By Tom Donelson
How do you pick the best fighter? This is a question that I deal with every month since I am one of 100 plus reporters who vote in the boxing writers' rankings poll. And it is not an easy task since it involves not only research, but also gut instinct.
Many of the various divisions are deep and more often than not, the fighters don’t make it easier by not fighting one another. Let consider the following case studies.
The middleweight division presents one area of controversy. Jermain Taylor is the recognized champ but many view Hopkins as the true champion. The reason that many view Taylor’s claim with reluctance, goes back to the nature of his victory over Hopkins. It was a close but a controversial decision over the defending champion. Many still feel that Hopkins won the fight and there are those who have stated publicly whether it is fair to reward Taylor with the 'recognized' title. The answer is yes. For the simple reason that Taylor won the fight. You may not have liked how he won but the judges awarded him with the title by declaring him the winner.
Controversial decisions are a part of boxing. At this point, Taylor is the recognized middleweight champion and Hopkins will have a chance to recapture the title before retiring.
Who is the lightweight champion? Sounds easy? It is Jose Castillo, right? Not so fast. Castillo did beat Corrales up in four rounds. What Castillo did not do was beat Corrales at 135 pounds. Big difference. Throughout much of boxing history, fighters would actually fight “over weight” fights and no titles were at stake.
In 1940, Middleweight contender Billy Soose beat both Ken Overlin and Tony Zale in a 30-day period. Both Overlin and Zale were recognized middleweight champions but Soose did not capture a title in either championship bout. In both fights, the pugilists came in over the 160-pound weight and no championship belts were at stake.
Castillo did not come in at the proper weight and the fight was not declared a championship fight. It was agreed upon, before the fight, that Corrales’ championship was no longer at stake. Castillo won the fight but he did not capture the title. Corrales is the recognized lightweight championship. Period. Castillo may have beaten Corrales and he may even be the best lightweight, but he is only the best lightweight if he actually fights at that weight.
Then there is the heavyweight division. I have been consistently voting for Vitali Klitschko but Vitali's hold on the title is shaking. The reason that I vote for Vitali is simply because he is the closest thing to a linear champion but there is just as much of a solid case against him, as for him.
The best opponent he beat was Kirk Johnson. When he faced Johnson, he was facing a solid boxer who was ranked high at the time. What should have been a glorious moment for Klitschko, proved to be mired in controversy. Johnson showed up 30 pounds overweight and proved lethargic against the Ukrainian. Klitschko easily beat him but was denied credit for what should have been a respectable win. Beyond that, he defeated Corrie Sanders and Danny Williams. Sanders' greatest claim was that he clobbered Vitali’s brother and Williams got his chance simply because he beat a one-legged Mike Tyson. In Hasim Rahman, Vitali is fighting what on paper will be his toughest fight since Lennox Lewis.
The critics point out that he did lose to Byrd, so why not Byrd as the champion? Good question but at this point, I have to feel that if Byrd fought Klitschko, the result would be different. However, I can’t argue against the choice of Byrd. Right now, Klitschko is the top choice for the championship but it would be better if he earns that right in the ring by beating the other champions. At this point, Vitali is the recognized best, but it is a shaky claim at best.
With some divisions, it is easy to know who is the champion but with other divisions, deciphering who is the champion is not so easy. These case studies show that it is not always black or white when it come to deciding who is the best.
