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

[JOITATS]

"White privilege?" Does a mixed person of Russian and Korean descent have that? Or is that one of those "white adjacent" things?

thats right
1/2 korean roots
ggg growing up where he did, the hard way
is anything but priviledge

[Boxing-1013]

Nah GGG picked up the regular in 2010 or so when he was a nobody in international terms... problem being he should have fought Sturm to become the WBAs 'World' champion but Sturm didn't want the fight (for whatever reason) and the WBA obligingly - and reportedly for cash - changed their rules to accomodate him. Now generally when an incumbent refuses to defend they would lose their title, so Golovkin should have arguably become 'the' WBA Champ in 2010, but in a dicey bait 'n' switch what actually happened was that the WBA instead elevated Sturm to Super under their New '5 defense' rule and gave GGG the now effectively meaningless 'World' title.

In fact given this particularly slippery piece of chicanery from the WBA you could make a strong case that it's actually the 'World' title that was the legitimate one since the incumbent failed to defend it, but it gets tricky cos Sturm was a well known and long reigning champ whilst Golovkin was largely unknown outside the hardcore at that time and beat no one worth a damn to get the title, so good luck getting folk to buy the argument that Golovkin was the 'real' Champ however legitimate it may be.

Compromise I've settled on in my own head is allowing that there can be only one champion per division per sanctioning body at any given time, so if there's no WBA Super the World title carries on the primary lineage. If you do it that way you got GGG having 15 defenses I think, from the time Geale drops the Super to make the Mundine fight instead of facing Golovkin. But like I say if you want to make the case that Sturm's 'Super' title was never legitimate in the first place there is an argument for that it's just you run into consistency problems because folk will start arguing the case for half the other times the WBA has awarded bull**** belts as well.

I figured more people would accept a simple consistent rule rather than folk coming up with arguments for why their particular guy deserved it or didnt each time the WBA made another ridiculous title decision.

? I never said GGG was anybody 'in international terms' at that time.

I said you can make a good case that he was the best MW in the world at that time.

At the end of 2011, the Ring ranked GGG 10th on their top 10 MWs list.

GGG won the interim belt in the middle of 2010. Of the 10 guys (including champion Sergio Martinez) ranked ahead of GGG at the end of 2011, according to the Ring, the only 2 guys who you could make a case for being even with or above GGG are Sergio, and Pirog.

Above GGG were:

1) Geale - who GGG KOed in 3 rounds 2+ years later
2) Sturm - who you admit appeared to not want the GGG fight at all
3) Macklin - who GGG KOed in 3 rounds 1+ years later
4) Proksa - who GGG KOed in 5 rounds within the next year
5) Chavez Jr - no one would really try and say JCC Jr was better than GGG at any time

6) Zbik
7) Pirog
8) Jikam
9) Murray - who GGG KOed in 2015, when he was probably top 5 in the division
10 GGG

You could make a good case that at 28 years old, with 19 pro fights and a world of amateur experience and success, that he was the best MW in the world. That's what I said in my original post. He KOed easily, without losing a round, 3 of the top 5 fighters around that time at 160, and one more guy in the top 10. Lol. If that doesn't say 'consider this guy as number 1 in the division' I don't know what does.

You even apparently go on to agree with me in the 2nd line of your post, with your admission that beltholder Felix Sturm - ranked number 2 or so at this time - and for whom GGG was a mandatory, didn't appear to want to fight him at all. So thanks for that.

[Boxing-1013]

Exactly, that's the only way for fans to avoid being herded like sheep by promoters and sanctioning bodies.

The sad thing is that there are very few logical analysts on this site, of all places. Way too much tribalism gets involved with regards to analysis on here.

[Citizen Koba]

? I never said GGG was anybody 'in international terms' at that time.

I said you can make a good case that he was the best MW in the world at that time.

At the end of 2011, the Ring ranked GGG 10th on their top 10 MWs list.

GGG won the interim belt in the middle of 2010. Of the 10 guys (including champion Sergio Martinez) ranked ahead of GGG at the end of 2011, according to the Ring, the only 2 guys who you could make a case for being even with or above GGG are Sergio, and Pirog.

Above GGG were:

1) Geale - who GGG KOed in 3 rounds 2+ years later
2) Sturm - who you admit appeared to not want the GGG fight at all
3) Macklin - who GGG KOed in 3 rounds 1+ years later
4) Proksa - who GGG KOed in 5 rounds within the next year
5) Chavez Jr - no one would really try and say JCC Jr was better than GGG at any time

6) Zbik
7) Pirog
8) Jikam
9) Murray - who GGG KOed in 2015, when he was probably top 5 in the division
10 GGG

You could make a good case that at 28 years old, with 19 pro fights and a world of amateur experience and success, that he was the best MW in the world. That's what I said in my original post. He KOed easily, without losing a round, 3 of the top 5 fighters around that time at 160, and one more guy in the top 10. Lol. If that doesn't say 'consider this guy as number 1 in the division' I don't know what does.

You even apparently go on to agree with me in the 2nd line of your post, with your admission that beltholder Felix Sturm - ranked number 2 or so at this time - and for whom GGG was a mandatory, didn't appear to want to fight him at all. So thanks for that.

You said this, man:

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

He absolutely was not 'the man' and he was not the #1 Middleweight in 2010 whatever argument you make. He was a hot prospect and prospective title challenger, nothing more. Now don't get me wrong, I'm a huge, huge fan and yes, I think it's entirely plausible that he could have beaten any other middleweight in the world at the time (with hindsight I would have picked him over any of them with only the possible questionmark over Maravilla and maybe Pirog) but you can't grant dudes the benefit of titles and victories they never won, either prospectively or retrospectively.

And yes he might have been the best MW in the world H2H but then how is that different from the dudes claiming Tank might be the best (insert division here) in the World... which appears to be the distinction you're apparently trying to make? Both unbeaten, both knocking everyone out...?

Anyways, I could make the case that Golovkin was treated particularly shoddily by the WBA - in fact it's a kinda double whammy cos not only do you get the ****ty title you also get to defend against the mandatories that the 'Super' titlist should be facing... in effect you act as a shield - and I could make the case that Sturm should in fact have been stripped in accordance with the WBAs own rules instead of elevated which would have made Golovkin full champion... but unfortunately that ain't what happened.

Now my purpose here is to try to establish a general ruling or way of dealing with how this whole WBA multi-title-bullchit thing should be treated in terms of establishing lineages, title defense records and so on, and much as I wish it weren't so or I believe it was an injustice the fact is that GGG was not held to be the WBAs primary Champion from 2010 to Oct 2012 when Geale was stripped of the Super in November 2012.

I could argue Golovkin's case and the inequity of the WBA and still will, but the simple fact is nobodys gonna accept or use a system of calculating lineages or titleholders which requires you to unpick and argue all the injustices done to the fighters by the judges or sanctioning orgs or whatever, because quite simply fighters (bar a fortunate chosen few) are getting screwed over all the time.....

I don't think anyone can reasonably argue the principle of not having more than one Champion per sanctioning org per division at any given time, so how do we square the circle? What general rule can we apply to all fighters, past or present, irrespective of our own personal preference that will tell us who the 'real' WBA Champion is at any given time, that doesn't involve abtruse subjective arguments... something that can actually gain broad acceptance and not just be dismissed as favouritsm for our prefered fighter?

That's the question I'm really trying to answer here, man.

EDIT: This bit of your previous post I wholeheatedly agree with however:

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.

Only problem is you still need some kinda ranking sytem and some way of making the established dudes fight the up and comers, and championships, mandatories and belts remain the established way of doing this for better or for worse... no matter how inperfect it is. I reckon it's up to us as fans to try to make the best of the mess the orgs have created, whilst still, of course, making our displeasure known.

[Citizen Koba]

Maybe he came to terms with his limitations? I'm surprised he hasn't been cashed out yet.

Matter of time, man.

What's incredible is that when I started on this thread I was still assuming that the situation was similar to 4 or 5 years ago when the WBA only had 'Super' Champions in 5 or 6 divisions (which is still pretty ridiculous to my mind, but roughly in accordance with the original policy of 'unified' = Super), so I was quite taken aback when I actually looked down the list and found they now have Super Champions in every single ****in division - except poor Artem at Flyweight of course.

But like you say, he's probably right to look unhappy cos the writing is probably on the wall for him. Next dude to come along with an open wallet probably ain't even gonna have to fight him to get Super... although as you say he ain't exactly elite so I ain't sure he's lasting long regardless. Thing is - and I'm sure you took my point already - that he is the WBA World Champion at Flyweight and not a secondary titilist or whatever since there is no 'Super' at that weight.

[Boxing-1013]

You said this, man:



He absolutely was not 'the man' and he was not the #1 Middleweight in 2010 whatever argument you make. He was a hot prospect and prospective title challenger, nothing more. Now don't get me wrong, I'm a huge, huge fan and yes, I think it's entirely plausible that he could have beaten any other middleweight in the world at the time (with hindsight I would have picked him over any of them with only the possible questionmark over Maravilla and maybe Pirog) but you can't grant dudes the benefit of titles and victories they never won, either prospectively or retrospectively.

And yes he might have been the best MW in the world H2H but then how is that different from the dudes claiming Tank might be the best (insert division here) in the World... which appears to be the distinction you're apparently trying to make? Both unbeaten, both knocking everyone out...?

Anyways, I could make the case that Golovkin was treated particularly shoddily by the WBA - in fact it's a kinda double whammy cos not only do you get the ****ty title you also get to defend against the mandatories that the 'Super' titlist should be facing... in effect you act as a shield - and I could make the case that Sturm should in fact have been stripped in accordance with the WBAs own rules instead of elevated which would have made Golovkin full champion... but unfortunately that ain't what happened.

Now my purpose here is to try to establish a general ruling or way of dealing with how this whole WBA multi-title-bullchit thing should be treated in terms of establishing lineages, title defense records and so on, and much as I wish it weren't so or I believe it was an injustice the fact is that GGG was not held to be the WBAs primary Champion from 2010 to Oct 2012 when Geale was stripped of the Super in November 2012.

I could argue Golovkin's case and the inequity of the WBA and still will, but the simple fact is nobodys gonna accept or use a system of calculating lineages or titleholders which requires you to unpick and argue all the injustices done to the fighters by the judges or sanctioning orgs or whatever, because quite simply fighters (bar a fortunate chosen few) are getting screwed over all the time.....

I don't think anyone can reasonably argue the principle of not having more than one Champion per sanctioning org per division at any given time, so how do we square the circle? What general rule can we apply to all fighters, past or present, irrespective of our own personal preference that will tell us who the 'real' WBA Champion is at any given time, that doesn't involve abtruse subjective arguments... something that can actually gain broad acceptance and not just be dismissed as favouritsm for our prefered fighter?

That's the question I'm really trying to answer here, man.

EDIT: This bit of your previous post I wholeheatedly agree with however:



Only problem is you still need some kinda ranking sytem and some way of making the established dudes fight the up and comers, and championships, mandatories and belts remain the established way of doing this for better or for worse... no matter how inperfect it is. I reckon it's up to us as fans to try to make the best of the mess the orgs have created, whilst still, of course, making our displeasure known.

No reason to read all that. It's clear what I said, and I already explained there, in detail. You appear to hold some grudge over some earlier beatdowns I gave you, as you are simultaneously saying I'm wrong, while also agreeing with in your next comments.

Again, someone could make a good case that GGG was the number 1 MW in the world in 2010. He went on to smoke 3 of the top 5 guys in the rankings around that timeframe. Just take the L and move on.

[Citizen Koba]

No reason to read all that. It's clear what I said, and I already explained there, in detail. You appear to hold some grudge over some earlier beatdowns I gave you, as you are simultaneously saying I'm wrong, while also agreeing with in your next comments.

Again, someone could make a good case that GGG was the number 1 MW in the world in 2010. He went on to smoke 3 of the top 5 guys in the rankings around that timeframe. Just take the L and move on.

I got no grudge my man, why would I? I think perhaps we came away with different impressions of how our previous conversations went... I got precisely the response from you I was aiming to provoke. Besides, I was being quite amiable in this thread, wasn't trying to rag you at all no-matter what you think. Like I say I'm a big fan of GGG I just try to keep it in perspective.

Anyway. If you can't comprehend the distinction I'm making between what I think Golovkin could have done in 2010 and what he actually had done I ain't gonna bother wasting time explaining it to ya. I don't actually think you're dumb so Ima just assume you're being deliberately obtuse... you quite sure it ain't you having trouble compartmentalising?

Unless... you fancy putting up a poll? 'Was Golovkin 'the man' at Middleweight in 2010' or 'Who was 'the man' at 160 in 2010' How you think that would go exactly?

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

Matter of time, man.

What's incredible is that when I started on this thread I was still assuming that the situation was similar to 4 or 5 years ago when the WBA only had 'Super' Champions in 5 or 6 divisions (which is still pretty ridiculous to my mind, but roughly in accordance with the original policy of 'unified' = Super), so I was quite taken aback when I actually looked down the list and found they now have Super Champions in every single ****in division - except poor Artem at Flyweight of course.

But like you say, he's probably right to look unhappy cos the writing is probably on the wall for him. Next dude to come along with an open wallet probably ain't even gonna have to fight him to get Super... although as you say he ain't exactly elite so I ain't sure he's lasting long regardless. Thing is - and I'm sure you took my point already - that he is the WBA World Champion at Flyweight and not a secondary titilist or whatever since there is no 'Super' at that weight.

I think they’ll probably upgrade Dalakian soon, he’s already made 4 defences, plus Luis Concepcion is the interim champion and with him being Panamanian it’s only a matter of time before he gets given the full and “prestigious” regular WBA belt.

Maybe they’ll just order Dalakian vs Concepcion but that seems far too logical for the WBA.

[Boxing-1013]

I got no grudge man, why would I? I think perhaps we came away with different impressions of how our previous conversations went... Besides, I was being quite amiable, wasn't trying to rag you at all no-matter what you think.

Anyway. If you can't comprehend the distinction I'm making between what I think Golovkin could have done in 2010 and what he actually had done I ain't gonna bother wasting time explaining it to ya. I don't actually think you're dumb so Ima just assume you're being deliberately obtuse... you quite sure it ain't you having trouble compartmentalising?

Unless... you fancy putting up a poll? 'Was Golovkin 'the man' at Middleweight in 2010' or 'Who was 'the man' at 160 in 2010' How you think that would go exactly?

You're not listening. And keep leaving out key parts of what I said. I said someone could make a good case that GGG was 'the man' or the best MW in the world in 2010. Not that everyone thought so, not that he definitely was, not that he had all the belts then etc. I said you could make the case that he was. Personally I would say it would be, clearly, between him and Sergio.

Anyone disagreeing with GGG very possibly being the top MW in the world circa 2010, when Pirog and Sergio are the only other 2 possible contenders for that title, isn't a very serious person. I don't need a poll to know the answer to that question.

[Citizen Koba]

You're not listening. And keep leaving out key parts of what I said. I said someone could make a good case that GGG was 'the man' or the best MW in the world in 2010. Not that everyone thought so, not that he definitely was, not that he had all the belts then etc. I said you could make the case that he was. Personally I would say it would be, clearly, between him and Sergio.

Anyone disagreeing with GGG very possibly being the top MW in the world circa 2010, when Pirog and Sergio are the only other 2 possible contenders for that title, isn't a very serious person. I don't need a poll to know the answer to that question.

Ok man, whatever... I can't see that this is actually going anywhere at all.