Talk:Steve Martinez vs. Alfonso Sanchez
Rowdy, I don't think we should remove the title at stake (NABF), because the title was on the line for Martinez (as appears from the comments of the NABF chairman). Had Martinez won, he would have been awarded the title. The fact that Sanchez was ineligible to win it doesn't change that fact in my view.--Reenthelawman 22:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Isn't it common practice that the titlist keeps his title even if he loses the fight (e.g. Corrales vs. Castillo II)? Anyway, the partially inconsistent way BoxRec or the nonuniform way sanctioning bodies treat these cases has been presented in the seventh post of this thread. I'm still in search of an opinion on this weighty issue.
What I would say, though, is, if Martinez lost the title because of losing the fight but Sanchez did not win the title because of being overweight, Martinez must have been stripped, which has not been added to the NABF Welterweight Champion lineage.--Emaster 23:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
To my knowlegde, the commmon practice is that the title is on the line for one fighter only, such that the champ loses his title if he loses the fight (assuming his opponent is the one who comes in overweight). A prime (NABF) example is the Oscar Ibarra vs. Jose Alberto Cuadros fight. Ibarra was defending, but Cuadros came in overweight. Given that Cuadros won the fight, Ibarra lost the title and it was declared vacant. In its December ratings changes (http://www.nabfnews.com/index.php/ratings-mainmenu-70/ratings-changes-mainmenu-73/427-december-2008-ratings-changes), the NABF states that "Champion Ibarra lost his belt due to losing by stoppage in an over the weight fight". This is exactly the same situation as the Martinez vs. Sanchez fight, such that I submit we should keep the title at stake in the wiki.--Reenthelawman 23:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
As the wiki should match the database, I think this issue requires discussing on the forums. The way the NABF treats such cases is new to me but in fact consistent (at least as far as the two cases presented above are concerned). The statement that "Champion Ibarra lost his belt due to losing by stoppage in an over the weight fight" might suggest that he would have kept his belt had he not lost inside the distance. Otherwise "by stoppage" could have been dropped.
I would still say Martinez and Ibarra were stripped of their titles because their successful, but overweight opponents were not handed the titles and they apparently did not relinquish their belts themselves.
It's the same when a titlist loses a nontitle fight and the sanctioning body takes away its belt from him as a result: In a way he lost the title in the ring because his defeat was the reason why he was stripped, but technically he was indeed stripped.--Emaster 00:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC).
Well, the difference I see is that a champion that defeats an overweight opponent gets credit for a defense (confirming that the title is on the line), while a champ that wins a non-title fight obviously does not. That leads me to conclude that a champ who loses against an overweight opponent is not technically stripped of the belt, but rather loses it in the ring.
All of which to say I will take my cue from official editors like Rowdy and yourself. Just tell me how you'd like me to deal with these cases, and I will happily oblige.--Reenthelawman 00:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I notice that we're discussing two things simultaneously:
1. What constitutes a title fight?
2. How do champions who are defeated by overweight opponents lose their titles?
1. Sanctioning bodies award titles and have to determine whether a fight is a title fight. Different sanctioning bodies may take differing decisions on matters of the same kind.
Nonetheless, we're free to ponder on the case of an overweight contestant competing in a fight which was meant to be a title fight. I have come to the opinion that if the fighter who made the weight can either capture the title by winning the fight or gain another title defense by not losing the fight, the fight should be considered a title fight regardless of the result that is no matter if the fighter who made the weight succeeds in capturing the title or gaining another defense of it. Whether a title was at stake should not depend on the outcome of a fight.
Still, the encyclopaedia ought to match the database, which doesn't treat the two fights mentioned above consistently: The Martinez vs. Sanchez fight was no title fight according to BoxRec while the Ibarra vs. Cuadros fight was. In my opinion both of them should be considered title fights.
2. I'd still say "by being stripped" because I think losing a title in the ring requires being defeated and handing over the title to the winner of the fight. The latter does not happen when losing to overweight opponents or in a nontitle fight. Instead, the title becomes vacant, i.e. is declared vacant, i.e. the titlist is stripped of his title. The reason for being stripped is losing a fight, of course, but that's just what causes the sanctioning body to strip the titlist of his title. Maybe we can gather more opinions on this matter.--Emaster 18:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)