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

[muppetman]

i Don't Think These Fighters Should Be Considered Champions Until They Beat An Actual Titleholder. What Do You Think?

Yes Cause You Have Two Hungry Fighter Giving All They Have....it Better Than One Being Champ Sometimes!!

[Pullcounter]

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

it depends entirely on how the belt was vacated.

[Horus]

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

Are you talking about Cotto..??

[Scott9945]

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

it depends entirely on how the belt was vacated.

Of course. If the champion retires, how else could you have a new champion?

[x-PeROxiDE-x]

Champions make belts, not the other way around.

Suprised nobody has said that already.

[Ras44]

Champions make belts, not the other way around.

Suprised nobody has said that already.

Exactly.

DuttyAlacrity - I understand what your concern is. And it's allright since it seems to come from a real fan looking for purity and worthiness in boxing. However, I agree with X Luke X, the very basic logic in the argument is very flawed.

I'll agree to disagree.

[squealpiggy]

Depends on the title, depends on the situation. A guy retires or moves up in weight vacating the belt and the two top contenders fight for the vacant strap and sure, I'm willing to concede that they're the real champ (or real titleholder, with four major belts you do have to make the distinction). For example divisions where I'd be willing to concede a new "champion" as opposed to "beltholder" are SMW and Cruiser as the undisputed champion left the division permanently. However if a guy vacates his belt to fight someone who isn't that particular alphabet's mandatory (especially if the guy they choose to fight is another titleholder or a much stronger challenger) and that mandatory then wins a vacant belt then sure, he's a paper champ.

Example is Lovemore N'Dou. He won a belt by default because Ricky Hatton vacated to fight a much stronger challenger. That does not make him a champion. Of course Malignaggi then beat a titleholder which I guess makes him a linear paper champ...

[duffgun]

So was Judah still a TRUE champion when he fought Mayweather, just because Baldomir couldn't afford the fees for the belt? And just because Mayweather wouldn't fight Cintron, Kermit automatically gets penalized?

If you don't consider someone a TRUE champion for winning a vacant belt (Floyd Patterson), what about someone that wins this belt from that guy (Sonny Liston,) or the guy that wins this belt from him (Ali.) So Ali wasn't a TRUE champion? Interesting.

Marciano agreed that Moore and Patterson should fight for his vacant title. it was much more simple back then with just 1 belt we dont often know who the real champ in a division is any more.