BoxRec

Are we suppose to remember Alex Arthur as any kind of 'champion' at world level? He won a fishy 'interim' strap but never actually won the official belt, so does that make the thing he won, whatever it is, redundant?

Kevin Mitchell same thing, probably he beats Katsidis, wins the 'interim' belt, but then gets decapped next time out vs Juan Manuel Marquez for the proper thing..... do we then remember these men as champs? Do we call them 'the former interim champion of the world?' it sounds almost Python-esque.

To me the interim belts are odious little trinkets & handed out despite their being an active world champ holding the belt; to think of these men as 'champs' when you consider the fighters of the past is enough to make me blow chunks.

I guess its based on the individual circumstance..... Alex Arthur did get officially called full champion when the Guzman was stripped. So I think he can call himself a world champion.

There are cases when the WBO full and interim champion are fighting different opponents.... in that case no. Like I don't class Maidana as a world champion yet, if Khan gets stripped and Maidana gets awarded the full title - then yes, he's a champion.

overhand_right wrote:Are we suppose to remember Alex Arthur as any kind of 'champion' at world level? He won a fishy 'interim' strap but never actually won the official belt, so does that make the thing he won, whatever it is, redundant?

Kevin Mitchell same thing, probably he beats Katsidis, wins the 'interim' belt, but then gets decapped next time out vs Juan Manuel Marquez for the proper thing..... do we then remember these men as champs? Do we call them 'the former interim champion of the world?' it sounds almost Python-esque.

To me the interim belts are odious little trinkets & handed out despite their being an active world champ holding the belt; to think of these men as 'champs' when you consider the fighters of the past is enough to make me blow chunks.

Call them what you want.

...ah, but what about when the interim champ desperately wanted to fight the champ but the champ didn't want to fight him??

Must be a rarity this Maidana/Khan situation. Maidana, with his kayo of Ortiz and willingness to fight Khan, has the world champion attitude - Khan chasing Hatton's leftovers and ducking the dangerous fighters is lacking world champ balls.

But, I digress....

Horse wrote:

overhand_right wrote:Are we suppose to remember Alex Arthur as any kind of 'champion' at world level? He won a fishy 'interim' strap but never actually won the official belt, so does that make the thing he won, whatever it is, redundant?

Kevin Mitchell same thing, probably he beats Katsidis, wins the 'interim' belt, but then gets decapped next time out vs Juan Manuel Marquez for the proper thing..... do we then remember these men as champs? Do we call them 'the former interim champion of the world?' it sounds almost Python-esque.

To me the interim belts are odious little trinkets & handed out despite their being an active world champ holding the belt; to think of these men as 'champs' when you consider the fighters of the past is enough to make me blow chunks.

Call them what you want.

Okay, 'former fringe contenders'.

That's more like it.

overhand_right wrote:Okay, 'former fringe contenders'.

That's more like it.

That's pretty good.

Why mention their title if you don't respect it?

Why is the Mitchell-Katsidis fight even for an interim title? The reigning champ has said he has no intention of vacating.It is a superb fight on its own but not for the title.It should be an eliminator.

All WBO title holders are 'world title claimants' at best - they have the same authenicity as Lee Savold had when he was world heavyweight champion - history will judge the WBO in the light it deserves - if that is unfair to some of its champions or not is another thing.

Horse wrote:

overhand_right wrote:Okay, 'former fringe contenders'.

That's more like it.

That's pretty good.

Why mention their title if you don't respect it?

How can anyone respect these belts that devalue boxing titles even more than they already have been?

Boxing fans should be dead against interim belts since almost all of them are awarded whilst the champ is still active.

Gloved boxing did perfectly well for over a 100 years without the need for this sudden wave of interim belts every time a champ makes a voluntary defence prior to a mandatory.

Carlos-Wigan wrote:All WBO title holders are 'world title claimants' at best - they have the same authenicity as Lee Savold had when he was world heavyweight champion - history will judge the WBO in the light it deserves - if that is unfair to some of its champions or not is another thing.

Agreed - the WBO are the people who in the 80's said 'Mike Tyson? Sorry, Francesco Damiani is the heavyweight champion of the world'

Or, 'Lennox Lewis & Evander Holyfield'? Who can take these guys seriously whilst Herbie Hide gears up for his historic fight with Willi Fischer?

It would be difficult to catalogue their full list of crimes since their needless late 80's inception, although a string of Chris Eubank, Steve Collins and and Joe Calzaghe opponents are pretty damning.

At first they seemed to exist as belts for sale to Manny Stewards less sturdy Kronk fighters, then by the mid 90's they were there to crown Frankie boy Warren's stable with 'title belts'.

Why they have gained credibility in the last 5 to 10 years is beyond me.