BoxRec

Are world titles that have been won through a relinquishment by a previous champion less prestigous? (Im sure ive spelled that wrong)

TBH fighters to get criticised for inheriting a belt,like Burns and Cleverly but as far as I'm concerned once they've defended it,its forgotten ,its not the fighters fault the champs been stripped although I'd prefer if they fought for the vacant belt

Ideally they defend against it against a legitimate contender but me personally isn't as harsh as some people,there's that many belts and everybody switching weights its hard to determine whose good,whose protected and whose weight drained

...another way of thinking that I quite like is what a fighter does WHEN they have that title. If they ditch it then the reign is worth a hell of a lot less IMO than if they defend it against decent to good (or better) competition...winning a vacant against a poor opponent is "low" whilst defending it strengthens the reign...

Likewise beating a poor champion for the belt is worth less than beating a top dog...

Beating a lightly regarded belt holder for the title is no better than beating a similar fighter for the vacant belt.

handsofstone wrote:TBH fighters to get criticised for inheriting a belt,like Burns and Cleverly but as far as I'm concerned once they've defended it,its forgotten ,its not the fighters fault the champs been stripped although I'd prefer if they fought for the vacant belt

Ideally they defend against it against a legitimate contender but me personally isn't as harsh as some people,there's that many belts and everybody switching weights its hard to determine whose good,whose protected and whose weight drained

Agree. I was a fan of Alex Arthur once upon a time but I find it hard to call him a world champ. I think he beat Gogoladze for the interim title then lost it to Cook in the first proper defence! He was awful that night against Cook.

Lennox lewis didnt win the wbc from the legit champion twice but to me he is top 7/5 greatest heavys of all time,just my opinion