Title defenses is just an excuse for fighting bums

Yea but then its not fair for ranked guys to not get title fights cuz they nobodies

It obviously depends how they are against. “X number of title defences” alone on paper can mean absolutely nothing. Take Sven Ottke and Joe Calzaghe as prime examples. Both had 20+ “Title defences” yet the vast majority of them were against total bums.

I don't think it legitimizes anything. It was a good system in 1940 when you couldn't watch fights streamed around the world and come to your own conclusion about who is good and who isn't. You had no choice but to take someone else's word for it.

Flawed as it may be the ranking and mandatory system is the only thing that legitimises boxing Champions and Championships at all. Main problem of course is simply the muliplicity of Sanctioning organisations dividing the talent pool and devaluing each others titles.

" Manny Pacquiao 2018-2019 and now the belt is vacant" Source, that Manny vacated the WBA welterweight belt? He didn't. I copied and pasted an old post from last year. He was elevated to some WBA bull**** belt so they could hand out another vacant WBA welter belt to the Besputin-Butaev winner. That happened after I put that list together.

Did you ever stop to look at who those defenses where against and the people he was fighting "BUM OF THE MONTH" look it up “Bum of month” is completely incorrect if you actually look it up. The vast majority of Louis title defences came against top 10 ranked HW’s. People make fun of guys like Galento, Pastor or Godoy but they were all top 3 ranked HW’s at the time Louis beat them. On top of that he beat guys like Schmeling, Walcott, Conn and John Henry Lewis all legit Hall of Famers. “Bum of the month” is a essentially a myth man...

Ahh, damn that is an entirely different animal. If given the full range of history I was going to go with the fellas who literally bought championships or title fights. Just in Queensberry my focus would have been the early guys, Sullivan, Corbett, even Fitzs, who I really appreciate. Just a demand for the best to fight the best though? That's not lineal, that is the mandate of the bodies, they just suck at it. Lineal really means champion controlled. No matter how you cut it, no matter what rules you agree are lineal and what are not what is true is the champion controls that crown. Under that we had just god awful boxing. The bodies came with this cool idea we should rank fighters and force champions to fight the best ranks. Then they ****ed that up. There is no beef between you and I, I too think the bodies are **** ups. The boxers won't save us. Give them more power and they'll act just like the old champs did. Don't believe me? Check Money, he acts just like Corbett used to; above boxing. The bodies corruption comes from the boxers. The bodies are in no way behooved to create hypejobs. The boxers are incentivised to work the body's rules to get the highest ranking they can regardless of fair. The bodies themselves could care less about promotion. They don't even promote themselves, of course they are not behind the scenes ****ing up boxing to promote a bum into position. The bodies do not control career paths either. His promoter and manager do that. What boxing needs is the bodies to come back together and form one singular entity so that the boxer quit playing one against the other. People blame the sanctioning bodies for giving boxers a place to hide, which is true, if you don't like one of them you have three others to work with, but what is also true is the bodies don't then tell the boxers hey, go hide from my mandates by fighting for my competitor. The champs do that on their own....promoters, managers....kinda on their own. Yeah recently I got a thing I do it go’s like this: “Well lineally he’s accomplished more than that guy!” And I use this argument with the folks that bring up title defenses. My whole reasoning is “he’s basically the man who beat the man.” Example: Lineally the IBF strap belongs to Canelo because he lost it over politics. Now ggg lost it the same way but Canelo beat him and then beat Jacobs who was the actual champion. I also do it with Fury, I tell ppl that if he can beat AJ he could vacate the titles and lineally still be recognized as an undisputed champ

Title defense were implemented to stop champions from fighting only bums. The problem is now with the numerous sanctioning bodies and weight classes the number of quality fighters ranked by each organization has thinned out.

Yeah title defences count for nothing... Hagler’s title win over Minter is much more valuable than his defences over those bums like Hearns and Duran. :lol1: Joe Louis should have just retired in 1937, no point making a load of defences against all those bums. :lol1: Did you ever stop to look at who those defenses where against and the people he was fighting "BUM OF THE MONTH" look it up

yeah, it's better to hop around and face real killers like Rocky Fielding.

belts are just used as bargaining chips. that's why theres so many of them. always better selling an event when there's a title involved. not to mention them sanctioning fees boi!!!!

Yeah title defences count for nothing... Hagler’s title win over Minter is much more valuable than his defences over those bums like Hearns and Duran. :lol1: Joe Louis should have just retired in 1937, no point making a load of defences against all those bums. :lol1: Yeah well those are some good names in Haglers case but more recently the defenses that fighters have made have been to just keep them undefeated. And I’m Haglers case the media didn’t waste time highlighting it as a defense because the names were more important

Yeah title defences count for nothing... Hagler’s title win over Minter is much more valuable than his defences over those bums like Hearns and Duran. :lol1: Joe Louis should have just retired in 1937, no point making a load of defences against all those bums. :lol1:

:lol1: Okay, bet you anything I can show you far, far, worse lineal 'contenders' then any sanctioning body ever pushed on any champion. I don't appreciate it when others call fans casual and then say something that's really just ignorant to the history they are invoking. I'm not saying you are, I am saying I think you are. And by ignorant I do mean don't know, not stupid. If lineal is the best and sanctioned is all bad, weak, and corrupt, then lineal defenses should look nicer than sanctioned defenses, no? Maybe you should look into why sanctioning bodies exist in the first place. I think you're backwards and I can trace lineage from Sully, Figg, or Onomastos. Whatever you like really. It doesn't start to look like anything worth glorifying until after the IBU. I actually appreciate this. If I’m wrong then hopefully I can get it right and keep clowning foos just like me. But I know I said lineal but I didn’t actually mean the lineal champions. I just meant beating worthy oponents wether they have a belt or not.

I agree that it is completely meaningless in modern boxing. I don't care about it at all. You definitely can't compare eras using title belts as any kind of measure. Here’s a comparison of 2009-2019 and 1969-1979 welterweight title lineages. 1969-1979 WBC – 28 title fights Jose Napoles 1969-1970 Billy Backus 1970 Jose Napoles 1970-1975 John Stracey 1975-1976 Carlos Palomino 1976-1979 Wilfred Benitez 1979 WBA – 28 title fights Jose Napoles 1969-1970 Billy Backus 1970 Jose Napoles 1970-1975 vacated Angel Espada 1975-1976 (defeated Clyde Gray for the vacant belt, Gray ranked top 4 at welter from ’72-’76) Pipino Cuevas 1976-1979 So for that decade we had 8 champions, 1 vacated belt, 56 title fights. 2009-2019 WBA – 15 title fights Vyacheslav Senchenko (who?) 2009-2012 Paulie Malignaggi 2012-2013 Adrien Broner 2013 Marcos Maidana 2013 vacated Keith Thurman 2015-2016 (beat Robert Guerrero for the vacant belt) vacated Lamont Peterson 2017 (beat Avenasyan for the vacant belt) vacated Lucas Matthysse 2018 (beat Tewa Kiram for the vacant belt) Manny Pacquiao 2018-2019 and now the belt is vacant WBC – 16 title fights Andre Berto 2008-2011 Victor Ortiz 2011 Floyd Mayweather 2011-2015 vacated Danny Garcia 2016-2017 (beat Robert Guerrero for the vacant belt) Keith Thurman 2017 vacated Shawn Porter 2018-2019 (beat Danny Garcia for the vacant belt) IBF – 19 title fights Isaac Hlatshwayo 2009 (beat Delvin Rodriguez for the vacant belt) Jan Zaveck 2009-2011 Andre Berto 2011 vacated Randall Bailey 2012 (beat Mike Jones for the vacant belt) Devon Alexander 2012-2013 Shawn Porter 2013-2014 Kell Brook 2014-2017 Errol Spence 2017-2019 WBO – 20 title fights Miguel Cotto 2009 Manny Pacquiao 2009-2012 Tim Bradley 2012-2014 Manny Pacquiao 2014-2015 Floyd Mayweather 2015 vacated Tim Bradley 2015 (beat Brandon Rios for the vacant belt) vacated Jessie Vargas 2016 (beat Sadam Ali for the vacant belt) Manny Pacquiao 2016-2017 Jeff Horn 2017-2018 Terence Crawford 2018-2019 For this decade we have 24 champs, 8 vacated belts, 70 title fights. This is all to say that even though 4 of the very best fighters in the world for the decade (Mayweather, Pacquiao, Crawford, Spence) did much of their work in the welterweight division, there were still 20 other fighters that won "title" fights in the decade. And if we are using a criteria to rank wins based on whether or not a guy beat a beltholder, then we are saying that this era was vastly better than the 70’s simply because a bunch of suits handed out belts left and right. Absolutely! Them vacant title shot vs a nobody are the worse.

I agree that it is completely meaningless in modern boxing. I don't care about it at all. You definitely can't compare eras using title belts as any kind of measure. Here’s a comparison of 2009-2019 and 1969-1979 welterweight title lineages. 1969-1979 WBC – 28 title fights Jose Napoles 1969-1970 Billy Backus 1970 Jose Napoles 1970-1975 John Stracey 1975-1976 Carlos Palomino 1976-1979 Wilfred Benitez 1979 WBA – 28 title fights Jose Napoles 1969-1970 Billy Backus 1970 Jose Napoles 1970-1975 vacated Angel Espada 1975-1976 (defeated Clyde Gray for the vacant belt, Gray ranked top 4 at welter from ’72-’76) Pipino Cuevas 1976-1979 So for that decade we had 8 champions, 1 vacated belt, 56 title fights. 2009-2019 WBA – 15 title fights Vyacheslav Senchenko (who?) 2009-2012 Paulie Malignaggi 2012-2013 Adrien Broner 2013 Marcos Maidana 2013 vacated Keith Thurman 2015-2016 (beat Robert Guerrero for the vacant belt) vacated Lamont Peterson 2017 (beat Avenasyan for the vacant belt) vacated Lucas Matthysse 2018 (beat Tewa Kiram for the vacant belt) Manny Pacquiao 2018-2019 and now the belt is vacant WBC – 16 title fights Andre Berto 2008-2011 Victor Ortiz 2011 Floyd Mayweather 2011-2015 vacated Danny Garcia 2016-2017 (beat Robert Guerrero for the vacant belt) Keith Thurman 2017 vacated Shawn Porter 2018-2019 (beat Danny Garcia for the vacant belt) IBF – 19 title fights Isaac Hlatshwayo 2009 (beat Delvin Rodriguez for the vacant belt) Jan Zaveck 2009-2011 Andre Berto 2011 vacated Randall Bailey 2012 (beat Mike Jones for the vacant belt) Devon Alexander 2012-2013 Shawn Porter 2013-2014 Kell Brook 2014-2017 Errol Spence 2017-2019 WBO – 20 title fights Miguel Cotto 2009 Manny Pacquiao 2009-2012 Tim Bradley 2012-2014 Manny Pacquiao 2014-2015 Floyd Mayweather 2015 vacated Tim Bradley 2015 (beat Brandon Rios for the vacant belt) vacated Jessie Vargas 2016 (beat Sadam Ali for the vacant belt) Manny Pacquiao 2016-2017 Jeff Horn 2017-2018 Terence Crawford 2018-2019 For this decade we have 24 champs, 8 vacated belts, 70 title fights. This is all to say that even though 4 of the very best fighters in the world for the decade (Mayweather, Pacquiao, Crawford, Spence) did much of their work in the welterweight division, there were still 20 other fighters that won "title" fights in the decade. And if we are using a criteria to rank wins based on whether or not a guy beat a beltholder, then we are saying that this era was vastly better than the 70’s simply because a bunch of suits handed out belts left and right.