Comments Thread For: Wladimir Klitschko: "Haye is a Loser and a Running Duck"

[LeadUppercut]

There are four corrupt sanctioning bodies, who like to call their belt holders "world champions", but by definition it is impossible for there to be more than one world champion in a given division at a given time. Think about what the words "world champion" actually mean. It is impossible for there to be more than one unless you change the meaning of the words. And the alphabets' rankings are so corrupt that they have brought the phrase into disrepute. If Dimitri Sartison and Robert Stieglitz are the world Super Middleweight champions then my grandmother was a better fighter than Ali. Sartison isn't even a top 10 fighter, and Stieglitz is barely in the top 10.

Just because the WBXYZ says someone is the world champion doesn't mean they really are. The only real world champion is the lineal champion, where there is one. Where there isn't a lineal champion, the world championship is vacant. Wlad became the lineal world Heavyweight champion when he beat Chagaev. He is the only world Heavyweight champion.

The reason why the brothers would like to have all four alphabet belts between them is because most of the media buy into the "paper title = world champion" bullshit, and they want to end all argument about who the champion is. But they know (Wlad especially) that it's bullshit. Wlad says he values his Ring belt way above all the other belts put together, because it signifies that he is the world champion, rather than just being a corrupt sanctioning body's belt holder.

Unfortunately, that's how it is, all good points.

Except, personally..... I do not recognise lineage as being definitive.

The man, who beat the man, who beat the man..... is not always the best fighter in the division.

It can be definitive, but all too often is not..... because triangle theories dont work in boxing, and lineage doesn't account for styles as well as other incidental factors such as promotional issues, etc.

There are many examples of this - even without bringing up Baldomir - but just look at the middleweight merry-go-round over the last few years.

But yes, lineage has to be a factor because of the fragmented titles.

Wladimir Klitschko is clearly the best heavyweight on the planet.

Which makes that 50/50 offer SUPER generous imo.

[LeadUppercut]

No one who fights at world class level for a living is a physical coward. The people who accuse any well known boxer of being that are just juveniles. But Haye is an emotional coward.

I see your point.

[strykr619]

I've always been a fan of Vitali.... He is the tougher of the 2 brothers. Wlad is more technical but i think Vitali would KO him....

I also think in his Prime Vitali would take Tyson, Holyfield and Foreman. Ali and Lewis I'm not so sure of (assuming they all fought dream fights in their primes.)

[Leo Pradun]

go and sit in the corner ya dumb kid.

Haye is not worth 50%.

Clearly haye ducked that fight, and nobody has said otherwise.

Sure, he's "scared"..... Just like you would be :d

what the hell are u talking about? U make no sense. Read my comment over and then say something

[Bhopreign]

Maybe Haye doesnt want to waste his time with someone who hardly engages. Why fight this big freak when he doesnt come to fight anyway.

[Dave Rado]

Maybe Haye doesnt want to waste his time with someone who hardly engages. Why fight this big freak when he doesnt come to fight anyway.

If Haye thought he had a chance in hell of winning, he'd be fighting Wlad next, and you damn well know it. Don't be such a troll.

[Dave Rado]

Except, personally..... I do not recognise lineage as being definitive.

The man, who beat the man, who beat the man..... is not always the best fighter in the division.

It can be definitive, but all too often is not..... because triangle theories dont work in boxing, and lineage doesn't account for styles as well as other incidental factors such as promotional issues, etc.

It may not be definitive in terms of who is the best, but it is definitive in terms of who is the world champion.

No one apart from a few casual fans disputed that Boldomir was the world Welterweight champion when Mayweather fought him, or that Mayweather was the world Welterweight champion after that. The fact that Boldomir was a very weak champion is neither here nor there, and he didn't hold the lineal title for long, so it's not a major issue.

What was a major issue was not that Floyd fought Baldi for the lineal world championship, but that he didn't then defend it against either Cotto or Margarito (due to what you call promotional issues). But that didn't stop him from being the world champion at that time.

The solution to that problem is serious public pressure on fighters to defend their championship against top contenders (which would require a more educated media). The solution is not to call people world champions just because they have a belt from one of four corrupt sanctioning bodies.

Back in the day when there really was only one recognised champion, the same "promotional issues" you mention were even more of a problem than they are today. That's why Dempsey never defended against a black man. That's why the greatest Light Heavyweight in history (Charles) was never the world Light Heavyweight champion. That's why the second greatest Light Heavyweight in history (Moore) won his first world championship when he was 39, despite having turned pro when he was 19, and despite having been a top contender since his early 20s. But that doesn't mean that the likes of Dempsey and Joey Maxim weren't the world champion - they were.

BTW, a much bigger anomaly than Boldomir is Michalczewski, and then Erdei. But IMO, the problem there is precisely that The Ring wrongly pretended that Roy Jones was the champion when Michalczewski was. Had The Ring recognised Michalczewski, as they should have, there would have been a lot more pressure on Jones to fight the guy, which would have greatly improved his legacy, and given us divisional clarity.

The Jones/Michalczewski situation is analogous to the Tyson/Spinks situation, except that in the latter case, The Ring did the right thing, and bravely continued to recognise Spinks as the world champion even after Tyson had won all four belts. Partly as a result of The Ring taking that stand, the demand for Spinks and Tyson to fight each other grew to the point where it became too lucrative to resist; so they fought each other, we got divisional clarity, and Tyson's legacy was vastly improved compared with if he had never fought Spinks. Tyson was the best Heavyweight in the world, but until he beat Spinks in the ring, Spinks was the world champion, not Tyson. It's unfortunate that The Ring wasn't equally courageous when Michalczewski was clearly the world champion.

The lineal championship has its flaws but the alphabets are not the solution. And the lineal champion is the world champion.


That said, I do believe that the alphabets, with their often bullshit mandatories, are a necessary evil. Without mandatories, we get the Moore and Charles situation. But no boxing fan should go along with their claim that the WBXYZ champion is the world champion. That's simply rubbish. They should be referred to as belt holders or title holders, but not world champions.

[LeadUppercut]

It may not be definitive in terms of who is the best, but it is definitive in terms of who is the world champion.

Exactly. And in this case, it does define the best in the division.

No one apart from a few casual fans disputed that Boldomir was the world Welterweight champion when Mayweather fought him, or that Mayweather was the world Welterweight champion after that. The fact that Boldomir was a very weak champion is neither here nor there, and he didn't hold the lineal title for long, so it's not a major issue.

Agree 100%

But, talking about not holding the lineal title for long, what about my example of the recent middleweight div..... ?

Hopkins > Taylor > Pavlik > Hopkins (at 170) > With the title ending up with Sergio after losing to PW.

Using lineage in that argument gives you a headache

The ABC belts give opportunity for exposure, lineage is a determining factor, and - traditionally - I have often consulted the ring for wise council..... now, I decide ^^

What was a major issue was not that Floyd fought Baldi for the lineal world championship, but that he didn't then defend it against either Cotto or Margarito (due to what you call promotional issues). But that didn't stop him from being the world champion at that time.

And it doesnt stop him from being the best welterweight now, despite not even holding a title.

The solution to that problem is serious public pressure on fighters to defend their championship against top contenders (which would require a more educated media). The solution is not to call people world champions just because they have a belt from one of four corrupt sanctioning bodies.

Back in the day when there really was only one recognised champion, the same "promotional issues" you mention were even more of a problem than they are today. That's why Dempsey never defended against a black man. That's why the greatest Light Heavyweight in history (Charles) was never the world Light Heavyweight champion. That's why the second greatest Light Heavyweight in history (Moore) won his first world championship when he was 39, despite having turned pro when he was 19, and despite having been a top contender since his early 20s. But that doesn't mean that the likes of Dempsey and Joey Maxim weren't the world champion - they were.

BTW, a much bigger anomaly than Boldomir is Michalczewski, and then Erdei. But IMO, the problem there is precisely that The Ring wrongly pretended that Roy Jones was the champion when Michalczewski was. Had The Ring recognised Michalczewski, as they should have, there would have been a lot more pressure on Jones to fight the guy, which would have greatly improved his legacy, and given us divisional clarity.

That is a very good point. That is a great example of an issue that should have been resolved..... and in my opinion a contributing factor to the decline of The Ring's credibility when it comes to clarification.

There are an increasing number of recent examples also.

Sometimes, they contribute to the problem as much as the ABC wallies.

And Ezzard Charles in one of my very favourite fighters, another great example..... although you have to give The Ring credit in that regard.

Good stuff.

The Jones/Michalczewski situation is analogous to the Tyson/Spinks situation, except that in the latter case, The Ring did the right thing, and bravely continued to recognise Spinks as the world champion even after Tyson had won all four belts. Partly as a result of The Ring taking that stand, the demand for Spinks and Tyson to fight each other grew to the point where it became too lucrative to resist; so they fought each other, we got divisional clarity, and Tyson's legacy was vastly improved compared with if he had never fought Spinks. Tyson was the best Heavyweight in the world, but until he beat Spinks in the ring, Spinks was the world champion, not Tyson. It's unfortunate that The Ring wasn't equally courageous when Michalczewski was clearly the world champion.

The lineal championship has its flaws but the alphabets are not the solution. And the lineal champion is the world champion.

Neither, are the solution, because neither are definitive.

That said, I do believe that the alphabets, with their often bullshit mandatories, are a necessary evil.

Without a central governing body, we are at the mercy of those shi7heads.

Without mandatories, we get the Moore and Charles situation. But no boxing fan should go along with their claim that the WBXYZ champion is the world champion. That's simply rubbish. They should be referred to as belt holders or title holders, but not world champions.

I cannot disagree with that Dave, even in light of the earlier comments i made about Haye..... but the XYZ's don't enforce mandatories and don't recognise other champions.

[Dave Rado]

But, talking about not holding the lineal title for long, what about my example of the recent middleweight div..... ?

Hopkins > Taylor > Pavlik > Hopkins (at 170) > With the title ending up with Sergio after losing to PW.

Using lineage in that argument gives you a headache

Hopkins couldn't boil down to Middleweight any more, by the time he fought Pavlik (and arguably the losses to Taylor were due to him being weight drained in any case); so it didn't come full circle, because Pavlik was still the Middleweight champ and rightly so. More of a problem was Pavlik's ducking of Abraham and Sturm.

Sergio will fight Williams again soon, and then we'll have divisional clarity. Then I hope the winner will fight Sturm.

It's inevitable that if anyone is called the world champion, you will very occasionally get merry go rounds if a not quite elite fighter happens to have an elite fighter's number style-wise. We almost got it at Heavyweight in the Ali era, because Frazier almost won his third fight against Ali, having lost to Foreman, who lost to Ali; and Norton deserved to win his third fight with Ali. But the problem is so rare it's not worth worrying about too much. And it's not a criticism of lineal titles as such, in any case, it's a criticism of the whole concept of there being a world champion, because any system of creating a world champion would be subject to that problem (except a sort of permanent round robin, like a football league, but that would be impractical in boxing).

[LeadUppercut]

Hopkins couldn't boil down to Middleweight any more, by the time he fought Pavlik (and arguably the losses to Taylor were due to him being weight drained in any case); so it didn't come full circle, because Pavlik was still the Middleweight champ and rightly so. More of a problem was Pavlik's ducking of Abraham and Sturm.

Sergio will fight Williams again soon, and then we'll have divisional clarity. Then I hope the winner will fight Sturm.

It's inevitable that if anyone is called the world champion, you will very occasionally get merry go rounds if a not quite elite fighter happens to have an elite fighter's number style-wise. We almost got it at Heavyweight in the Ali era, because Frazier almost won his third fight against Ali, having lost to Foreman, who lost to Ali; and Norton deserved to win his third fight with Ali. But the problem is so rare it's not worth worrying about too much. And it's not a criticism of lineal titles as such, in any case, it's a criticism of the whole concept of there being a world champion, because any system of creating a world champion would be subject to that problem (except a sort of permanent round robin, like a football league, but that would be impractical in boxing).

Great points, but I'm not so sure that this problem is as "rare" as you may think.

Let's stick to my middleweight example, and look at the major title fights over just the last 4-5 years.....

Of the six following fights.....

1.) how many were won by the lineal champ ?

2.) In how many of the following fights was the lineal champ proven to be the best in the division ?

* Hopkins..... nope, beaten twice by Taylor

* Taylor..... nope, beaten twice by Pavlik

* Pavlik..... nope, beaten by Martinez

* Martinez..... sure, but we need to discuss it with PW fan's first

You mentioned Abraham..... he was a factor at 160lb, so = more unanswered questions.

Felix Sturm..... absolutely, see above.

I agree that lineage is a much more valid determining factor than an ABC strap, but it is far from perfect, and hardly definitive.

A bad style-matchup, a lucky punch, promotional/managerial issues..... any of these things can render lineage worthless.

And yet currently at say jww for example, Bradley is clearly the best and yet holds no claim to lineage. At 147, Mayweather does not even hold a title.

I can only regard lineage as a factor - albeit a significant one - but nothing more than that. A starting point, if you will.

BTW, fkn great post Dave. You truly love this shi7 don't ya?

It's great to talk to passionate, knowledgable, boxing fan's.

Props to BS. And thanks for the time you spend here Dave, that guy you helped out yesterday - can't remember what thread, but you answered a question for him - his head must still be spinning