..About These Bull**** 'Vacancy' Claims...

[THe TRiNiTY]

There have been ****** threads about how Miguel Cotto or Floyd Mayweather have won this vacant title or that vacant title, as if the ABC boys really matter in the first place.

First of all, if you think those titles matter you should stop reading now. Because, as simple as this thread will be, it's too complex for you.

Now, The Ring Magazine championships are the ones that matter. There are 17 divisions, meaning 17 TRUE titles. All there is to it. And 10 of those titles are vacant.

Let's stop it there for a second. Realistically, in the beginning, all titles were vacant, or given to the guy who was widely considered the best in whatever division he was in. When the title was vacant, the two best guys/highest ranked fighters fought for the title and that would settle the issue.

The winner was the TRUE champion, regardless of fighting for a vacant tile or not.

Not lets use a hypothetical situation. Let's say a title, since the beginning of time has been passed down over the years. Finally, one champion decides to retire. The title would then be VACANT, once again. Does this mean there can never be a champion in the division again?

'Sorry kid, you better throw up or eat a sandwich. Leave the division, no title to see here.'

No, then the two best remaining fighters fight AGAIN, and so on and so forth.

Keep in mind, Cotto didn't fight the number two guy in the division, or number one for that matter. But he also didn't fight for THE world title. He fought for a a peice of fake gold on some cow skin. All there is to it.

Mayweather is NOT a 6 division champion. Hell, Miguel Cotto has not been the TRUE world champion of ANY division. Back in the day, this wouldn't matter. They'd still get credit. Nowadays, you need a trinket, like it's a sign that you've made it.

Pshhh, plenty of bums have held trinkets.

The sooner you realize those things are only props to make fights seem more meaningful, and to give you leverage for your contract discussion, the better.

If Mosley and Cotto fought tomorrow, they'd be fighting for a vacant title at welterweight. Nothing wrong with that, Mayweather left no one a choice. Which is fine.

Vacancies are apart of the sports history. Simple as that.

[The Gambler1981]

I do not know. I prefer when fighters take the belt from a champion in the ring, people say these belts are meaningless but when you walk to the ring with a belt you do not want to walk out without it, it could make them fight harder (or atleast make them mentally stronger, which is pretty crucial) but this can be countered by if you need that to motivate you your days were numbered anyways.


Winning vacent belts is not that bad though, although it depends on the opponent somewhat (sometimes they are good, sometimes they are jokers). If you have a shot to win a belt that could really advance your career, that should be motivation enough.


Also really it depends what you do after you win the belt that determines your worth as a champion.

If I had to pick between 2 otherwise equal fights (there can be great fights for a vacent strap, aswell as great fights for a held belt), I think that taking the belt from the champion is better. I would not make it out to be that huge a deal, in most cases anyways.

[gridiron]

Cheers, Calderon

[THe TRiNiTY]

I do not know. I prefer when fighters take the belt from a champion in the ring, people say these belts are meaningless but when you walk to the ring with a belt you do not want to walk out without it, it could make them fight harder (or atleast make them mentally stronger, which is pretty crucial) but this can be countered by if you need that to motivate you your days were numbered anyways.


Winning vacent belts is not that bad though, although it depends on the opponent somewhat (sometimes they are good, sometimes they are jokers). If you have a shot to win a belt that could really advance your career, that should be motivation enough.


Also really it depends what you do after you win the belt that determines your worth as a champion.

If I had to pick between 2 otherwise equal fights (there can be great fights for a vacent strap, aswell as great fights for a held belt), I think that taking the belt from the champion is better. I would not make it out to be that huge a deal, in most cases anyways.

As a fight fan, lemme ask you this.... Which fight would you rather see.

Would you have rather watched Cotto go in there against Jennings for the WBO title or have him taken on Luis Collazo in a regular 12 rounder?

[THe TRiNiTY]

Cheers, Calderon

Thanks, appreciate the gesture.

[The Gambler1981]

As a fight fan, lemme ask you this.... Which fight would you rather see.

Would you have rather watched Cotto go in there against Jennings for the WBO title or have him taken on Luis Collazo in a regular 12 rounder?

Well, like I said it depends on the opponent. I rate Collazo far above Jennings, so I think that would have been a much more interesting fight.

Picking up a vacent belt is not that different from seeking out the weakest title holder (unless a division is abnormally strong). I still prefer taking a belt from a champion though.

[TheSurgeonMDMPH]

I'm sorry! I stopped reading when you discarded the ABC belts, COOL! But, then in the same breathe you anoint a ***ing magazine! And to beat that, its owned by a promotional entity. Not bribed, but ! The only thing that truly matters is US!

[THe TRiNiTY]

I'm sorry! I stopped reading when you discarded the ABC belts, COOL! But, then in the same breathe you anoint a ***ing magazine! And to beat that, its owned by a promotional entity. Not bribed, but ! The only thing that truly matters is US!

The same magazine that has more Top Rank fighters in their rankings than Golden Boy fighters.

Yeah, showing favoritism, one rival promotional fighter at a time.

[OnePunch]

Th problem with Ring is that is does not require mandatory defenses. How can something be considered a legitimate championship when the "champ" can fight whomever he chooses?

Ring rankings are NOT a path to the title. You could be ranked #1 for 10 years and never get a shot at the "champ". Since GBP signed Casamayor, every Ring title fight at 135 has been between 2 GBP fighters.

[raabd]

Th problem with Ring is that is does not require mandatory defenses. How can something be considered a legitimate championship when the "champ" can fight whomever he chooses?

Ring rankings are NOT a path to the title. You could be ranked #1 for 10 years and never get a shot at the "champ". Since GBP signed Casamayor, every Ring title fight at 135 has been between 2 GBP fighters.

The Ring champ usually always or eventually fights all the other ranked contenders so it works itself out. The ring does not dictate nor manipulate a fighters career. I almost always see the best fighters fighting for the ring belt. Seldomly do I ever see a ring fighter fighting irrelevants and if they do next time around they fight the other ranked contenders. Next week is a perfect example.