BoxRec

sg1985 wrote:

DG. wrote: But can he punch? Me say NO NO NO!

that doesn't matter, he beat the guy ranked number 2. his number 1 challenger.

And he would vacate if PM had a record like 30-1-2 (29).

hitman09 wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

sg1985 wrote:kotelnik holds a world title. therefore he is a world champion. if he loses said belt to khan, khan becomes a world champion. do you understand?

He will be a WBA champion, and an ordinary one at that.

Are you trying to tell me that anyone who holds any kind of belt which has 'world' in the title is a genuine world champion?

Or are you playing some kind of immature semantic game?

If so, I'll bet you that I'll be a world champion by tomorrow afternoon. I'll PM you the fecking evidence on a letterhead. Will take me five minutes. When I get round to it.

In fact, I'll get Irish correspondent for BBN and monitor of all shite boards to lend me his.

By the way, this doesn't mean I think Hitman is right either.

Where do you disagree with me?[/quote]

Oh, I agree with you on what I've said. I mean all that lineal stuff. It's a bit hard to stand up after so long, that's all I mean. But I do like the idea.

DG. wrote:

hitman09 wrote: He has not lost the title which he won against Kostya Tszyu, therefore he remains world champion.

No?

Well, Witter never lost the British Title therefore he is till the british champion!

Get real, he gave it up abd won it back of 'someone'..

He never lost the WBU either, is he still their champ?

Hatton did not voluntarily relinquish his title, and so he still possesses it.

Britannian Stallion wrote:I think there have been some very good arguments from both sides here, but I'm sure that if Khan were to anounce a fight against JMM that a lot of ppl would claim he is looking to beat the smaller man.

Whatever Khan does, there seems to be a brigade of people ready to pounce on it and twist it into looking like the easiest, most risk free route to a world title.

I think Khan is a fantastic talent and would love to see him do well for the sake of British boxing. This may be a relatively easy route to a world title, but we are all informed enough on here to realise that a victory against Kotelnik will not make him a respected, bonafide world champion. Khan himself will also be aware of this.

if Khan beat JMM I would consider him Lightweight champion of the World and a possible P4P contender, depending on the manner of victory. I would also give him huge props for taking on the best. I do the same for Haye, who I did not like at all, but I admire the man now for his willingness to take on the best. Khan taking on Marquez would prove me wrong about him, and I would admit to that if it had happened.

hitman09 wrote:

DG. wrote:

hitman09 wrote: He has not lost the title which he won against Kostya Tszyu, therefore he remains world champion.

No?

Well, Witter never lost the British Title therefore he is till the british champion!

Get real, he gave it up abd won it back of 'someone'..

He never lost the WBU either, is he still their champ?

Hatton did not voluntarily relinquish his title, and so he still possesses it.

Give me strength!


First you say Max Baer beats Lennox Lewis and now this ?

Good God man, put the pipe down!

sg1985 wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

sg1985 wrote:kotelnik holds a world title. therefore he is a world champion. if he loses said belt to khan, khan becomes a world champion. do you understand?

He will be a WBA champion, and an ordinary one at that.

Are you trying to tell me that anyone who holds any kind of belt which has 'world' in the title is a genuine world champion?

Or are you playing some kind of immature semantic game?

If so, I'll bet you that I'll be a world champion by tomorrow afternoon. I'll PM you the fecking evidence on a letterhead. Will take me five minutes. When I get round to it.

In fact, I'll get Irish correspondent for BBN and monitor of all shite boards to lend me his.

By the way, this doesn't mean I think Hitman is right either.

no it doesn't make him the genuine world champion at the weight, but winng the wba belt makes him the wba super lightweight champion of the world.

Hmmm.

I think the fact you've said you think WBU and WBF champions should be called 'world champions' sums up your stance.

Anyone who wins a belt with 'world champion' in the title has the right to be called a world champion, eh?

Can a boxing mathematician begin to work out how many former fighters are now spinning in their graves?

Jesus.

sg1985 wrote:whats hard to understand? if you win a world title owned by any of all the organisations you are their world champion its as simple as that.

that, however, does not make you the best in your weight class, hence unifications. sakio bika hodls the ibo, he is their world champion, but he is by no way anywhere near the best in the division.

Maybe it's me being touchy. I understand your very pedantic, low level, shitty point. I'm trying to get beyond that.

Do YOU realise that throwing tags like 'world champion' around left, right and centre damages the integrity of the sport?

Do you realise that because of your stance some silly, deluded c*nts in Aberdeen think Lee McAllister is a two-weight world champion?

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

sg1985 wrote:whats hard to understand? if you win a world title owned by any of all the organisations you are their world champion its as simple as that.

that, however, does not make you the best in your weight class, hence unifications. sakio bika hodls the ibo, he is their world champion, but he is by no way anywhere near the best in the division.

Maybe it's me being touchy. I understand your very pedantic, low level, shitty point. I'm trying to get beyond that.

Do YOU realise that throwing tags like 'world champion' around left, right and centre damages the integrity of the sport?

Do you realise that because of your stance some silly, deluded c*nts in Aberdeen think Lee McAllister is a two-weight world champion?

That is exactly what is wrong with boxing today. The media doing what sg1985 is doing now.

sg1985 wrote: do you know something, yes its pedantic and silly. it started out as a bit of fun, i was joking around winding hitman up. i know the other belts dont make you the world champion. but you have come on and managed to turn something i was finding very amusing to something nasty. you are a prick.

That is called trolling.

And wasting my time.

sg1985 wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

sg1985 wrote:whats hard to understand? if you win a world title owned by any of all the organisations you are their world champion its as simple as that.

that, however, does not make you the best in your weight class, hence unifications. sakio bika hodls the ibo, he is their world champion, but he is by no way anywhere near the best in the division.

Maybe it's me being touchy. I understand your very pedantic, low level, shitty point. I'm trying to get beyond that.

Do YOU realise that throwing tags like 'world champion' around left, right and centre damages the integrity of the sport?

Do you realise that because of your stance some silly, deluded c*nts in Aberdeen think Lee McAllister is a two-weight world champion?

do you know something, yes its pedantic and silly. it started out as a bit of fun, i was joking around winding hitman up. i know the other belts dont make you the world champion. but you have come on and managed to turn something i was finding very amusing to something nasty. you are a prick.

Listen silly c*nt, don't work yourself. You want to come and find me and call me a prick, then email me at [email protected] and we'll sort the f*cking job out at the next show I'm at. Don't poison the forum, troll. You've got over 2000 posts on here and I've never even noticed you, you no mark tit. And don't pm me either. You've got my address.

You are not very bright, are you? Just because I've pulled you up on something YOU found amusing and WE didn't, don't start getting arsey.

Of course, most people see WBC, WBA, IBF and WBO champions as world champions.
The WBA might suck Donkey Bollocks, but that's an older title than the Ring one.
Hatton held the title, but gave it up when he refused to face M'Baye. M'Baye won the vacant title and Kotelnik beat the man who beat M'Baye. Why do him down? I'm sure no one has a problem with calling Wladimir Klitschko a world champion, or David Haye one if he beat him. Strange the same rules don't apply to Khan.

Ahem.

gobbles wrote:Of course, most people see WBC, WBA, IBF and WBO champions as world champions.
The WBA might suck Donkey Bollocks, but that's an older title than the Ring one.
Hatton held the title, but gave it up when he refused to face M'Baye. M'Baye won the vacant title and Kotelnik beat the man who beat M'Baye. Why do him down? I'm sure no one has a problem with calling Wladimir Klitschko a world champion, or David Haye one if he beat him. Strange the same rules don't apply to Khan.

It's a fair point, gobbles. I suppose it's just when you scratch the surface both WK and DH have done more to earn a shot or be called one, hey?

I think it's best - for me anyway - to not call anyone in a division 'a' world champion... but to simply call ONE in any weight divison 'the'. But even this is obviously flawed.

Sad, isn't it?

While the likes of Khan are getting pampered into world title fights hard grafting fighters like Victor Ortiz are left on the sidelines even though he annihilated Carlos Maussa(who made it into the 8th against Cotto, 9th against Hatton and KO'd Vivian Harris) in under 2 minutes and he blitzed Arnaoutis who went 12 with Urango, Holt and Torres.

sg1985 wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote: Listen silly c*nt, don't work yourself. You want to come and find me and call me a prick, then email me at [email protected] and we'll sort the f*cking job out at the next show I'm at. Don't poison the forum, troll. You've got over 2000 posts on here and I've never even noticed you, you no mark tit. And don't pm me either. You've got my address.

You are not very bright, are you? Just because I've pulled you up on something YOU found amusing and WE didn't, don't start getting arsey.

i have not pm'd you. and are you serious?

grow up.

I know you haven't pm'd me. I was saying don't - contact me directly.

Am I serious? Depends. Do you think you should be able to troll with impunity and call decent people (ok, me) pricks? If the answer to the latter is 'yes' then the same answer applies to the former.

Grow up? Who the f*ck started it?

Be nice then.

sg1985 wrote:

banjo wrote:While the likes of Khan are getting pampered into world title fights hard grafting fighters like Victor Ortiz are left on the sidelines even though he annihilated Carlos Maussa(who made it into the 8th against Cotto, 9th against Hatton and KO'd Vivian Harris) in under 2 minutes and he blitzed Arnaoutis who went 12 with Urango, Holt and Torres.

what sums it up most of all is, look at the difference in the careers of khan and prescott now.

You've got it.

gobbles wrote:Of course, most people see WBC, WBA, IBF and WBO champions as world champions.
The WBA might suck Donkey Bollocks, but that's an older title than the Ring one.
Hatton held the title, but gave it up when he refused to face M'Baye. M'Baye won the vacant title and Kotelnik beat the man who beat M'Baye. Why do him down? I'm sure no one has a problem with calling Wladimir Klitschko a world champion, or David Haye one if he beat him. Strange the same rules don't apply to Khan.

The closest thing to a HW champ is Wlad Klitschko, though he is not a genuine champ, and the best HW is his brother. There cannot be a real HW champ until Vitaly retires, as Lewis was the last proper champ, and didn't lose it. David Haye can only become a world champ by beating both Klitschkos. If Haye beats Wlad, then a Haye-Vitaly fight would be for the vacant world heavyweight title in my eyes.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

gobbles wrote:Of course, most people see WBC, WBA, IBF and WBO champions as world champions.
The WBA might suck Donkey Bollocks, but that's an older title than the Ring one.
Hatton held the title, but gave it up when he refused to face M'Baye. M'Baye won the vacant title and Kotelnik beat the man who beat M'Baye. Why do him down? I'm sure no one has a problem with calling Wladimir Klitschko a world champion, or David Haye one if he beat him. Strange the same rules don't apply to Khan.

It's a fair point, gobbles. I suppose it's just when you scratch the surface both WK and DH have done more to earn a shot or be called one, hey?

I think it's best - for me anyway - to not call anyone in a division 'a' world champion... but to simply call ONE in any weight divison 'the'. But even this is obviously flawed.

Sad, isn't it?

I agree it's sad. By I think the Klitschkos treatment of Haye - nicking all the money, getting 2 options - shows why there are multiple world champions. The problems is with one champion, one promoter, the challenger would just have no power.

That's why I think it's important to see this as a step up on the ladder for Khan, not the end result. If he wins this, he would probably be entitled to a straight-forward defence, but then at the end of this year or start of next, we should expect to see another step up - either a unification, a guy like Campbell, or a move back down to lightweight to try and win another title.

Any organisation is just as strong as it's champions. People knock the WBO, but they've got a pretty impressive list of champions at the moment. The weakest is usually the IBF, because they always seem to strip their champions because of their addiction to low-grade eliminators.

Ortiz is hardly a grafter. He's a pampered prospect. He stopped Maussa in a round, but Maussa was probably the worst world champ in recent memory, having beaten an unfit Vivian Harris. Ortiz turned pro a year earlier and has had 5 more fights.

He's still done more than fecking Khan

Damn I can't wait to see him Ko'd again I just hope it's Ortiz that does it

I actually think there having more than one world champion is actually good for the sport in someways. I don't think there should be any more than 4 classing themselves as world champions mind, but I think it give more opportunity for fighters on the fringes, maybe not "TV" enough to get a shot to actually get a shot and make a name for himself. There is something appealing about a unification fight, which is more appealing than a champion against non champion - even if the non champion is absolutely mustard. What could happen at Super Middleweight now is very exciting, I think more exciting than if Froch simply defended his title against Bute - simply because without the title around his waste, Bute wouldn't have fought the same level of opposition without a belt and therefore the fight wouldn't have been the same.

Now this WBA Super/Ordinary shite is just shite - although I do think Boxrec calling it "ordinary" have completely disrespected fighters like Ali etc who were no "ordinary" fighter - the WBA also don't call the championship "ordinary" and I think at the very least Boxrec should call it "ordinary" when there is a WBA super champion. I do think there should only be a limit of 4 fighters per devision calling themselves champions.

What trend is starting to cause damage to the sport, is this "I am still the man, I don't need a belt" cause this seems to hold no limits. Take Hopkins - he has never held one of the big four belts at Light Heavyweight, just beat the recognised "man" (who couldn't be arsed to defend his titles against decent mandatories). He then announces his retirment, doesn't fight for over a year and comes back and still claims he is the "man". In the mean time, Chad Dawson has beaten 3 top 5 Light Heavyweights - held two versions of the world title (not simultaneously I know) but still is out of the big picture because "the man" can pick and choose his opponents. No retired fighter should ever just be awarded his belt... even these "champion ermertus" are not current champions.

Its happening now at Light Welterweight, Bradley has two versions of the title - Hatton has none, now I am not saying that Hatton isn't the best Lightwelter in the world... but Bradley deserves his crack at him - will he get it, nope cause the title means nothing... even though moved up and lost and again, in most cases, fighters who move up are stripped and therefore need to challenge. Advantage for Hatton is that he did fight a champion in his return to 140, but again Malignaggi didn't fight his mandatory.

Its a great short term fix to get the "Superfights" but I think the long term it has a damaging effect on the sport and thats why the "Senior Circuit" is still dominating the PPV's - cause they don't need the titles, and the "proper" title fights are left on the likes of showtime and they never get the chance.

Hatton next fight, if he is successful will be against bulked up Featherweight, JMM.... don't get me wrong - of course I will watch it, but really shouldn't Bradley be next in line? I think Bradley should and off course if the title meant something then he would be - but no aslong as Michael Buffer can say "recognised as the world champion" and wrap the IBO baubble on it - then Bradley will always be a "2nd rate champion and never get the chance to be the man".

Kotelnik is a legit top5 at LWW behind Hatton, Pacman, Bradley, Witter, so taking him on as his 1st fight at the weight is a massively hard ask. I think its a really good step up for Khan. Khan's drained at 135 imo and will be stronger at 140

As for those saying Khan won't be a 'real world champion', well ok I suppose you didn't count Roy Jones as a champ at 160/168/HW, Duran a champ at WW, As all those cats only had 1 belt too. Amir is fighting for a title it doesn't make him the numero uno, but its a genuine top5 belt holder and a first world title.

And as for 'Hatton is the champ no one else is', well ok but there is a reason Hatton isn't undisputed and thats because he wouldn't go near any of the very top contenders at 140 - Mayweather, Cotto, Witter, Bradley (yes he faced Mayweather but Mayweather said Hatton wouldn't face him at 140 because he didnt want to give up his championship). Pacquaio's a smashing match up but he's hardly kicked the crap out of everyone at the weight

And even if they avoid Ortiz, so what Ortiz maybe P4P in 3-4years, you don't fight a dangerman like that for peanuts when the fight is worth nothing. Hatton-Khan would make much more sense and would be a blockbuster of epic proportions

Ian stop cyber bullying and asking people out on forums, that sort of behaviour is the epitimemy of being a prick

stujones wrote:I actually think there having more than one world champion is actually good for the sport in someways. I don't think there should be any more than 4 classing themselves as world champions mind, but I think it give more opportunity for fighters on the fringes, maybe not "TV" enough to get a shot to actually get a shot and make a name for himself. There is something appealing about a unification fight, which is more appealing than a champion against non champion - even if the non champion is absolutely mustard. What could happen at Super Middleweight now is very exciting, I think more exciting than if Froch simply defended his title against Bute - simply because without the title around his waste, Bute wouldn't have fought the same level of opposition without a belt and therefore the fight wouldn't have been the same.

Now this WBA Super/Ordinary shite is just shite - although I do think Boxrec calling it "ordinary" have completely disrespected fighters like Ali etc who were no "ordinary" fighter - the WBA also don't call the championship "ordinary" and I think at the very least Boxrec should call it "ordinary" when there is a WBA super champion. I do think there should only be a limit of 4 fighters per devision calling themselves champions.

What trend is starting to cause damage to the sport, is this "I am still the man, I don't need a belt" cause this seems to hold no limits. Take Hopkins - he has never held one of the big four belts at Light Heavyweight, just beat the recognised "man" (who couldn't be arsed to defend his titles against decent mandatories). He then announces his retirment, doesn't fight for over a year and comes back and still claims he is the "man". In the mean time, Chad Dawson has beaten 3 top 5 Light Heavyweights - held two versions of the world title (not simultaneously I know) but still is out of the big picture because "the man" can pick and choose his opponents. No retired fighter should ever just be awarded his belt... even these "champion ermertus" are not current champions.

Its happening now at Light Welterweight, Bradley has two versions of the title - Hatton has none, now I am not saying that Hatton isn't the best Lightwelter in the world... but Bradley deserves his crack at him - will he get it, nope cause the title means nothing... even though moved up and lost and again, in most cases, fighters who move up are stripped and therefore need to challenge. Advantage for Hatton is that he did fight a champion in his return to 140, but again Malignaggi didn't fight his mandatory.

Its a great short term fix to get the "Superfights" but I think the long term it has a damaging effect on the sport and thats why the "Senior Circuit" is still dominating the PPV's - cause they don't need the titles, and the "proper" title fights are left on the likes of showtime and they never get the chance.

Hatton next fight, if he is successful will be against bulked up Featherweight, JMM.... don't get me wrong - of course I will watch it, but really shouldn't Bradley be next in line? I think Bradley should and off course if the title meant something then he would be - but no aslong as Michael Buffer can say "recognised as the world champion" and wrap the IBO baubble on it - then Bradley will always be a "2nd rate champion and never get the chance to be the man".

Completely agree, however,Boxing has always had its media fighters and world class avoided 1s. Look at McCallum/Kalambay/Graham/Nunn around the Duran/Hagler/Leonard/Hearns era. Look at the Black Dynamite (Burley, Charles, Moore, Williams) around the time of Lamotta/Sugar Ray/Cerdan

In this sport if your not blessed with being a golden child you have to pay your dues beat the best for year on year before you get true recognition

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:

stujones wrote:I actually think there having more than one world champion is actually good for the sport in someways. I don't think there should be any more than 4 classing themselves as world champions mind, but I think it give more opportunity for fighters on the fringes, maybe not "TV" enough to get a shot to actually get a shot and make a name for himself. There is something appealing about a unification fight, which is more appealing than a champion against non champion - even if the non champion is absolutely mustard. What could happen at Super Middleweight now is very exciting, I think more exciting than if Froch simply defended his title against Bute - simply because without the title around his waste, Bute wouldn't have fought the same level of opposition without a belt and therefore the fight wouldn't have been the same.

Now this WBA Super/Ordinary shite is just shite - although I do think Boxrec calling it "ordinary" have completely disrespected fighters like Ali etc who were no "ordinary" fighter - the WBA also don't call the championship "ordinary" and I think at the very least Boxrec should call it "ordinary" when there is a WBA super champion. I do think there should only be a limit of 4 fighters per devision calling themselves champions.

What trend is starting to cause damage to the sport, is this "I am still the man, I don't need a belt" cause this seems to hold no limits. Take Hopkins - he has never held one of the big four belts at Light Heavyweight, just beat the recognised "man" (who couldn't be arsed to defend his titles against decent mandatories). He then announces his retirment, doesn't fight for over a year and comes back and still claims he is the "man". In the mean time, Chad Dawson has beaten 3 top 5 Light Heavyweights - held two versions of the world title (not simultaneously I know) but still is out of the big picture because "the man" can pick and choose his opponents. No retired fighter should ever just be awarded his belt... even these "champion ermertus" are not current champions.

Its happening now at Light Welterweight, Bradley has two versions of the title - Hatton has none, now I am not saying that Hatton isn't the best Lightwelter in the world... but Bradley deserves his crack at him - will he get it, nope cause the title means nothing... even though moved up and lost and again, in most cases, fighters who move up are stripped and therefore need to challenge. Advantage for Hatton is that he did fight a champion in his return to 140, but again Malignaggi didn't fight his mandatory.

Its a great short term fix to get the "Superfights" but I think the long term it has a damaging effect on the sport and thats why the "Senior Circuit" is still dominating the PPV's - cause they don't need the titles, and the "proper" title fights are left on the likes of showtime and they never get the chance.

Hatton next fight, if he is successful will be against bulked up Featherweight, JMM.... don't get me wrong - of course I will watch it, but really shouldn't Bradley be next in line? I think Bradley should and off course if the title meant something then he would be - but no aslong as Michael Buffer can say "recognised as the world champion" and wrap the IBO baubble on it - then Bradley will always be a "2nd rate champion and never get the chance to be the man".

Completely agree, however,Boxing has always had its media fighters and world class avoided 1s. Look at McCallum/Kalambay/Graham/Nunn around the Duran/Hagler/Leonard/Hearns era. Look at the Black Dynamite (Burley, Charles, Moore, Williams) around the time of Lamotta/Sugar Ray/Cerdan

In this sport if your not blessed with being a golden child you have to pay your dues beat the best for year on year before you get true recognition

Yes, but then Hagler, Duran, Leonard etc were in the days of only two recognised champions for a large part of their careers - the IBF being intoduced in the mid 80's. They still fought their fair share good fighters, but not names... like Roaldan, Sibson, Green, Barkley etc.... as there was very little chance of unification series (as there were only 2 champions) they could only fight a certain number of "credible" challengers... had they fought McCallum etc, then someone else like Roaldan or Mugabi would have been out of it. In those days the title meant everything - and I think the only fighter who was stripped of a belt was Duran when he challenged for Hearns Light Middleweight title - it was champion vs champion but only one belt was on the line... a bit like the Dawson vs Tarver situation.

The difference now is, partly with the introduction of the ring belt, certain fighters think they are above the belts they neglect decent mandatories, they aren't interested in unification series with no name champions.. they are interested in Super fights... even when they really shouldn't be classed as a champion (like Hopkins IMO) and the real, authentic champions, get pushed out of it. I applaud it when a terrible mandatory is suggested, but then I think the fighter should do everything in his power to get another version of the title. It just confuses the issue... take now at Light Welter - Hatton is the ring champion... but Bradley has just done what the ring ask in their criteria.

I also think it quite a popular thing to slag off Khan... I mean this forum wasn't exactly full of comments that Clinton Woods, Junior Witter and Carl Froch were/are not legitmate champions, and they didn't face a champion to win the belt, Clinton at the fourth time of asking and 3 of his 4 were not against champions.

So I would consider Khan every bit a champion as those three, and also Bernard Dunne (as there is a WBA "Super" champion at Super Bantam)... there isn't at Light Welter.

Its what a fighter does with the belt that makes him a champion or not... but at least Kotelnik won and defended his world title and is ranked in the top 5 at 10 stone. Was Johnson, Hoye (Woods), Corley (Witter) and Pacal (Froch) at the time of their fight.

But no it is chinny Khan, the fighter who only fights those he knows he can beat..... well if he feels he can Beat Barrera and now Kotelnik - then he is pretty damn good and needs to be supported or at least respected (if he does win)... not many other brits could beat fighters of this callibre P4P. NOBODY condemmed Skelton fighting Chagaev, even though Chagaev is the weakest champion... Nobody was not going to call Skelton a world champion, and nobody would have had a problem if this was Colin Lynes or John Murray fighting Kotelnik... both would be called World champions if successful and praised to the hilt - with good reason... same when Esham Pickering was scheduled to face that IBF Featherweight champion (Pereria) a few years ago - it was all about it being a tough ask and what an achievement if he wins... Perrera was a poor excuse of a champion winning some vacant strap who disapeared without trace after losing his title to one of the worst world title challengers I have seen in a long time.

This is not because of Kotelnik why there are criticisms and negativity, and its not because of the WBA and its "legitimacy".