BoxRec

It looks as though Joshua will be defending against IBF mandatory challenger, Pulev, Summer 2020.

Joshua won the title from Parker in March 2018.

The last mandated fight for the WBO was between Joseph Parker and Hughie Fury in September 2017.

WBO suggested they could/would additionally mandate Povetkin (the then WBA mandatory challenger) when he faced Joshua in Sep 2018 stating that the next defence would be March 2020.

Is it time to strip?

It's never time to strip an active Champion who is the biggest star in the sport, but they will anyway because they have their dumbass policy.

F*ck alphabet soup orgs and their bullsh*t policies I say.

.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑18 Jan 2020, 21:29 It's never time to strip an active Champion who is the biggest star in the sport, but they will anyway because they have their dumbass policy.

F*ck alphabet soup orgs and their bullsh*t policies I say.

I acknowledge there are perhaps too many belts, but since the Povetkin defence in September 2018, Joshua took a 9 month break. Then lost in a voluntary defence. Then forced the new champion into a contractual rematch...

So how can another fighter become a star in the division if legitimate routes to the champions are being closed off or manipulated?

Finkel wrote: ↑18 Jan 2020, 21:47

gilgamesh wrote: ↑18 Jan 2020, 21:29 It's never time to strip an active Champion who is the biggest star in the sport, but they will anyway because they have their dumbass policy.

F*ck alphabet soup orgs and their bullsh*t policies I say.

I acknowledge there are perhaps too many belts, but since the Povetkin defence in September 2018, Joshua took a 9 month break. Then lost in a voluntary defence. Then forced the new champion into a contractual rematch...

So how can another fighter become a star in the division if legitimate routes to the champions are being closed off or manipulated?

By beating other contenders, and making people care to see you fight. We have 2 Champions too many in the Heavyweight division as it is.

So what's the goal? Usyk vs Parker for the vacant WBO title and now Joshua unifies with the belt he already has right now making us have to wait that much longer for the fight we want to see between him and the Fury/Wilder winner so that he can re-unify with a belt he's already won twice now?

F*ck that.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑18 Jan 2020, 21:51

Finkel wrote: ↑18 Jan 2020, 21:47

I acknowledge there are perhaps too many belts, but since the Povetkin defence in September 2018, Joshua took a 9 month break. Then lost in a voluntary defence. Then forced the new champion into a contractual rematch...

So how can another fighter become a star in the division if legitimate routes to the champions are being closed off or manipulated?

By beating other contenders, and making people care to see you fight. We have 2 Champions too many in the Heavyweight division as it is.

So what's the goal? Usyk vs Parker for the vacant WBO title and now Joshua unifies with the belt he already has right now making us have to wait that much longer for the fight we want to see between him and the Fury/Wilder winner so that he can re-unify with a belt he's already won twice now?

F*ck that.

Hey don't get me wrong I understand the frustration, but the Fury/Wilder fights won't happen until at least 2021.

But if you are a contender in the chasing pack what is your route to the champion? I think it's fair to say getting a fight against any of the champions has had little to do with beating other contenders.

Ortiz, two fights against Wilder, and offered a voluntary against Joshua.
Breazeale mandated against Wilder, and Joshua's first voluntary.
Molina fought a voluntary against both Wilder and Joshua

Whyte...still waiting on the WBC, and has been dropped from all the other ranking bodies

How many years do you think Kownacki will have to wait?

Seriously, say if you are a fighter like Joe Joyce, you medal at the Olympics, you turn pro late but are moving in a hurry, what is your route to a title shot before you are well outside your prime years?

I don't recall Joshua or Wilder having to plow through contenders to get their shot. It just seems to me like they are pulling the ladder up behind them and closing the door...

Joshua beat Whyte before he won the title.

The guy that you say hasn't had a shot at any of 'em.

Beating other contenders does most definitely get you somewhere. It makes people pay attention to you. It makes you more marketable. It often leads to you becoming a mandatory.

Kownacki may well wind up getting his shot this year.

Whyte definitely has earned another shot, and hopefully he'll be getting it soon as he's one guy that truly deserves it.

Parker and Usyk good fighters, but there's no reason why I'd want to see them fighting each other for the vacant belt instead of Usyk fighting Joshua for the belt he has now.

How do you think guys felt in 1923 when there was only 1 Champion, and he didn't fight for 3 years?

There's 3 Champions. That's 2 too many like I said. Rather than whining about getting your shot. Earn it. Make yourself undeniable.

Hell people are usually calling for guys to get a title shot off of one decent win nowadays. If you get 2 or 3 you're in there

gilgamesh wrote: ↑18 Jan 2020, 22:22 Joshua beat Whyte before he won the title.

The guy that you say hasn't had a shot at any of 'em.

Beating other contenders does most definitely get you somewhere. It makes people pay attention to you. It makes you more marketable. It often leads to you becoming a mandatory.

Kownacki may well wind up getting his shot this year.

Whyte definitely has earned another shot, and hopefully he'll be getting it soon as he's one guy that truly deserves it.

Parker and Usyk good fighters, but there's no reason why I'd want to see them fighting each other for the vacant belt instead of Usyk fighting Joshua for the belt he has now.

How do you think guys felt in 1923 when there was only 1 Champion, and he didn't fight for 3 years?

There's 3 Champions. That's 2 too many like I said. Rather than whining about getting your shot. Earn it. Make yourself undeniable.

Hell people are usually calling for guys to get a title shot off of one decent win nowadays. If you get 2 or 3 you're in there

I was talking about a title shot, thought it was implied, and I think it's fair to say neither Joshua or Whyte are the same fighters that fought for the British title. So I don't accept that as a reason especially when you look at the chances given to Breazeale, Molina and Ortiz.

There is no chance Kownacki gets a title shot this year, unless he is used as a late replacement.

Usyk is 33, I would like to see him fighting sooner rather than later, and Parker didn't lose as badly as Joshua did to Ruiz and yet where was his immediate rematch? Also if Kownacki has a chance of a title shot this year, then there is the chance Fury/Wilder is willing to fight Joshua in 2020 too. In which case it would be highly likely Usyk would be left as the odd man out. Don't really want to see a P4P fighter stagnate, he already lost a year through injury.

As such I think the WBO should follow through on initially delaying Usyk until March 2020 and not mess him about any further.

Which comes back to stripping Joshua.

As for 1923, I admit I'm no boxing historian, and I agree that is a tough break, but I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to find positive examples of challengers getting a fair shake.

Very very good chance Kownacki gets a shot this year actually. If Wilder beats Fury in February, then he'll most likely fight at least once more this year, and if it's not the mega fight vs AJ. It'd probably be vs Kownacki.

There are definitely positive examples of contenders getting a fair shake. Boxing history is littered with guys who were thought of as Champions in waiting long before they ever got their title shot.

If you keep doing the work, and kicking people's asses. Particularly if you do so in a dominant or entertaining way. You won't be denied your shot.

Sometimes guys have to wait longer than they should, but ultimately those that have earned their shot generally get it. Not always I'll grant you, but more often than not.

And by the way, speaking of Usyk. He'll be getting a WBO shot because he's owed one due to the WBO's rules (he was WBO Champion at Cruiserweight), and his team are demanding it. So he'll be fighting for it one way or the other. Whether that means he fights Joshua or it means he fights someone else because Joshua was stripped.

Ultimately it'd probably be better for Boxing fans if Usyk fought Parker first before going up against Joshua. It's just silly all this stripping nonsense, and then they'll promote it as a big deal that it's a unification bout for a belt he's already had twice (and wasn't beaten for the 2nd time)

gilgamesh wrote: ↑18 Jan 2020, 22:52 Very very good chance Kownacki gets a shot this year actually. If Wilder beats Fury in February, then he'll most likely fight at least once more this year, and if it's not the mega fight vs AJ. It'd probably be vs Kownacki.

Didn't Warren already heavily imply a two-way rematch clause is in place and that he expects Wilder Fury 3 in the summer.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑18 Jan 2020, 22:55 There are definitely positive examples of contenders getting a fair shake. Boxing history is littered with guys who were thought of as Champions in waiting long before they ever got their title shot.

If you keep doing the work, and kicking people's asses. Particularly if you do so in a dominant or entertaining way. You won't be denied your shot.

Sometimes guys have to wait longer than they should, but ultimately those that have earned their shot generally get it. Not always I'll grant you, but more often than not.

And by the way, speaking of Usyk. He'll be getting a WBO shot because he's owed one due to the WBO's rules (he was WBO Champion at Cruiserweight), and his team are demanding it. So he'll be fighting for it one way or the other. Whether that means he fights Joshua or it means he fights someone else because Joshua was stripped.

Ultimately it'd probably be better for Boxing fans if Usyk fought Parker first before going up against Joshua. It's just silly all this stripping nonsense, and then they'll promote it as a big deal that it's a unification bout for a belt he's already had twice (and wasn't beaten for the 2nd time)

Yeah I know of the WBO ruling on Usyk and why Whyte was overlooked for the mandatory position.

Good post. And, I don't disagree

Hopefully we get fights for the boxing fans more often

Finkel wrote: ↑18 Jan 2020, 23:13

gilgamesh wrote: ↑18 Jan 2020, 22:52 Very very good chance Kownacki gets a shot this year actually. If Wilder beats Fury in February, then he'll most likely fight at least once more this year, and if it's not the mega fight vs AJ. It'd probably be vs Kownacki.

Didn't Warren already heavily imply a two-way rematch clause is in place and that he expects Wilder Fury 3 in the summer.

Warren wouldn't have any say over anything involving Wilder or Fury. Anything he says on the matter would be just speculation like any of us.

I think strip him. IF i had faith that after pulev AJ would fight the wilder fury winner id hold off. but i don't believe that will be next. strip him, let parer and usyk fight for it. Aj can double back for it later.
Im normaly for as few champs as possable, but if your going to have 3 belts, i think you either need to fight 3 times a year, hurry to make undisputed, or just fight your mandatorys (with no rematch clauses).
Its going to be 20 months between fighting pov and pulev. and in that time AJ and the 3 belts will of fought andy ruiz, who did great, but did not deserve that title shot.

No good reason to strip AJ of a belt. WBO may do it, but it would be for the wrong reasons. More delays for an undisputed HW champ would be the result. Maddening.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑18 Jan 2020, 23:17

Finkel wrote: ↑18 Jan 2020, 23:13

Didn't Warren already heavily imply a two-way rematch clause is in place and that he expects Wilder Fury 3 in the summer.

Warren wouldn't have any say over anything involving Wilder or Fury. Anything he says on the matter would be just speculation like any of us.

I’m sure Frank has a little more insight than us.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑18 Jan 2020, 22:22 Joshua beat Whyte before he won the title.

The guy that you say hasn't had a shot at any of 'em.

Beating other contenders does most definitely get you somewhere. It makes people pay attention to you. It makes you more marketable. It often leads to you becoming a mandatory.

Kownacki may well wind up getting his shot this year.

Whyte definitely has earned another shot, and hopefully he'll be getting it soon as he's one guy that truly deserves it.

Parker and Usyk good fighters, but there's no reason why I'd want to see them fighting each other for the vacant belt instead of Usyk fighting Joshua for the belt he has now.

How do you think guys felt in 1923 when there was only 1 Champion, and he didn't fight for 3 years?

There's 3 Champions. That's 2 too many like I said. Rather than whining about getting your shot. Earn it. Make yourself undeniable.

Hell people are usually calling for guys to get a title shot off of one decent win nowadays. If you get 2 or 3 you're in there

Gilgamesh is talking sense here. Good man!

Far too much sitting around after one good win and then trying to negotiate your way to a title shot. You are a contender so go and beat the other contenders and make yourself the standout. You earn a title bout on merit, not because you beat one decent guy. The champ is the champ and should be prepared to defend against the standout, not just someone whose face fits at the moment. The sport is littered with good men who never got a title shot but those bouts that did happen meant something and were events.

The non-title bouts between top contenders were, in themselves, meaningful. Marciano-Matthews. Louis-Baer. Tunney-Gibbons. Frazier-Chuvalo. These are examples of how you earned your shot.

There are also countless examples of top ten fighters meeting each other to improve their rating. Quarry-Shavers. Matthews-Layne. Schmeling-Uzcudun.

So, Kownacki, go out there and beat someone
meaningful. Then the champion might sit up and take notice. We can learn a lot from history, when world heavyweight title bouts really meant something.

Michael Bentt v Herbie Hide? I ask you. This is what happens when there are too many champions and too many champions being stripped because they won't meet the 'mandatory'. Paa!

Miles Templeton

Do we all still agree on WBA > WBC > IBF > WBO > the rest? In my view the WBA and WBC are the only legit world belts, with the IBF as a respectable gateway for others to get a shot at one.

I regard the WBO as a shop window for up-and-comers and redundant for champs. And when a champ also has the IBF they're depriving us of a worthwhile showdown for it, because it means nowt to us alongside the WBA and/or WBC. It's no good creating new belts if you still let fighters contest the existing ones, diminishing their value with overlap. But then we all know this and it's the money in boxing that doesn't care.

Grilling Machine wrote: ↑19 Jan 2020, 17:11 Do we all still agree on WBA > WBC > IBF > WBO > the rest? In my view the WBA and WBC are the only legit world belts, with the IBF as a respectable gateway for others to get a shot at one.

I regard the WBO as a shop window for up-and-comers and redundant for champs. It's no good creating new belts if you still let fighters contest the existing ones, diminishing their value with overlap. But then we all know this and it's the money in boxing that doesn't care.

What's your reason for those rankings? The WBA has like a zillion world titles thesee days, why put them at the top?

Looking overall at the quality of champs, who is getting shots, clarity of the champs/contenders, etc....I don't know that much splits those organizations at this point. And in this case, what about Joshua being WBO champ is any less legit than Wilder being WBC or himself having the WBA for example?

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑19 Jan 2020, 17:13What's your reason for those rankings? The WBA has like a zillion world titles thesee days, why put them at the top?

Historical reasoning. The WBA are managed terribly these days, but it's the original world belt. The WBC tried to improve on it and I'm sure has its fans.

Eh, I don't see what that matters. History is fluid, the state of belts today is nothing like it used to be, and current rankings should be based on the current situation. The WBA has 4 champs in some divisions these days, what was going on in the 70s isn't relevant anymore.

The wba is a joke. It's devolved to where I don't even pay attention to whom holds them anymore but I'd put the ibf above the rest. They stick to their rules regardless of fame or cash.

Grilling Machine wrote: ↑19 Jan 2020, 17:15

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑19 Jan 2020, 17:13What's your reason for those rankings? The WBA has like a zillion world titles thesee days, why put them at the top?

Historical reasoning. The WBA are managed terribly these days, but it's the original world belt.

Do you put Ali as the number 1 fighter in today's HW division?

Today I put the most value on Wilder's WBC at heavy, because it matters as much as all of AJ's put together as just one belt. But in the context of history I couldn't view it that way without dismissing loads of ‘real’ champs. Without the WBA in its former guise there are no pre-'62 champs.

Without history, sure, the WBA are shite these days. But I think it's still true that the WBA and WBC remain the most-prized belts.

Grilling Machine wrote: ↑19 Jan 2020, 17:22 Today I put the most value on Wilder's WBC, because it matters as much as all of AJ's put together as just one belt. But in the context of history I couldn't view it this way without dismissing loads of ‘real’ champs.

I'd say applying some overall historical standard to the current situation perhaps does not yield accurate judgments on the current situation. The state of belts has changed immensely and looking at factors like quality of champion, rankings, mandatory enforcement+quality, clarity, etc....I see the bodies as closely grouped at present, with the WBA possibly the least credible. Going simply by order in which the organizations put out their belts years ago isn't a good standard when addressing the current context.

I don't think Wilder's WBC belt itself is any more credible than say Joshua's IBF. He hasn't fought better opponents, hasn't had better or more regularly enforced mandatories, etc. I don't think someone would be more credible a belt holder if they beat Josh for the WBA instead of the WBO either.