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

[Citizen Koba]

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 ****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?

[kafkod]

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.

[Lomadeaux]

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.....

[Lomadeaux]

Gervonta Davis is no GGG, Larry.

[Citizen Koba]

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 ****ed over by the WBA... I thought I'd arrived at a fairly decent workable solution actually..

Guess I got my work cut out, huh?

[kafkod]

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..

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.

[kafkod]

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.

[Lomadeaux]

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.

[ShoulderRoll]

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.

[kushking]

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)