Do You Consider a Fighter Who Won a Vacant Belt a Champion?

[Guest]

I don't think these fighters should be considered champions until they beat an actual titleholder. What do you think?

[Ras44]

Yes. I don't believe in the "linear champion" line. Real ATG are not determined by beating "linear champions", but the most talented, serious challengers around, regardless if they are liner champions, champions, or not champions at all.

There isn't even much logic in the "linear champion" argument. Because if you keep going backwards, the first champion couldn't have won the title from anyone.

But we live in a logic handicapped world.

Example: Fighting, and beating, a prime Hearns is a major accomplishment regardless if he is the "linear champion" or not.

[DuttyAlacrity]

NOPE! That's what i call a paper champion. To be the man you got to beat the man. I am a firm advocate of Lineal Champs, those are the only champs that matter. There is too much politics involved with all these sanctioning bodies, it's all about money for them. The only time i recognize a champ that wins a vacant championship is when there is an absence of a lineal champ, and the number 1 and number 2 independently ranked fighters fights for the belt (similiar to the ring policy).
RAS44 The only reason why ATG are not determined by lineal champs is because there was NO CONFUSION who the champ was as it is today. THERE are 4 MAJOR belts for peacesake, all claiming that their man is the WORLD CHAMP... BULL!!EVERY ATG has WON atleast one LINEAL CHAMPIONSHIP. They are considered ATGs because they were great champions, you can't be a great champ with a paper championship.

[1g5a22]

do you consider yourself a good poster..........

after you have finished condsidering youself(which wont take long)consider this...

i like many others are indifferent to you!

and yes im a hatton fan.

[Ras44]

NOPE! That's what i call a paper champion. To be the man you got to beat the man. I am a firm advocate of Lineal Champs, those are the only champs that matter. There is too much politics involved with all these sanctioning bodies, it's all about money for them. The only time i recognize a champ that wins a vacant championship is when there is an absence of a lineal champ, and the number 1 and number 2 independently ranked fighters fights for the belt (similiar to the ring policy).
RAS44 The only reason why ATG are not determined by lineal champs is because there was NO CONFUSION who the champ was as it is today. THERE are 4 MAJOR belts for peacesake, all claiming that their man is the WORLD CHAMP... BULL!!EVERY ATG has WON atleast one LINEAL CHAMPIONSHIP. They are considered ATGs because they were great champions, you can't be a great champ with a paper championship.

There is no logic behind the "linear champion" argument. At the end of the string you will inevitably end up with a guy who didn't won the championship from the champion, because he was the first champion. At that point you will have to make it a circular statement.

Much like Royal Families and the like, with the exception that they could claim their first Royal was elected by the Sun God or whoever they wished.

[-----------]

I don't think these fighters should be considered champions until they beat an actual titleholder. What do you think?

what a mess

[1g5a22]

what a mess

lol.

exactly

[Scott9945]

If you win a world championship fight, then you are a world champion. Floyd Patterson won a fight for a vacant title, was he not a champion?

[VIVA MEXICO!!]

if you get a major belt you are a champion. plain and basic common sense.

[tyson]

Nope, I don't.

What I think of them and what I refer to them as differs vastly from what they actually are.

They are champions by the current standards, but not by mine.

Champion is a word I don't dish out lightly.