BoxRec

Can we just clarify this one? I've seen some media outlets describe Khan as a "two time world champion" after his recent loss.

When James Toney failed a drugs test, John Ruiz was reinstated as WBA champion. He did not suddenly join Muhammad Ali, Evander Holyfield and Lennox Lewis as boxing's fourth ever "three time world heavyweight champion", nor did anyone claim he did. His second reign was simply 'resumed'.

So, if the WBA handed Khan's title back, surely this means his original WBA reign was merely 'resumed'? I know sanctioning bodies are more eager than ever to create as many champions as possible, but being handed back your belt following a loss (and then get wiped out in your next fight) doth not a "two time world champion" make. He is a former world champ, not a two time champ. What do you think?

[This is nothing against Khan by the way, this rule surely applies across all of boxing]

they probably mean the IBF

The slightly different scenario with the Toney one though is that I believe Toney vs Ruiz has been declared a NC - so technically Ruiz never lost the title. I don't think they have made the same decision with Khan vs Peterson - so Khan lost the title and got it back.

Although in essense, no he aint no two time world champion - unless you count the WBA and IBF.

stujones wrote:The slightly different scenario with the Toney one though is that I believe Toney vs Ruiz has been declared a NC - so technically Ruiz never lost the title. I don't think they have made the same decision with Khan vs Peterson - so Khan lost the title and got it back.

This is the crux of the issue. The Ruiz/Toney result was effectively ruled "void", Khan v Peterson still stands...

So if the loss still stands, in what sane world can you justify giving him his title back for nothing?

They've essentially said 'that result doesn't count - Khan is still champion'. He's not a two time champion, that doesn't make any sense.

loaded_gloves wrote:So if the loss still stands, in what sane world can you justify giving him his title back for nothing?

They've essentially said 'that result doesn't count - Khan is still champion'. He's not a two time champion, that doesn't make any sense.

Peterson admitted taking a banned substance before the first fight. It hasn't been made a no-contest because Peterson keeps postponing his licensing hearing. The DC Commision won't act until the get a report from that.

Understood - so the Peterson fight is essentially an NC in waiting, therefore the WBA (but not the IBF) handing Khan his title back does not commence a second reign and make him a two time champ, it simply means his reign extended for a few weeks until Garcia mauled him?

loaded_gloves wrote:Understood - so the Peterson fight is essentially an NC in waiting, therefore the WBA (but not the IBF) handing Khan his title back does not commence a second reign and make him a two time champ, it simply means his reign extended for a few weeks until Garcia mauled him?

correct

Do they mean 'two' as in he won two belts.

loaded_gloves wrote:Understood - so the Peterson fight is essentially an NC in waiting, therefore the WBA (but not the IBF) handing Khan his title back does not commence a second reign and make him a two time champ, it simply means his reign extended for a few weeks until Garcia mauled him?

It will also mean Khan will only have the two conclusive defeats on his resume to avenge.