I think it would be cool if BoxRec had its own champions, using it's scoring system.

oogiebe wrote: ↑19 Dec 2018, 15:57

gilgamesh wrote: ↑19 Dec 2018, 15:55

Thomastearns wrote: ↑19 Dec 2018, 15:53

That's more true now than ever.

For me the Ring magazine's is the only one with any kudos, unless of course you're undisputed. But then you should be no 1 in Ring as well.

The rest are mere stepping stones to bigger fights and ways of avoiding more dangerous opposition / or irrelevant eg Whyte v Chisora.

The Ring Magazine lost any and all credibility it could ever have as a legit Championship when it was bought by a promoter. When a promoter owns the magazine, it sucks all the potential integrity out of it.

It never OFFICIALLY meant anything anyway, but it at least had integrity, and good meaning before that.

I think it would be cool if BoxRec had its own champions, using it's scoring system.

Well they do hand out those "I'm #1" T Shirts. Which essentially is saying "I'm the best in the division" and therefore The Top guy or The Champ.

Boxrec's rankings are often highly questionable to me in spots, but usually their #1 guy has reasonable claim to that distinction.

Thomastearns wrote: ↑19 Dec 2018, 15:53

gilgamesh wrote: ↑19 Dec 2018, 14:51

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑19 Dec 2018, 14:51 You'd fight the one with the biggest paycheck.

Indeed

That's more true now than ever.

For me the Ring magazine's is the only one with any kudos, unless of course you're undisputed. But then you should be no 1 in Ring as well.

The rest are mere stepping stones to bigger fights and ways of avoiding more dangerous opposition / or irrelevant. For example Whyte v Chisora 2 doesn't need any belt to enhance it.

My sincere apologies, I just checked who owns it!

From wiki, "The magazine is currently owned by Oscar De La Hoya's Golden Boy Enterprises, which acquired it in 2007.[1]"

Oh the endless corruption..

Yes it's time we had our own here on boxrec.

oogiebe wrote: ↑19 Dec 2018, 15:57

gilgamesh wrote: ↑19 Dec 2018, 15:55

Thomastearns wrote: ↑19 Dec 2018, 15:53

That's more true now than ever.

For me the Ring magazine's is the only one with any kudos, unless of course you're undisputed. But then you should be no 1 in Ring as well.

The rest are mere stepping stones to bigger fights and ways of avoiding more dangerous opposition / or irrelevant eg Whyte v Chisora.

The Ring Magazine lost any and all credibility it could ever have as a legit Championship when it was bought by a promoter. When a promoter owns the magazine, it sucks all the potential integrity out of it.

It never OFFICIALLY meant anything anyway, but it at least had integrity, and good meaning before that.

I think it would be cool if BoxRec had its own champions, using it's scoring system.

I would like if there would be ordered a tournament in every division every year basing on BoxRec ratings:

You get 8 fighters that are ranked highest in BoxRec. Let's take HW as an example:

1.Anthony Joshua vs 8.Kubrat Pulev
2.Deontay Wilder vs 7.Luis Ortiz
3.Tyson Fury vs 6.Dillian Whyte
4.Alexander Povetkin vs 5.Jarrell Miller

(or just let the 1-4 seeded fighters to choose out of 5-8 ranked fighters)

Then

1/8 vs 4/5
2/7 vs 3/6

Let's say that Joshua won. Then he is the #1 in next tournament and spots 2-8 are taken again by BoxRec top ranked boxers in the next year. If someone from the top 8 refuses to participate then invite the #9 if he refuses too then #10 gets invited and so on.

If someone participated in last edition and lost but he is still ranked at top 8 he still remains the right to participate in next edition.

If champion is unable to participate then the tourament is postponed if it's no more than 3 months or starts without him for the interim version of belt. The Champion is guaranteed the right to participate in next tournament. If he is unable to participate again for the second time in a row, he gets stripped and the tournament starts this time not for interim belt but for the full version of championship.

If Champion gets injured during tournament then it's either postponed (if it's no more than 3 months) or it's continued without him for the Interim belt. Champion gets replaced by highest ranked available fighter but he remains his title. Of course he must be examinated by commision to prove that his injury is legit. Then Champion must participate in the next edition if not he gets stripped. If the injury is fake (like Fury's "mental issues") he gets stripped.

Injuried fighters are always replaced by the highest ranked available opponent.

If champion gets caught on PEDs he gets stripped and loses the right to participate in two next editions of the tournament. Same if the non-champion participant gets caught. If someone gets caught the second time he loses the right to participate in the tournament forever.

If fighter is inactive for more than 1 year he gets removed from the ranking and loses the right to participate in the tournament. He gets ranked again when he fights again.

The only question is that if Champion gets defeated in quarterfinal/semifinal and should the one who won immediately get the belt or only the eventual winner of the tournament gets the belt (just like in football, if France loses in next World Cup to Brazil in quarterfinals it doesn't makes Brazil the champion until they win the final despite the fact that they defeated the current champion).

It would guarantee that the Champion would have a 3 decent fight per year + 4 other great fights between non-champions but top contenders.

But boxing is not a sport at all, it's unfortunately more like an entertaining business so it's impossible of course.

oogiebe wrote: ↑19 Dec 2018, 15:11

Wuuupa wrote: ↑19 Dec 2018, 15:08

gilgamesh wrote: ↑19 Dec 2018, 15:02

When AJ fought Povetkin, no he wasn't considered more dangerous than Wilder. Wilder and Fury are the two top guys of his time, he has fought neither of them.

Wlad was at the end of the line, and had already lost the title when AJ beat him. Great Champion, but his best days were behind him for the Joshua fight.

I remember a lot of people saying how good povetkin was and how technicly sound he was and hating on wilder, cause many said wilder was only power and a athletic body but not technicly good boxer and that povetkin had the technique and power to beat wilder.

And i am not even a pov fan. I said pov was b level and that he struggled against a cruiserweight and was far away from being as good as aj

Wuupa; if that was your own assessment of Povetkin, why do you turn around in this thread and hold that AJ win up on the mantle? I'm not trying to offend you, but those are apposing views coming from the same poster? (you).

You understand the difference between past and present and that opinions change

we just need the daily povetkin threads now

It is more about who has the belt than belt itself.If boxer reach superstar status, belts are meaningless - Mayweather, Pacquiao, and now Alvarez. Stil,l heavyweight belts matters. Also, undisputed champions (Crawford, Usyk) are big deal despite belts lowered value. I am considering myself as a true boxing fan and WBC, IBF, WBO and WBA titles are similar important IMO. What really matter is how you get that belt and against who are you defend that. Gvozdyk just got WBC light heavy belt. He defeated long time champion by stoppage at his home town. That is the way how you become champion.

Ring Magazine is meaningless. It's owned by a promotional company. Automatically makes it the most worthless. WBC is the strongest out of the four. They usually have strong champions hold it even if they aren't the champion. Sometimes they even have lineal champions holding their belt solely. Lately, they're becoming an arm of PBC and Al Gaymon which is really bringing it down.

At HW, Fury should hold the WBC which should make the title the lineal title. If Wilder managed to beat Fury, he'd be the lineal champion with the WBC.

At LHW, Gvozdyk holds it who took it from the lineal champion, Stevenson.

Yamanaka then Nery held it and Yamanka was universally considered the man at BW before losing it to Nery.

Shiro holds it at LFW and is the best in the division.

Even though Golovkin held more belts, the WBC was considered the lineal title at MW.

If you look at the WBC champions, it's the who's who of boxing.

well you can cherry pick strong champs from any org

for example wba = aj, usyk, smith, hurd, thurman, loma, davis, santa cruz, inoue, etc.

and fury you list but he held the wba but never wbc, the lineal he got from wlad was in a non wbc fight

jamamb wrote: ↑19 Dec 2018, 23:01 well you can cherry pick strong champs from any org

for example wba = aj, usyk, smith, hurd, thurman, loma, davis, santa cruz, inoue, etc.

and fury you list but he held the wba but never wbc, the lineal he got from wlad was in a non wbc fight

As I said, Fury is the lineal HW champion. He doesn't need belts to show it, he beat the man. If he held the WBC, the title would now be the lineal title. I'm not talking about any of the individual belts he got from Klitschko because they don't matter anymore. Fury is the lineal champion. He beat the man. Him beating Wilder or vice versa would make him the lineal titlist and establish the WBC as the lineal title.

You also can't really just throw out names, especially when some of these held the WBC. Thurman held the WBC before going into the long layoff. Berchelt is the WBC champion and is the #1 of the division, not Davis. Yamanaka was considered the man at BW and got beat by Nery making the WBC very close to a lineal title of sorts there.

Santa Cruz and GRJ aren't really above one another. Smith isn't really above Ramirez, Uzcategui, or Benavidez. The division is much too open to even consider Smith close to lineal. Same thing with Hurd who lost a lot of hype after his poor showing. Many consider Charlo the best at LMW. I can certainly provide enough context than just throw out names. You're making a strawman argument.

nah just beng selectve just as you were...could very easly say guys such as gvo arent clear 1 either . smths easly above benavdez btw. omg he beat ron gavrl and used a bunch of cocaine!!

lol fury got the lineal with all BUT the wbc on the line (wba was) and deontay has the wbc not top dawg aj or fury. your tryng to act as though a draw vs wlder now = wbc 1 belt at hw

i thought you said its a haymon play toy anyway

jamamb wrote: ↑19 Dec 2018, 23:51 nah just beng selectve just as you were...could very easly say guys such as gvo arent clear 1 either . smths easly above benavdez btw. omg he beat ron gavrl and used a bunch of cocaine!!

lol fury got the lineal with all BUT the wbc on the line (wba was) and deontay has the wbc not the #1 aj or fury. your tryng to act as though a draw vs wlder now = wbc 1 belt at hw

It's not. I'm saying is that the WBC was close to becoming the lineal title. Fury got robbed. He should be the WBC champion. The fact that Wilder still holds the belt makes it not the lineal.

You can say Smith is above Benavidez, but it gets hard when you compare Smith to Ramirez or Uzcategui. Either of these three are strong champions, and I wouldn't class either over one another. You can if you want, but I won't argue someone having Uzcategui or Ramirez over Smith. Then saying Smith beats everyone is using the eye test which is worthless. It's pretty much splitting hairs. All three are formidable, undefeated fighters.

jamamb wrote: ↑19 Dec 2018, 23:59 i thought you said its a haymon play toy anyway

I said it's becoming that which is making it less prestigious as we're getting worst titlist holding that belt. Danny Garcia at WW and Wilder at HW for a while has shown what I'm talking about. Garcia was fighting scrubs like Robert Guerrero, same with Wilder fighting Szpilka and Molina.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑19 Dec 2018, 14:58

jamamb wrote: ↑19 Dec 2018, 14:56 i always see ppl say that about the wbc but has there been a study or something? and where is it most coveted

Just kinda seems to be a thing I've heard fighters say. I saw a recent interview with Mikey Garcia where he said "My 3rd World Championship was the most important to me because it was the WBC Title, and my Father always wanted a WBC Title for our family"

I've heard other guys say they wanted that one most too.

Yeh. I’ve also heard boxers speak highly of the ‘green and gold’ belt.

All of the 4 major belts are equally valuable, however, WBC sometimes acts like the worst of them with its amount of voluntary sh*t. The Ring is less important, especially today. Winning a one means being a one of the top guys. Winning 2 or 3 gives more honor. The undisputed championship sounds really convincing.