|10-02-2012, 01:32 AM||#1|
Join Date: Aug 2012
Quoted: 0 Post(s)Rep Power: 0
Total Points: 5,000,018,711.54
If you had to vacate a title
Lets say you had two world titles and because of the WBCs rule that you can not unify a title with the WBC which title would you vacate the WBC or the WBO/WBA/IBF
Personally I would vacate the WBC
|10-02-2012, 01:47 AM||#5|
Up and Comer
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Quoted: 0 Post(s)Rep Power: 8
Total Points: 21,497.54
I'd lose the WBO belt...I never gave that belt much cred, and think Carl Froch was right about that belt......
Jenna: Speaking of Arthur Abraham, he recently returned to the ring and won a super middleweight title belt. Were you are at all surprised he was able to Robert Stieglitz and become a world champion again?
Froch: No, I think Abraham did well actually in beating Stieglitz. I didn’t see the fight, but from what I’ve heard it was quite close, and that Abraham deserved to win, and he’s done well. I’m proud of him to win that fight and become WBO super middleweight champion, he’s done himself proud. We will see how long he holds on to that tile for, but it’s not massive a title the WBO, it’s not sort of belt I regard very highly personally, the 3 main belts for me are the WBC, IBF, and WBA. It’s a belt, a world title, you know one of them ones that sometimes stay in one place for too long. Top fighters don’t always challenge for it. But he is WBO super middleweight champ, he’s done well, I am not surprised he is a good fighter.
Jenna: You mention that you don’t regard the WBO belt very highly. Is that at all a shot at Joe Calazghe who held that belt for a long time?
Froch: No, no Joe Calazghe is a good friend of mine. He is a gentlemen and he has retired graciously. He retired undefeated and he was one of the best super middleweights or he was the best super middleweight in the world when he retired, so there was nothing intended at all. But it’s a good example he had the belt for 10 years and defended the tile 90% of the time in Wales, so it down values the belt little bet when that happens especially when you’re not defending it in next in line, the 1, 2 and 3 in the world, your defending against mandatory opponents, or I am sorry, not mandatory opponents you have voluntary defenses against people who are not ranked top 10 in the world, so it down values the belt, so when Floyd Mayweather has the belt and he defends the belt against the next best opponent in the division, it becomes a good belt and a good title to win, so it always different and it depends on which weight and the fighters name make the belt become more prestigious, it’s my personal opinion of the WBO it’s not something I strive to become a WBO champion, but that’s just my personal opinion, a lot people might disagree or have something to say, if they want a number to ring, just give them my number and will have a talk about it
FROCH = LEGEND
|10-02-2012, 01:56 AM||#8|
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quoted: 1 Post(s)Rep Power: 9
Total Points: 25,246,995,873.20
WBO. No matter how corrupt the WBC is that's a belt everyone wants.
Posted from Boxingscene.com App for Android
|10-02-2012, 05:13 AM||#9|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Orange County CA
Quoted: 7 Post(s)Rep Power: 13
Total Points: 548,793,469,782,462,272.00
the wbc belt is the one that looks the best, but the most corrupt, i would probably vacate that one to stick it to them, no fees they can collect
|10-02-2012, 05:39 AM||#10|
The Don of NSB
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Boss Status
Quoted: 69 Post(s)Rep Power: 51
Total Points: 771,765,865,998,639,693,824.00
the wbc and its not even close
not being able to unify belts is the stupidest rule ever
|Share This With Friends|