-
-
Lots of good information here. Heck of a good post.
Quick answer is no.
**** the IBF and the WBO. The undisputed champion is decided between the WBA and WBC.
To be clear, this is my opinion not the fact of the matter. Of course the fact is to be called undisputed in boxing today you need four belts. The media, this forum, etc. no one is ever going to agree with me, so if you meant for me to speak to the facts my bad. I thought I had been invited to write an opinion piece
Sanctioned HW bouts have existed for close to 140 years.
It is the WBC and the WBC alone who represents sanctioned boxing over the past 140 years.
The WBA has sanctioned boxing for about a 100 years.
The IBF and WBO have sanctioned HW bouts for about 40 years.
Pretending like the IBF and WBO are as valuable in boxing as the WBA and WBC is like pretending Bridgerweight is as valuable a division as Heavyweight. IMO.
I think maybe rather than explaining, just dropping some information cold and without commentary is more powerful. I'll explain after:
The first champion per body in the HW division:
WBC - Sam Langford
WBA - Jack Dempsey
IBF - Larry Holmes
WBO - Francesco Damiani
To be clear about this, Sam is not considered a "true" champion despite being the NSC champion ... among other titles we do not recognize as true or major titles from back then, but, that does not make Sam not a true sanctioned champion. He is. In his time the bodies where just starting and did not control boxing yet. IMO that does not detract from the fact that Tyson Fury's belt represents x5 Colored champion (please note to any uninformed reader I do not use the term colored by choice but rather to be exact)
Okay, with that explained, I think we can all agree at least one of these four champions does not belong in the goat conversation at all. I don't feel the need to explain why I don't think Damiani's belt is as important as Holmes's, Dempsey's, and Langford's belts.
That leaves the IBF. I know Larry is really respected and he has some fans who consider him the GOAT HW but imo compared to Dempsey and Langford Lar is short.
That said, we don't need Larry or my opinion of Holmes, Sam, and Jack to detract from the IBF's historical importance. I think a series of rhetoricals that can all be answered with 'not the IBF' does the trick:
Who invented weight divisions?
Who invented ranks?
Who invented mandatories?
Who invented the points system?
Who invented the knockdown rules?
When the idea for undisputed first came around what belt where there to be won?
When the colorline was made defunct what belts did Louis hold?
When Jack Johnson defended his title against Jim Johnson in the first ever black vs black hw title fight, what belt was it for?
Fascism invaded boxing in the 30s and gave us Max and Primo, but what belts did they gather?
Let me flip this line thought:
What has happened in the HW division that has held any historical significance since the IBF and WBO have mattered outside of the historically long gap between undisputed champions in the HW division?
Outside of the IBF and WBO making it more difficult to have a clear, single, champion what history in boxing do they represent?
The last time the undisputed HW champion made a defense was 1992.
32 years. ... The IBF has existed for 40 years.
The WBO has never existed in an undisputed title.
Conversely the WBC and WBA share champions from the 1920s to the 1960s
In the 60s both would have lesser champions as single strap holders but all the best would hold both titles.
The IBF started out on Holmes so that's a good champion but a single strapper his entire career, was not unified.
Then it went to Spinks who sat on it a couple years himself, not unified.
Mike Tyson grabbed it up on his epic undisputed run and so it has spent time as an undisputed belt but as soon as the dust had settled on Tyson the IBF would never again be a part of the undisputed title. 32 ****ing years since the last defense, 25 years since the last crowned undisputed, and in all that time all the IBF has to show for itself is Mike, Buster, Evander, Rid****, and Lennox. As soon as the dust had settled on Mike the IBF's mere existence makes it difficult to crown an undisputed and that is their historical significance.
The WBO isn't even considered a big four until the mid 2000s. Never been undisputed. Their first champion is **** and all they can really say for themselves is Wlad held their belt back when Wlad was avoiding talented names in the division who went after recognized belts.
Tyson holds Langford's belt
Usyk holds Dempsey's belt
Holmes's belt is threatening to jump ship ... brother, I do not half give a ****. Holmes ain't no ****in' Dempsey.
Damaini's belt is a joke.
I don't know which I am meant to be, but I'm not gonna reciprocate. I think you're a pretty great poster.
I appreciate that the WBO and IBF are the only ones making even close to a credible attempt to follow their own rules these days, but as you say, the balance of history isn't in their favor.
WBC and that jack@$$ Sulaiman haven't done themselves any favors with their blatant BS. I suspect there's a whole generation that's going to grow up thinking that they're just frauds. WBA isn't any better. I'm really starting to come around to the extremist notion of getting rid of them all TBH.Comment
-
Idc what Usyk thinks matters & he don't gaf what I think matters, but who among us fans don't think these belt groups are a net negative for the sport & therefore have hurt the sport??? I'm just being real. 1 vs 2 matters. Top ten guys fighting matters. The WBA interim champ fighting the #7 ranked WBA guy don't fooking matter 99x outta 100 & its being sold to fans like it does.
And obviously nothing will change overnight, but its never gonna change if ppl keep acting like these groups aren't sketchy ass groups hustling boxers for 3% by inventing new belts every year. I don't think most fans even grasp these mfers are getting 3% from the primary belt, the interim belt, these silver belts, the continental americas belt, etc & so on belts.
With all the bs #1 contenders who get belt fights while a guy like David Benavides waits for his shot who gives a fook what these groups mandate. They aren't being fair with it so public perception will led to more fights fan wanna see between The Champ & contenders who've earned their belt fight legit than all 4 of these belt groups do.
Comment
-
All true bud.
But to be fair to the WBA the invention of lesser belts goes back to when the WBA stripped Lennox. They didn't actually want to strip Lennox, but Ruiz had sued successfully so the WBA was court ordered to allow him the next WBA title fight. Lennox refused to fight Ruiz and so the WBA was forced to make the fans angry and took the blame for Lennox getting stripped but really it was more Ruiz and Lewis working both their rules, american laws, and wise business.
After Lennox retired he helped the WBA devise a belt that would serve as a legal trinket and allow the WBA to keep the champion fans respect.
The WBC copied them.
Their intentions were actually to please the fans ... they're just jabronis about it.
Comment
-
It makes more sense just saying Fury is all ready undisputed after Wilder 2 in that case. He has won every belt, only person to do so in the 4 belt era, and never lost. There is no belt for him to win. He isn't as bothered as undisputed as others would be? Because he all ready has every belt in his living room. He wins Usyk he isn't technically getting any new belts just a 2nd copy of those he all ready has at home.
Quick answer is no.
**** the IBF and the WBO. The undisputed champion is decided between the WBA and WBC.
To be clear, this is my opinion not the fact of the matter. Of course the fact is to be called undisputed in boxing today you need four belts. The media, this forum, etc. no one is ever going to agree with me, so if you meant for me to speak to the facts my bad. I thought I had been invited to write an opinion piece
Sanctioned HW bouts have existed for close to 140 years.
It is the WBC and the WBC alone who represents sanctioned boxing over the past 140 years.
The WBA has sanctioned boxing for about a 100 years.
The IBF and WBO have sanctioned HW bouts for about 40 years.
Pretending like the IBF and WBO are as valuable in boxing as the WBA and WBC is like pretending Bridgerweight is as valuable a division as Heavyweight. IMO.
I think maybe rather than explaining, just dropping some information cold and without commentary is more powerful. I'll explain after:
The first champion per body in the HW division:
WBC - Sam Langford
WBA - Jack Dempsey
IBF - Larry Holmes
WBO - Francesco Damiani
To be clear about this, Sam is not considered a "true" champion despite being the NSC champion ... among other titles we do not recognize as true or major titles from back then, but, that does not make Sam not a true sanctioned champion. He is. In his time the bodies where just starting and did not control boxing yet. IMO that does not detract from the fact that Tyson Fury's belt represents x5 Colored champion (please note to any uninformed reader I do not use the term colored by choice but rather to be exact)
Okay, with that explained, I think we can all agree at least one of these four champions does not belong in the goat conversation at all. I don't feel the need to explain why I don't think Damiani's belt is as important as Holmes's, Dempsey's, and Langford's belts.
That leaves the IBF. I know Larry is really respected and he has some fans who consider him the GOAT HW but imo compared to Dempsey and Langford Lar is short.
That said, we don't need Larry or my opinion of Holmes, Sam, and Jack to detract from the IBF's historical importance. I think a series of rhetoricals that can all be answered with 'not the IBF' does the trick:
Who invented weight divisions?
Who invented ranks?
Who invented mandatories?
Who invented the points system?
Who invented the knockdown rules?
When the idea for undisputed first came around what belt where there to be won?
When the colorline was made defunct what belts did Louis hold?
When Jack Johnson defended his title against Jim Johnson in the first ever black vs black hw title fight, what belt was it for?
Fascism invaded boxing in the 30s and gave us Max and Primo, but what belts did they gather?
Let me flip this line thought:
What has happened in the HW division that has held any historical significance since the IBF and WBO have mattered outside of the historically long gap between undisputed champions in the HW division?
Outside of the IBF and WBO making it more difficult to have a clear, single, champion what history in boxing do they represent?
The last time the undisputed HW champion made a defense was 1992.
32 years. ... The IBF has existed for 40 years.
The WBO has never existed in an undisputed title.
Conversely the WBC and WBA share champions from the 1920s to the 1960s
In the 60s both would have lesser champions as single strap holders but all the best would hold both titles.
The IBF started out on Holmes so that's a good champion but a single strapper his entire career, was not unified.
Then it went to Spinks who sat on it a couple years himself, not unified.
Mike Tyson grabbed it up on his epic undisputed run and so it has spent time as an undisputed belt but as soon as the dust had settled on Tyson the IBF would never again be a part of the undisputed title. 32 ****ing years since the last defense, 25 years since the last crowned undisputed, and in all that time all the IBF has to show for itself is Mike, Buster, Evander, Rid****, and Lennox. As soon as the dust had settled on Mike the IBF's mere existence makes it difficult to crown an undisputed and that is their historical significance.
The WBO isn't even considered a big four until the mid 2000s. Never been undisputed. Their first champion is **** and all they can really say for themselves is Wlad held their belt back when Wlad was avoiding talented names in the division who went after recognized belts.
Tyson holds Langford's belt
Usyk holds Dempsey's belt
Holmes's belt is threatening to jump ship ... brother, I do not half give a ****. Holmes ain't no ****in' Dempsey.
Damaini's belt is a joke.
I don't know which I am meant to be, but I'm not gonna reciprocate. I think you're a pretty great poster.Comment
-
Why do people, all of a sudden, want boxing to behave like a sport
?!?!?!
Comment
-
Ironically, the most corrupt eras in boxing were those single belt eras.
Quick answer is no.
**** the IBF and the WBO. The undisputed champion is decided between the WBA and WBC.
To be clear, this is my opinion not the fact of the matter. Of course the fact is to be called undisputed in boxing today you need four belts. The media, this forum, etc. no one is ever going to agree with me, so if you meant for me to speak to the facts my bad. I thought I had been invited to write an opinion piece
Sanctioned HW bouts have existed for close to 140 years.
It is the WBC and the WBC alone who represents sanctioned boxing over the past 140 years.
The WBA has sanctioned boxing for about a 100 years.
The IBF and WBO have sanctioned HW bouts for about 40 years.
Pretending like the IBF and WBO are as valuable in boxing as the WBA and WBC is like pretending Bridgerweight is as valuable a division as Heavyweight. IMO.
I think maybe rather than explaining, just dropping some information cold and without commentary is more powerful. I'll explain after:
The first champion per body in the HW division:
WBC - Sam Langford
WBA - Jack Dempsey
IBF - Larry Holmes
WBO - Francesco Damiani
To be clear about this, Sam is not considered a "true" champion despite being the NSC champion ... among other titles we do not recognize as true or major titles from back then, but, that does not make Sam not a true sanctioned champion. He is. In his time the bodies where just starting and did not control boxing yet. IMO that does not detract from the fact that Tyson Fury's belt represents x5 Colored champion (please note to any uninformed reader I do not use the term colored by choice but rather to be exact)
Okay, with that explained, I think we can all agree at least one of these four champions does not belong in the goat conversation at all. I don't feel the need to explain why I don't think Damiani's belt is as important as Holmes's, Dempsey's, and Langford's belts.
That leaves the IBF. I know Larry is really respected and he has some fans who consider him the GOAT HW but imo compared to Dempsey and Langford Lar is short.
That said, we don't need Larry or my opinion of Holmes, Sam, and Jack to detract from the IBF's historical importance. I think a series of rhetoricals that can all be answered with 'not the IBF' does the trick:
Who invented weight divisions?
Who invented ranks?
Who invented mandatories?
Who invented the points system?
Who invented the knockdown rules?
When the idea for undisputed first came around what belt where there to be won?
When the colorline was made defunct what belts did Louis hold?
When Jack Johnson defended his title against Jim Johnson in the first ever black vs black hw title fight, what belt was it for?
Fascism invaded boxing in the 30s and gave us Max and Primo, but what belts did they gather?
Let me flip this line thought:
What has happened in the HW division that has held any historical significance since the IBF and WBO have mattered outside of the historically long gap between undisputed champions in the HW division?
Outside of the IBF and WBO making it more difficult to have a clear, single, champion what history in boxing do they represent?
The last time the undisputed HW champion made a defense was 1992.
32 years. ... The IBF has existed for 40 years.
The WBO has never existed in an undisputed title.
Conversely the WBC and WBA share champions from the 1920s to the 1960s
In the 60s both would have lesser champions as single strap holders but all the best would hold both titles.
The IBF started out on Holmes so that's a good champion but a single strapper his entire career, was not unified.
Then it went to Spinks who sat on it a couple years himself, not unified.
Mike Tyson grabbed it up on his epic undisputed run and so it has spent time as an undisputed belt but as soon as the dust had settled on Tyson the IBF would never again be a part of the undisputed title. 32 ****ing years since the last defense, 25 years since the last crowned undisputed, and in all that time all the IBF has to show for itself is Mike, Buster, Evander, Rid****, and Lennox. As soon as the dust had settled on Mike the IBF's mere existence makes it difficult to crown an undisputed and that is their historical significance.
The WBO isn't even considered a big four until the mid 2000s. Never been undisputed. Their first champion is **** and all they can really say for themselves is Wlad held their belt back when Wlad was avoiding talented names in the division who went after recognized belts.
Tyson holds Langford's belt
Usyk holds Dempsey's belt
Holmes's belt is threatening to jump ship ... brother, I do not half give a ****. Holmes ain't no ****in' Dempsey.
Damaini's belt is a joke.
Mob bought and owned.
In order to make these titles mean anything, the sport has to step in.
Now, how do we get the sport to become bosses over promoters and tv networks ?
How in de hail do other sports do it ?!?!?
Bro, take your big AF brain over to Vegas and sit those MFers down.
What else do you have going on in your life
Comment
-
So we will lose another 3 months because Usyk is not ******, he will not go away and pay 10 millions for ducking.Comment
Tweet
Comment