List of paper world titles

List of paper titles (From Heavyweight to Feather, if theres any interest later i'll finish the list) I’ve used a pretty simple criteria: A world title should reflect at least some form of consensus, based on actual wins, of either the top (no.1) fighter or champion at the weight. The fighter should make the belt, the belt doesn’t make a fighter. A claim to being the best should never be based on a belt, but instead be based on actual wins. So i’ve also included (universally recognised) Lineal titles, as they are somewhat respected, because they should be treat the exact same way. Any belt that doesn’t reflect at least 1 no.1 ranking is deemed to be paper. TBRB, RING and Boxingscene all assume their lineal champion is the highest rated fighter in the division, but their system isn’t designed to highlight who is the best (its designed to highlight a singular champion, who may or may not be the best fighter). Their rankings are useful, but their champions may not be necessarily no.1. Heavyweight: WBC Heavyweight - Wilder (TBRB no.3/RING no.3/Boxingscene no.4) IBF Heavyweight - Martin (TBRB no.9/RING no.10/Boxingscene no.10) Cruiserweight: WBA Cruiserweight - Lebedev (TBRB no.2/RING no.2/Boxingscene no. 2) IBF Cruiserweight - Ramirez (TBRB no. 5/RING no.9/Boxingscene no.5) Light Heavyweight: *WBA/IBF/WBO Champion Kovalev may have a stronger claim than Stevenson, but after thinking about it, I believe he'll need to solidify his dominance in the division with a few more decent wins to further highlight a disparity of in-ring achievements between him and Stevenson. Super Middleweight: WBA Super Middleweight - Chudinov (TBRB no.7/RING no.8/Boxingscene no.6) WBC Super Middleweight - Jack (TBRB no.3/RING no.3/Boxingscene no.3) IBF Super Middleweight - Degale (TBRB no.2/RING no.2/Boxingscene no.2) Middleweight: WBC Middleweight - Canelo (TBRB Champion/RING Champion/Boxingscene Champion) WBO Middleweight - Saunders (TBRB no.3/RING no.3/Boxingscene no.3) Lineal Middleweight - Canelo (as above) *WBA/IBF Champion Golovkin has a far stronger claim to being no.1 based on actual wins. Jr Middleweight: WBC Jr Middleweight - Vacant IBF Jr Middleweight - Charlo (TBRB no.3/RING no.5/Boxingscene no.4) WBO Jr Middleweight - Smith (TBRB unranked/RING no.9/Boxingscene no.9) Welterweight WBA Welterweight - Thurman (TBRB no.5/RING no.5/Boxingscene no.6) WBC Welterweight - Garcia (TBRB no.7/RING no.7/Boxingscene no.7) WBO Welterweight - Vacant Jr Welterweight: WBA Jr Welterweight - Broner (TBRB no.7/RING no.5/Boxingscene no.6) IBF Jr Welterweight - Troyanovsky (TBRB no.10/RING no.10/Boxingscene no.9) WBO Jr Welterweight - Crawford (TBRB no.2/RING no.2/Boxingscene no.2) Lightweight: WBA Lightweight - Crolla (TBRB unranked/RING no.6/Boxingscene no.10) IBF Lightweight - Barthelemy (TBRB no.4/RING no.7/Boxingscene no.4) WBO Lightweight - Flanagan (TBRB no.3/RING no.5/Boxingscene no.3) Super Featherweight: WBC Super Featherweight - Vargas (TBRB no.2/RING no.2/Boxingscene no.2) IBF Super Featherweight - Pedraza (TBRB no.7/RING no.7/Boxingscene no.7) WBO Super Featherweight - Martinez (TBRB no.5/RING no.5/Boxingscene no.5) Featherweight: WBA Featherweight - Cruz (TBRB no.5/RING no.3/Boxingscene no.3) WBC Featherweight - Russel Jr (TBRB no.4/RING no.2/Boxingscene no.2) IBF Featherweight - Selby (TBRB no.3/RING no.4/Boxingscene no.4)

Comments (5)

The biggest problematic cases are 160 and 175. I believe GGG and Kovalev are the real champions but there needs to be more objectivity in electing them champions. For example: Kovalev - Hopkins, Cleverly, Pascal Stevenson - Fonfara, Bellew, Dawson Dawson beat Hopkins, Bellew beat Cleverly and Fonfara/Pascal is a wash. So can you objectively say that Kovalev is more deserving of his championship status than Stevenson? "Stevenson ducked doe, PBC doe, Chickenson doe" The only argument is common sense that Kovalev is more impressive. But that situation needs to be settled. MW is a little more clear but GGG but idk if Murray and Geale are enough to become "champion" as opposed to #1 contender. I look at that as more of a vacant situation with politics killing the possibility of a champion. Cleverly beat Bellew at LHW, Bellew won at CW which has no bearing on their LHW status.

10y ago

Outwest_Exp_355

This is NSB so whoever you like is the real champion and whoever you hate is the paper champion. Case closed.

10y ago

PBP

Well to answer both, my criteria specifically labels any title a paper title where theres no strong clear claim to being the best in the division, which shouldn't be based on a belt, but more the actual wins. I've had a little think over the Stevenson/Kovalev scenario. Stevenson has at least a little claim to being the best as he has a couple of decent victories, but so does Kovalev, and I think most people would agree he has beaten the better fighters. Putting it all together then, the scenario looks to be this: Stevenson's titles reflect a fighter that doesn't have better wins than Kovalev's titles, and so you can very well call them paper. But I can see your case, in the absence of a lineal-championship dominated ranking system, some places may indeed rank Stevenson over Kovalev, but it would be a minority. It's debatable, so i'll remove Stevenson for now, with the understanding that his titles probably mean just as much as Kovalev's. I bolded some of the post because I don't believe you accept that logic. Dawson beat Hopkins, Pascal beat Dawson, Cleverly beat Bellew at 175 (albeit close), and Fonfara/Pascal is fantasy. I understand your argument, as above, but you were better off just listing the wins. As for GGG and 160, the aim wasn't to crown a champion. The idea of a championship is inherently flawed as its a lineage based system (on the most part, fighters may win titles outside of the ring nowadays). I firmly believe, based on wins, that Golovkin's unified championship reflects the consensus best middleweight in the world. That makes sense. Its unfortunate and frustrating but rankings and champions can't be crowned out of frustration. Kovalev holds belts but 2 of them came from B-Hop. If you trace the origination of those belts he beat Tavoris Cloud and Beibut Shumenov with a title defense against Karo Murat. What he's doing at age 50 is phenomenal but the reality is that all he did was collect paper titles from weak titlists. The objective thing to do is label everybody at 175 a paper champion for now. It will really get ugly if Andre Ward emerges as a top contender because there is no reason why Ward (if he's the same guy) vs Kovalev shouldn't establish a new champion.

10y ago

techliam

I stopped reading when you posted Stevenson's title as paper. Stevenson legit won that title. When did it become a paper title? If you wanna say he's not the best in the division I agree. But to call his title a paper title is ridiculous and this otherwise good thread loses all credibility The biggest problematic cases are 160 and 175. I believe GGG and Kovalev are the real champions but there needs to be more objectivity in electing them champions. For example: Kovalev - Hopkins, Cleverly, Pascal Stevenson - Fonfara, Bellew, Dawson Dawson beat Hopkins, Bellew beat Cleverly and Fonfara/Pascal is a wash. So can you objectively say that Kovalev is more deserving of his championship status than Stevenson? "Stevenson ducked doe, PBC doe, Chickenson doe" The only argument is common sense that Kovalev is more impressive. But that situation needs to be settled. MW is a little more clear but GGG but idk if Murray and Geale are enough to become "champion" as opposed to #1 contender. I look at that as more of a vacant situation with politics killing the possibility of a champion. Well to answer both, my criteria specifically labels any title a paper title where theres no strong clear claim to being the best in the division, which shouldn't be based on a belt, but more the actual wins. I've had a little think over the Stevenson/Kovalev scenario. Stevenson has at least a little claim to being the best as he has a couple of decent victories, but so does Kovalev, and I think most people would agree he has beaten the better fighters. Putting it all together then, the scenario looks to be this: Stevenson's titles reflect a fighter that doesn't have better wins than Kovalev's titles, and so you can very well call them paper. But I can see your case, in the absence of a lineal-championship dominated ranking system, some places may indeed rank Stevenson over Kovalev, but it would be a minority. It's debatable, so i'll remove Stevenson for now, with the understanding that his titles probably mean just as much as Kovalev's. I bolded some of the post because I don't believe you accept that logic. Dawson beat Hopkins, Pascal beat Dawson, Cleverly beat Bellew at 175 (albeit close), and Fonfara/Pascal is fantasy. I understand your argument, as above, but you were better off just listing the wins. As for GGG and 160, the aim wasn't to crown a champion. The idea of a championship is inherently flawed as its a lineage based system (on the most part, fighters may win titles outside of the ring nowadays). I firmly believe, based on wins, that Golovkin's unified championship reflects the consensus best middleweight in the world.

10y ago

PBP

10y ago