People say Tank is not a 3 division champ due to the WBA"regular" title

The boxing industry recognizes 5 world titles. WBC, Super WBA, IBF, WBO and WBA. Doesn't really matter what we on a message board think.

yet some of those same people claim GGG had over 20 title defenses..so which is it??? is the belt a legit title or not? Belts mean sheeit when your name is the clout. These big names need to PROVE they DESERVE that big money.

Davis is much, much better. Don't compare him to that stiff, face first robot. Nobody is avoiding Davis buddy... Davis is avoiding everybody... You've become a complete clown on this forum man. Trolling has destroyed this place.

Here is my original comment: "GGG was pretty much the man at MW when he picked up that regular belt - you could at least make a good case that he was the number 1 MW in the world starting at that time, and going through his defense record." As mentioned, the only other 2 possible top dogs for MW supremacy at that time, were Sergio Martinez - who you could make a really good case that he was the 1 MW in the world at that time - and Pirog - who has less of a claim than GGG. GGG would be considered by virtually anyone to be number 1 or 2 at MW at the time that he picked up the first interim MW crown. Have a nice day, Canelo Superfan number 10143053. What revisionist bs,you have the audacity to claim "at least ggg was the man at mw when won reg champ" then say I'M superfan, to which I posted that ggg beat the p4p king milton nunez or nelson tapia for that trinket which is worse than both Barrios & Feilding who were at least new divisions both jumped to. You didn't even quote yourself correctly.("was the man" is far from "there was only a few better fighters"(which both Pirog,Martinez were) You are flipping the script now. :lol1: Have a nice day g stan

Gervonta Davis is no GGG, Larry. Davis is much, much better. Don't compare him to that stiff, face first robot.

This is so dumb,ggg wasn't the man when he beat milton nunez or nelson tapia? GTFOH How in the hell do you do the mental gymnastics that you do is beyond me, especially considering how you are shtting on Feilding & Barrios who on paper were far more impressive for the simple fact that Canelo/Tank were moving up unlike "lil mw " ggg. You are the same guy constantly calling others names like star chasers & sht while making an arse of yourself defending ggg & his fake accomplishment. (Ps none of those 3 belts count as real titles,but neither do gifted vacant trinkets like those ggg held) Here is my original comment: "GGG was pretty much the man at MW when he picked up that regular belt - you could at least make a good case that he was the number 1 MW in the world starting at that time, and going through his defense record." As mentioned, the only other 2 possible top dogs for MW supremacy at that time, were Sergio Martinez - who you could make a really good case that he was the 1 MW in the world at that time - and Pirog - who has less of a claim than GGG. GGG would be considered by virtually anyone to be number 1 or 2 at MW at the time that he picked up the first interim MW crown. Have a nice day, Canelo Superfan number 10143053.

Those names you mentioned are with Top Rank or on DAZN. You think they will be allowed to go fight Davis on a PPV for a B-side share of the purse? You definitely have a point there. But I do feel like Tank and his coach are a little different. They don't seem to carry the ego that their promoter has. But we'll have to wait and see. Ryan Garcia seems to be the name with the most steam atm though.

Tank has no excuse to not fight any of: Herring, Valdez, J. Diaz Jr., Teofimo, Lomachenko, Haney, Linares, or Josh Taylor. There is no excuse for his next fight to not be against a champion, for a championship belt. Those names you mentioned are with Top Rank or on DAZN. You think they will be allowed to go fight Davis on a PPV for a B-side share of the purse?

The thing is, the people criticizing Tank aren't going to recognize anything he does anyways. So, it's kind of moot what GGG did or does in comparison. I wasn't a fan of Tank. But two things that sort of changed my mind with him. 1) I didn't think he would even fight Leo Santa Cruz. He did and took his soul. 2) Moved up to 140, fought a guy who could be 154 easily, and finished him. Tank isn't what I thought he was. He deserves respect as long as he keeps fighting legit opponents. If he pulls a T-Bud, then nah, it's lame s/hit. Tank has no excuse to not fight any of: Herring, Valdez, J. Diaz Jr., Teofimo, Lomachenko, Haney, Linares, or Josh Taylor. There is no excuse for his next fight to not be against a champion, for a championship belt.

Everything involving belts is pretty much BS because there are so many of them. People have to evaluate things as they see them, and simply winning a belt is not an indication of prowess or success. I think there is a somewhat important distinction between the Tank case and GGG - GGG was pretty much the man at MW when he picked up that regular belt - you could at least make a good case that he was the number 1 MW in the world starting at that time, and going through his defense record. Tank did a Canelo-Fielding move - moving up in weight to target a regular belt vs a weak (for that weight class) belt holder. What everyone has to do is evaluate what wins a guy has, and not what belts etc they win. It's all about who you fought, what level they were at that time, and what you did vs them. Barrios, all things considered, is a solid or very solid win for Tank. But acting like Tank is a legit belt holder at 140 right now is a stretch. I don't think it was a stretch to say GGG was a legit belt holder at 160 when he picked up his first belt. This is so dumb,ggg wasn't the man when he beat milton nunez or nelson tapia? GTFOH How in the hell do you do the mental gymnastics that you do is beyond me, especially considering how you are shtting on Feilding & Barrios who on paper were far more impressive for the simple fact that Canelo/Tank were moving up unlike "lil mw " ggg. You are the same guy constantly calling others names like star chasers & sht while making an arse of yourself defending ggg & his fake accomplishment. (Ps none of those 3 belts count as real titles,but neither do gifted vacant trinkets like those ggg held)

I try not to waste too much time trying to rationalize some of these sanctioning body actions, we all know they are blatantly corrupt, in the sense that they will do what is best for themselves and the promoters who pay them which at the end of the day is the same thing. They follow their own rules when it suits, they'll change them when they want, or break their own rules if they can't be bothered, with no repercussions. Now imagine a world where they set clear rules and followed them, its not too hard, that is basically the IBF and what is the result? Its delegitimized by promoters because it can't be controlled and gamed, so they enforce their mandatories, but their mandatories are often **** so people complain about that, and why are the mandos bad, because promoters won't chase the IBF ranking because it can't be gamed. Now there are some overly egregious cases, i.e. Franchise champion, Lopez being undisputed while Haney is also champion depending on which press conference they are at, but if you think of these sanctioning bodies as the promotional companies they are, it makes more sense. Great post. Well stated.

This really isn't about comparing Tank and GGG as fighters. Imo, it's about comparing how and why they each came to hold WBA regular titles. I guess what I mean is GGG was heavily avoided by everybody while Davis AVOIDS everybody.

Gervonta Davis is no GGG, Larry. This really isn't about comparing Tank and GGG as fighters. Imo, it's about comparing how and why they each came to hold WBA regular titles.

Well... yes. That's kinda my starting point. Trying to resolve this dilemma with a solution that's satisfactory to both sides of the argument; both those who believe Golovkin should be considered full champion from 2010 and those who are wondering why - of all the mandatories across multiple divisions who get overlooked or bypassed - Golovkin should get any special consideration at all. I'm trying to do it by effectively ignoring the question of Golovkin's particular circumstances altogether in fact since otherwise you run the risk of getting bogged down in a morass of subjectivity involving not only Golovkin but every other dude who's been ****ed over by the WBA... I thought I'd arrived at a fairly decent workable solution actually.. :lol1: Guess I got my work cut out, huh? Anything involving GGG is hard work at this place! But you probably have a better chance of getting his detractors to accept your argument than I have of getting them to even consider mine.

I'm not going by any assumption that GGG would have beaten Sturm. What I'm saying is that by creating a new version of their world MW title for no other reason than to avoid a fight between the Interim champion/mandatory challenger and the champion, the WBA created a situation wherein fans had no alternative but to look at both WBA MW title holders and decide for themselves who was the real champion and who was the paper champion. Well... yes. That's kinda my starting point. Trying to resolve this dilemma with a solution that's satisfactory to both sides of the argument; both those who believe Golovkin should be considered full champion from 2010 since Sturm effectively vacated and those who are wondering why - of all the mandatories across multiple divisions who get overlooked or bypassed - Golovkin should get any special consideration at all. I'm trying to do it by effectively ignoring the question of Golovkin's particular circumstances altogether in fact since otherwise you run the risk of getting bogged down in a morass of subjectivity involving not only Golovkin but every other dude who's been fucked over by the WBA... I thought I'd arrived at a fairly decent workable solution actually.. :lol1: Guess I got my work cut out, huh?

Gervonta Davis is no GGG, Larry.

bro look at the lineage of the wba "regular" its not the real belt. it dont count GGG's 20 title defenses are different, he is just using his white privilege. What good is white privilege if youre not allow to use it for anything? Lmfao.....

I agree FWIW, they ****ed the whole system and GGG in the process, but what I'm trying to do is come up with a consistent system for deciding on the primary WBA lineage which doesn't resort to arguing out each and every case of the WBAs ****ery on it's individual merits, cos Golovkin ain't the only one here, they're ****ed with a ton of guys. I'm just trying to come up with a workable rule of thumb that can be applied across the board to all situations since they created this effing mess by splitting the titles back in 2001... Basically it's either come up with a workable consensus methodolgy or just agree to ignore the WBA altogether since they got basically zero consistency the way I see it. If you want to go on arguing that Golovkin should have got his shot in 2010 I'm right with you, but unfortunately he didn't which means that we've no way of knowing for sure what the outcome would have been (although I'm 95% certain personally GGG woulda smashed Sturm) and you can't run a title lineage system based on what you believe might have happened rather than what actually did happen more's the pity. See where I'm coming from? I'm not going by any assumption that GGG would have beaten Sturm. What I'm saying is that by creating a new version of their world MW title for no other reason than to avoid a fight between the Interim champion/mandatory challenger and the champion, the WBA created a situation wherein fans had no alternative but to look at both WBA MW title holders and decide for themselves who was the real champion and who was the paper champion.

What you're saying here makes sense on its own terms, but those terms were dictated by the WBA who were acting in bad faith when they introduced the rules you're basing your reasoning on. Here's how I look at it - according to the rules existing at the time, GGG legitimately earned a shot at the full WBA title - for want of a better term - and he was denied that shot when new rules were introduced for no other reason than to deny him his shot. I agree FWIW, they fucked the whole system and GGG in the process, but what I'm trying to do is come up with a consistent system for deciding on the primary WBA lineage which doesn't resort to arguing out each and every case of the WBAs fuckery on it's individual merits, cos Golovkin ain't the only one here, they're fucked with a ton of guys. I'm just trying to come up with a workable rule of thumb that can be applied across the board to all situations since they created this effing mess by splitting the titles back in 2001... Basically it's either come up with a workable consensus methodolgy or just agree to ignore the WBA altogether since they got basically zero consistency the way I see it. If you want to go on arguing that Golovkin should have got his shot in 2010 I'm right with you, but unfortunately he didn't which means that we've no way of knowing for sure what the outcome would have been (although I'm 95% certain personally GGG woulda smashed Sturm) and you can't run a title lineage system based on what you believe might have happened rather than what actually did happen more's the pity. See where I'm coming from?

Actually the WBA changed it's rule for Super champions in 2009/10 so that Champions with 5 defenses* could be declared 'Super' Champions... this is reportedly the rule that they used (and allegedly put in place due to bribery) to elevate Sturm - who also wasn't unified - so he didn't have to face Golovkin as a mandatory in 2010. Under this very same rule the WBA should have elevated Golovkin in 2012 after his 5th defense of the World title, which also co-incides neatly with when Geale dropped the 'Super' title to fight Mundine leaving Golovkin as the WBAs sole remaining world Champion. So essentially the WBA did GGG dirty twice, firstly by denying him the title shot he'd earned in 2010 (and arguably I'd say delegitimising both the WBA World and the WBA 'Super' in the process) by changing their own rules to elevate Sturm, and secondly by NOT elevating in Golovkin in late 2012 under the exact same rule they'd use to elevate Sturm out of harm's way just 2 years earlier. Anyways... many boxers have been fuuxxed over by unfair rulings by the sanctioning bodies so GGG ain't special in that regard, and whichever way I square it I try to stick to the principle that there can be only one Champion per sanctioning org in each weight class at any given time and regardless of the Bullchit surrounding his elevation Sturm was the 'Super Champ' from the period 2010 - 2012 and had fought more legitimate opposition whilst Golovkin was the secondary titlist for that period and had fought basically no-one. However once the Super title become vacant (and simultaneously GGG reached 5 defenses) I personally believe it's legitimate to consider Golovkin the WBAs primary champion at 160... and further there's plenty of precedent for such elevations in other divisions amongst named fighters (in that when the Super is vacated the regular Champion becomes the 'man'). -Badou Jack for instance was universally regarded as WBA Champ at 168 after Ward vacated as was Lara in '16 after Floyd retired despite neither being 'Super' champion.. There's numerous other examples too. Do we de-recognise Badou and Lara or do we recognise Golovkin? :thinking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...orld_champions Anyways way I cut it GGG has 14 defenses of the WBAs primary title, 5 as the sole WBA World Champion after Geale vacated and a further 9 (including the Draw against Canelo) as the Super Champion. * Actually it's technically now 5 defenses for all divisions except Middleweights who are required to make 10... a rule brought in presumably after Sturms elevation and before GGGs which should tell you all you need to know about the WBAs credibility. What you're saying here makes sense on its own terms, but those terms were dictated by the WBA who were acting in bad faith when they introduced the rules you're basing your reasoning on. Here's how I look at it - according to the rules existing at the time, GGG legitimately earned a shot at the full WBA title - for want of a better term - and he was denied that shot when new rules were introduced for no other reason than to deny him his shot.