Blue wrote: Agreed that losing eliminators and title fights should not automatically get you another
eliminator or title shot straight away. I took issue with your statement “Julio's not done
anything since the first fight with Erdei” which was false.
No, the statement is perfectly true. Gonzalez, since the Erdei loss, has fought four journeymen, DeLisle, Griffin, and Woods. That is nothing at all to write home about. Especially considering that he lost against Woods, DeLisle had been stopped by Woods and then proceded to be matched very conservatively, and Griffin was an old man who hadn't won a meaningful fight for two and a half years.
Blue wrote:Didn’t see any post from U protesting DeLisle’s 2nd shot at Woods right after he lost the
eliminator with Gonzalez. How did he get his shot first after losing the eliminator? Woods
never even had to fight an eliminator to get his 2nd shot after being totally outclassed by
Jones in his first title fight. Nor did Adamek or Briggs fight anyone of note before they
fought for the vacant WBC title. They should have fought some one in the loop before they
got a title shot.
No, you won't have seen any post from me on any subject between March 2005, and November 2006. For what it's worth, yes that fight shouldn't have happened. DeLisle didn't deserve the second shot at Woods. In exactly the same way that Gonzalez didn't deserve to walk right into an eliminator after his loss to Woods.
Who should Adamek have fought? As I've said, he can't fight anybody in the loop because Hopkins, Tarver, and the rest are either interested in big money matches or (in the case of Gonzalez) taking easy options and waiting for another eliminator to be thrown their way.
Blue wrote:As I’ve said before;
The system of ranking by merit allows a former title challenger to re-establish his career,
or at minimum allow for a few paydays before retirement. It encourages good fights.
It also prevents an over protected fighter from moving up a ranking without a defining fight.
This is your own personal system of merit then? It sounds fine to me, but it's a real shame that it has no bearing on what actually happens. Instead you have former title challengers taking easy marking-time fights against opposition that is placed nowhere near the top of any reasonable rankings system. You have the same fights over and over despite the fact that the fights were (for the most part) poor to watch, and produced clear winners in the first place.
It's clear to me that your above paragraph is a "perfect world" scenario.
Blue wrote: On the contrary, A governing body (WBC) allowed Adamek-Briggs to fight for the the title
without either boxer meeting a top contender. Be more specific instead of vague inuendos
& post a link to a source on exactly which of the top guys refused Adamek.
It's only a refusal in terms of the fact that the fighters in the loop never even mention the likes of Adamek. Tough to pick out quotes when Hopkins, Tarver, Johnson, and the rest act like he doesn't exist. To be fair to them, what is to be gained by taking on dangerous fighters like Adamek, when there are so many easier fights worth more money? It's hardly a new scenario.
Blue wrote: I agree Adamek-Dawson match up is a good one but disagree on your take on why Adamek
doesn’t have a better comp. It is the usual camp followers propaganda used by protected
fighters to avoid paying their dues. All of the fighters I mentioned have earned their status
by having defining fights in the past 3 years. (In the meantime Tomasz has only had 5 fights
against other wana-bees.) No one should take that away from them by subjective reasoning
such as “my guy s better, yer guy is shot”, “my guy is young, and your guy is not”.
All the fighters you've mentioned have earned their status, but as I've said before that status doesn't and shouldn't last forever. You have to do something to maintain your standing. Jones for example, has lost three of his last four, two by stoppage. You can't seriously claim that Jones still deserves to be ranked right up at the top. Oh, but I forgot, your perfect system of merit allows for a fighter to go up against the big names for a few paydays, regardless of whether or not he's more deserving of a title shot than the next fighter.
You can't claim that someone else is using subjective reasoning, and then talk about "defining" fights. Who decides what qualifies as a defining fight? You?
Blue wrote: WE? U can only speak for yourself and your fellow camp followers.
Watching the 2nd Adamek-Briggs fight, I don’t think that any of those “old men” would have
let Adamek off the hook when he tasted the canvas.
Subjective reasoning such as woulda shoulda & coulda have no place in determining a title shot;
only actual accomplishments should count.
That’s why “official decisions” are rendered.
You seem to have jumped on a misguided notion that I'm some sort of Adamek tub-thumper. Simply not true I'm afraid. Adamek is just an example of the type of fighter I'd like to see the so called bigger names at this weight go after. Alas, they are far from interested in that sort of thing.
Saying that you don't think that any of your list of top contenders would have let Adamek off the hook is yet another example of the subjective reasoning you so despise. If it has no place in your reasoning, why bother making remarks like that? And I disagree with the sentiment anyway. Hopkins, Tarver, and Gonzalez, are hardly what you'd term natural finishers. They've all had fighters in trouble and let them escape. Several times in the case of Hopkins.
You are right about facts being the only thing that should count when determining whether or not a fighter gets a shot at a title. Which is why I commented on Gonzalez apparently getting another chance in the first place. Fact is; he hasn't beaten a fighter of note since the back end of 2003. Even if you include Griffin (I wouldn't), who was right at the tail end of his career, and even then, it's one decent win in your three year period. Nothing subjective about that, it's just not good enough for another shot.
Oh yes…I forgot, 
the expert “subjective reasoning”…they’re old.