Light Welter, underrated?

[Marchegiano]

I agree you have to evaluate each situation separately- who was the WBO champion and was there a dispute?

The Ring Magazine tried over the decades several times to adjust to the multiple belt situation (and failed every time).

One attempt was to ignore belts altogether and only ID champions that their team held a consensus for - they ended up with more than half of the divisions having no champion, and then it stayed that way for months and months, and then they abandoned the effort.

So who was the WBO champion and was there a reasonable dispute worth having?

Historically speaking I think it is our call to make. The mere existence of a sanctioning body doesn't trump our opinion.

What about cross recognition?

I get you, on one hand we already have a stripped lineage in QB era and also the first body belts are not historically recognized otherwise we'd call Langford a champion. So it's not as if boxing historians don't already pick and choose what titles to recognize, but, the secondary championship left by Corbett that ends in Sharkey-Jeffries had no recognition from the original title, Corbett himself does the stripping. And when Jack Johnson was stripped of the IBU no one claims Jack wasn't champion until Jack loses to Willard. But again the IBU had no NSC, NBA, or NYSAC to co-sign its legitimacy.

If you recognize the modern WBA doesn't that force you to recognize the WBC/O-IBF? As far as WBA is concerned the WBC/O-IBF belts are equal.

So, for me, I put WBO at 07. Because they didn't get full body recognition until 07. Which at LWW is Ricardo Torres, but also coming off of Judah and Cotto. In other division 07 seems rather later for WBO rec as well given...you know, Wlad.

Howevere, when you look on their ratings you do see very clearly what is and is not recognized. The WBA Regular is not a major belt. The WBA can claim it is, the man holding it can be a great talent, it's still not one of the titles and the man holding it is not one of the titlists recognized by the other bodies unanimously. That's why Haney is the WBC champion and not Teo no matter how much the WBC says Franchise is over WBC. That's an internal ruling. The external ruling is Franchise is not even recognized as a world title anymore than Reg or an IBO title is.

Off that, Wlad's a great champion and Joshua's a very good champion, both are talent enough to legitimize a dispute. Wlad, for a lot of the time, is the clear champion of the era. That doesn't make the IBO's ****** computer belt worth anything to me. I wouldn't like it but if the four decided it's time to be the five I feel like that battle would be over and the IBO would be very hard to argue against.


So while it is a very common practice to look back and strip or elevate where you feel is best I'm not so sure those same practices can be excused the same way.

[ShoulderRoll]

That's true, but at the time the WBO was a non-entity. It was like the IBO

There were also unified champions at the weight before, during the WBC/WBA era and during the NBA/NYSAC era.

[Willie Pep 229]

I recognize the validity to what you argue and it is the conventional wisdom, but I don't agree.

Teofirmo Lopez is a great example of our differences. I don't give a hoot about the WBC belt - Lopez is LW champion because he beat Loma - that's all. The other guy hasn't proven anything, yet!

As you can see from above I won't even use the term "undisputed" when others will - I believe the word itself gives credibility to the scantioning bodies by acknowledging they exist, which I don't care about. I just see Lopez as the current LW champ, I guess, I'm not really even sure that's even important any longer. (I want it to be.)

As you stated above 'if you recignize the WBA why not the the WBO'? --- better yet how about ignoring all of them and give fighters back control over their careers?

Now on the other hand Lopez was very smart signing on exclusively with Arum and the WBC becuse the way things are today they could market him better than he could ever market himself. He never gets to where he ended up after only 16 fights without them. But in my opinion that situation exists because people think like you (wink).

Someone says ______ belt and it goes right pass me; I really don't even pay any attention to what they said. I honestly can't name more than the W BC - BO - BA -- and I have no clue who holds what belt.

There are very few I see as champions but still get excited when the right fight is made and I don't need to be told when that is. . .

[Willie Pep 229]

What about cross recognition?

I get you, on one hand we already have a stripped lineage in QB era and also the first body belts are not historically recognized otherwise we'd call Langford a champion. So it's not as if boxing historians don't already pick and choose what titles to recognize, but, the secondary championship left by Corbett that ends in Sharkey-Jeffries had no recognition from the original title, Corbett himself does the stripping. And when Jack Johnson was stripped of the IBU no one claims Jack wasn't champion until Jack loses to Willard. But again the IBU had no NSC, NBA, or NYSAC to co-sign its legitimacy.

If you recognize the modern WBA doesn't that force you to recognize the WBC/O-IBF? As far as WBA is concerned the WBC/O-IBF belts are equal.

So, for me, I put WBO at 07. Because they didn't get full body recognition until 07. Which at LWW is Ricardo Torres, but also coming off of Judah and Cotto. In other division 07 seems rather later for WBO rec as well given...you know, Wlad.

Howevere, when you look on their ratings you do see very clearly what is and is not recognized. The WBA Regular is not a major belt. The WBA can claim it is, the man holding it can be a great talent, it's still not one of the titles and the man holding it is not one of the titlists recognized by the other bodies unanimously. That's why Haney is the WBC champion and not Teo no matter how much the WBC says Franchise is over WBC. That's an internal ruling. The external ruling is Franchise is not even recognized as a world title anymore than Reg or an IBO title is.

Off that, Wlad's a great champion and Joshua's a very good champion, both are talent enough to legitimize a dispute. Wlad, for a lot of the time, is the clear champion of the era. That doesn't make the IBO's ****** computer belt worth anything to me. I wouldn't like it but if the four decided it's time to be the five I feel like that battle would be over and the IBO would be very hard to argue against.


So while it is a very common practice to look back and strip or elevate where you feel is best I'm not so sure those same practices can be excused the same way.

I am sorry the post above was meant to be for you.

[DeeMoney]

Been told Loi was super protected. Doesn't make him not top ten, I'm just wondering if you have any insight or opinion on it.

I'm sure there are others who would know better than me in regards to him being protected, but he did rarely leave home to fight anyone good. He did take two out of three from Ortiz, but the two wins were in Italy and that second fight does have some doubt swirling about it.

He always looked like a good fighter in the ring though, and I liked watching his style.

[Marchegiano]

I recognize the validity to what you argue and it is the conventional wisdom, but I don't agree.

Teofirmo Lopez is a great example of our differences. I don't give a hoot about the WBC belt - Lopez is LW champion because he beat Loma - that's all. The other guy hasn't proven anything, yet!

As you can see from above I won't even use the term "undisputed" when others will - I believe the word itself gives credibility to the scantioning bodies by acknowledging they exist, which I don't care about. I just see Lopez as the current LW champ, I guess, I'm not really even sure that's even important any longer. (I want it to be.)

As you stated above 'if you recignize the WBA why not the the WBO'? --- better yet how about ignoring all of them and give fighters back control over their careers?

Now on the other hand Lopez was very smart signing on exclusively with Arum and the WBC becuse the way things are today they could market him better than he could ever market himself. He never gets to where he ended up after only 16 fights without them. But in my opinion that situation exists because people think like you (wink).

Someone says ______ belt and it goes right pass me; I really don't even pay any attention to what they said. I honestly can't name more than the W BC - BO - BA -- and I have no clue who holds what belt.

There are very few I see as champions but still get excited when the right fight is made and I don't need to be told when that is. . .

I get it, like it, appreciate the post. I might even adapt the philosophy myself.

Champion means best. Undisputed Champion is an oxymoron and I guess folks are just so used to it we hardly ever think about how ****** that term is. Thanks bud!

[Anthony342]

I get it, like it, appreciate the post. I might even adapt the philosophy myself.

Champion means best. Undisputed Champion is an oxymoron and I guess folks are just so used to it we hardly ever think about how ****** that term is. Thanks bud!

George Carlin did. He said undisputed champion "If it's undisputed, what's all the fighting about?" That's why he was the best, he was brilliant.

[markusmod]

George Carlin did. He said undisputed champion "If it's undisputed, what's all the fighting about?" That's why he was the best, he was brilliant.

He also smashed watermelons

[markusmod]

I agree you have to evaluate each situation separately- who was the WBO champion and was there a dispute?

The Ring Magazine tried over the decades several times to adjust to the multiple belt situation (and failed every time).

One attempt was to ignore belts altogether and only ID champions that their team held a consensus for - they ended up with more than half of the divisions having no champion, and then it stayed that way for months and months, and then they abandoned the effort.

So who was the WBO champion and was there a reasonable dispute worth having?

Historically speaking I think it is our call to make. The mere existence of a scantioning body doesn't trump our opinion.

I dont even remember a WBO champion at that weight at the time, but there easily could have been one.

[Anthony342]

He also smashed watermelons

No, that was Gallagher.