Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Thanks god it is NOT 1 belt era

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Thanks god it is NOT 1 belt era

    Otherwise Fury would be still the only champ fighting guys like Chisora, Wilder, Whyte, Ngannou, than probably Charr...fooling everybody he is the best in the world.

    But the other guy had 3 belts, so a huge money offer somehow made Fury to step up in competition again, the second time in his life.

  • #2
    Is Fury the biggest fraud in boxing history?
    That dr eggman looking ped cheat conned a legion of grown men didn’t he? Holy *** fury fanboys are beta cucks of the highest order


    his best win is a 40 yo Wlad in which he didn’t hurt Wlad once. Amazing feat.
    Last edited by HeadShots; 06-04-2024, 10:28 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by JakeTheBoxer View Post
      Otherwise Fury would be still the only champ fighting guys like Chisora, Wilder, Whyte, Ngannou, than probably Charr...fooling everybody he is the best in the world.

      But the other guy had 3 belts, so a huge money offer somehow made Fury to step up in competition again, the second time in his life.
      Zhang would've finished the job.

      Comment


      • #4
        No OP, reduced belts is only one aspect of the problem with boxing, the other is inaccurate rankings. If you had accurate rankings and one title, then Usyk would be the mandatory.
        Smash Smash MulaKO MulaKO like this.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by JakeTheBoxer View Post
          Otherwise Fury would be still the only champ fighting guys like Chisora, Wilder, Whyte, Ngannou, than probably Charr...fooling everybody he is the best in the world.

          But the other guy had 3 belts, so a huge money offer somehow made Fury to step up in competition again, the second time in his life.
          I'm not tracking with the logic here, eventually he would be forced to fight a mandatory no? Which would most likely have been someone like AJ or Usyk. Having one belt would be better imo.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by HeadShots View Post
            Is Fury the biggest fraud in boxing history?
            That dr eggman looking ped cheat conned a legion of grown men didn’t he? Holy *** fury fanboys are beta cucks of the highest order


            his best win is a 40 yo Wlad in which he didn’t hurt Wlad once. Amazing feat.
            - - Blackened both Wlad's eyes racoon style, but ducked the rematch whilst being stripped of his titles for being a drug cheat that should've been serving a suspension but for the incompetency of the BBB of c.

            Blubber prob strings Usyk along until weeks before the rematch when he announces his retirement because Usyk make him sick and shot.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by elfag View Post
              No OP, reduced belts is only one aspect of the problem with boxing, the other is inaccurate rankings. If you had accurate rankings and one title, then Usyk would be the mandatory.
              Exactly this right here
              Really no need for multiple belts but the OP dksab

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by BoxingParadigm View Post

                I'm not tracking with the logic here, eventually he would be forced to fight a mandatory no? Which would most likely have been someone like AJ or Usyk. Having one belt would be better imo.
                enforced mandatory rule was created in late 60s, several years after "one belt era" ended. contrary to popular belief, boxing was never ideal, even when there was only one (at least clear) champion. champions could fight subpar opposition if they wanted for prolonged amount of time. without eliminators and enforced mandatories today, despite what casuals think, every champion would just protect his 0 against literal plumbers and taxi drivers until he was 35 and then cash out. it would be unbearable to follow. that would be even worse than the current state of boxing.

                one belt per division (or undisputed champion) is great when champions and contenders are ACTIVE. it's bad when they are grossly inactive. if someone's absolutely the best two years ago, it doesn't mean he is the best now. every champion should prove it every year against highest rated contenders.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by BoxingParadigm View Post

                  I'm not tracking with the logic here, eventually he would be forced to fight a mandatory no? Which would most likely have been someone like AJ or Usyk. Having one belt would be better imo.
                  Thread starter does not deal in logic.
                  MulaKO MulaKO likes this.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by JakeTheBoxer View Post
                    Otherwise Fury would be still the only champ fighting guys like Chisora, Wilder, Whyte, Ngannou, than probably Charr...fooling everybody he is the best in the world.

                    But the other guy had 3 belts, so a huge money offer somehow made Fury to step up in competition again, the second time in his life.
                    Incorrect. Fury "retired" after the third Wilder fight and both the TBRB and The Ring accepted his retirement and awarded the championship to the winner of Usyk v Joshua II.

                    Only the WBC ignored the retirement and let him remain champion.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X
                    TOP