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

[F l i c k e r]

The thing is, the people criticizing Tank aren't going to recognize anything he does anyways.

So, it's kind of moot what GGG did or does in comparison.

I wasn't a fan of Tank.

But two things that sort of changed my mind with him. 1) I didn't think he would even fight Leo Santa Cruz. He did and took his soul. 2) Moved up to 140, fought a guy who could be 154 easily, and finished him.

Tank isn't what I thought he was. He deserves respect as long as he keeps fighting legit opponents. If he pulls a T-Bud, then nah, it's lame s/hit.

Tank has no excuse to not fight any of: Herring, Valdez, J. Diaz Jr., Teofimo, Lomachenko, Haney, Linares, or Josh Taylor.

There is no excuse for his next fight to not be against a champion, for a championship belt.

[Marchegiano]

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?

Exactly, folks be doing that all the damn time too.

Bit confused by the rest of the post but I didn't read the context so, **** it.

You see guys today being exalted like as if they did stuff they never did. Tunney is the greatest LHW by a lot of people's standards. What LHW titles did Tunney win? None. Langford would have whooped X, Y, and Z but he didn't. Dempsey could have beaten the tar out of Wills, Norfolk, Greb, etc, but he didn't.

It's getting worse. People justify their stances with logical debate all the time but a win is a win, a title is a title, and a resume isn't actually **** but something fans talk about. In fact, if you get into some boxing history books you'll see the difference between say IBRO writers and guys associated with higher academia, in their ****ing ratings and **** like that. Dudes from Havard don't waste their time picking and choosing who should be considered champion today. Fan authors do, do in like every book, and most of the lists and resources readily available to fans these days, like TBRB, Ring, IBRO, and CBZ, are based on this hindsight version of accolades and titles.

Right from the beginning. Figg to Broughton, everyone will tell you Figg to Broughton. Leaves out a few guys who were once called champion but we don't no more.

Figg
Sutton
Whitaker
Peartree
Gritton
Pipes
Gretting (sometimes reported to be the same man as Gritton but that's just lazy CBZ research. Gritton was killed by Whitaker in the ring in 1728 two years prior to Gretting being champion.)
Taylor
Broughton

That's the lineage, historically speaking. Like if you were alive from the 1720s to the 1750s those names are the names of men you would call champion back then. Why are they not on CBZ's list? Why are they not on anyone's list? They won their titles as fair as anyone else from the 1700s. They were not hidden characters, they are not hard to find, but, you can't be a champion without fighting someone for it. No election to champion is what they will tell you, except, Tom Spring was ****ing elected by Tom Cribb with no fight for any title and Spring, yep, he's there. Why? Oh that's champion's prerogative. It's the champion's right as champion. But wait there's more. Corbett can't retire and name a champion exactly like how Figg and Cribb had, but Jeffries can. Jem Ward did it like five times, he's good, his champion status is unmucked with, but **** Corbett though.


So, my point is yeah, I agree, you shouldn't. Can't kinda a stretch though. The guys most people call historians, guys who are that level so even dudes here who know I know some level of boxing history pretty well will still assume know more than I do, did just that. You gonna say to me you respect me like you do a guy like Tracy Callis? Of course not, but, if you want a bull**** crash course in boxing history you go learn from Tracy and Nat Fleischer and guys like that, then when you want that real because there's so many goddamn holes in their narrative y'all come ask on Giano what's good.

Meant you rhetorically, not you specifically.

So yeah, I agree with the idea but in practice these cats could pen a WBA lineage and youse lot would just reprint it. Guys like me might correct it and youse lot will say "Oh" then go about reprinting some other inconsistent as hell BS that came from the same exact circlejerk.

Totally possible for folks to call GGG a real champion and Tank not so much because reasons doe. Y'all already do that.


Again, These yous and y'alls, I mean rhetorically. I wouldn't be surprised at all if you specifically are very consistent.

[ShoulderRoll]

Tank has no excuse to not fight any of: Herring, Valdez, J. Diaz Jr., Teofimo, Lomachenko, Haney, Linares, or Josh Taylor.

There is no excuse for his next fight to not be against a champion, for a championship belt.

Those names you mentioned are with Top Rank or on DAZN.

You think they will be allowed to go fight Davis on a PPV for a B-side share of the purse?

[F l i c k e r]

Those names you mentioned are with Top Rank or on DAZN.

You think they will be allowed to go fight Davis on a PPV for a B-side share of the purse?

You definitely have a point there.

But I do feel like Tank and his coach are a little different. They don't seem to carry the ego that their promoter has.

But we'll have to wait and see. Ryan Garcia seems to be the name with the most steam atm though.

[Boxing-1013]

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)

Here is my original comment:

"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."

As mentioned, the only other 2 possible top dogs for MW supremacy at that time, were Sergio Martinez - who you could make a really good case that he was the 1 MW in the world at that time - and Pirog - who has less of a claim than GGG. GGG would be considered by virtually anyone to be number 1 or 2 at MW at the time that he picked up the first interim MW crown.

Have a nice day, Canelo Superfan number 10143053.

[BoxingIsGreat]

Gervonta Davis is no GGG, Larry.

Davis is much, much better. Don't compare him to that stiff, face first robot.

[kushking]

Here is my original comment:

"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."

As mentioned, the only other 2 possible top dogs for MW supremacy at that time, were Sergio Martinez - who you could make a really good case that he was the 1 MW in the world at that time - and Pirog - who has less of a claim than GGG. GGG would be considered by virtually anyone to be number 1 or 2 at MW at the time that he picked up the first interim MW crown.

Have a nice day, Canelo Superfan number 10143053.

What revisionist bs,you have the audacity to claim "at least ggg was the man at mw when won reg champ" then say I'M superfan, to which I posted that ggg beat the p4p king milton nunez or nelson tapia for that trinket which is worse than both Barrios & Feilding who were at least new divisions both jumped to.

You didn't even quote yourself correctly.("was the man" is far from "there was only a few better fighters"(which both Pirog,Martinez were) You are flipping the script now.


Have a nice day g stan

[Lomadeaux]

Davis is much, much better. Don't compare him to that stiff, face first robot.

Nobody is avoiding Davis buddy... Davis is avoiding everybody... You've become a complete clown on this forum man. Trolling has destroyed this place.

[Eff Pandas]

For the life of me I don't get the patience some fans still have with belts. I think we are almost all in agreement they are all corrupt to one degree or another. Who really gives a fook about them from day 1 for that reason alone???

The only thing that matters is who's #1 & Tank ain't #1 in any division right now regardless of the belt status he does or does not have currently. Tank does sell tickets & might be the biggest lil guy draw in the sport right now so he does got that going for him despite not being #1.

[MONGOOSE66]

yet some of those same people claim GGG had over 20 title defenses..so which is it??? is the belt a legit title or not?

Belts mean sheeit when your name is the clout. These big names need to PROVE they DESERVE that big money.