Why is it Rock's title?

**Kid Achilles** · 03-19-2006, 01:11 AM

In the event of a draw, the champion keeps his title. That's just the way it goes.

**GunStar** · 03-19-2006, 01:12 AM

Originally posted by gattifan24

Why should Toney have had to do much more than Rahman to win the fight because Rock had the title? Who did he beat for it? Nobody. I had James 8 rounds to 4 but even if you had it closer why should it be Rahman's champion advantage when he didn't do nothing to get the WBC title

He took Vitali's belt, because Vitali made him wait like 3 different times. That's just the BS part of boxing. That belt should belong to no one.

**RAESAAD** · 03-19-2006, 01:13 AM

Look Rahman won avery close fight in most peoples eyes although it was very close.Titles only change hands on wins not draws.A draw means the tilte holder retains the title......wanna remember a bad case of this,remember when Lewis beat Holyfield and it was ruled a draw and they had to fight again.....

**gattifan24** · 03-19-2006, 01:15 AM

I wasn't asking why in the sense that I didn't get why but in that a paper champ should have no advantage in his first defense. In fact, wouldn;'t it have made more sense for the WBC to declare Rock and Toney the top two contenders and to fight for a vacated belt than to just annoint someone the champ? Before the fight I was prepared to consider the winner the man in the division and now I have no clue

**RAESAAD** · 03-19-2006, 01:16 AM

Originally posted by gattifan24

I wasn't asking why in the sense that I didn't get why but in that a paper champ should have no advantage in his first defense. In fact, wouldn;'t it have made more sense for the WBC to declare Rock and Toney the top two contenders and to fight for a vacated belt than to just annoint someone the champ? Before the fight I was prepared to consider the winner the man in the division and now I have no clue

Well that may have made sense but since when have these wack ass orginizations made any sense?

**gattifan24** · 03-19-2006, 01:17 AM

no argument from me there

**DiegoFuego** · 03-19-2006, 01:21 AM

Well, usually when a champ retires, the title is fought for between the top 2 guys in that belt's rankings, but since Vitali pussed out FIVE ****ING TIMES, they felt obligated to give Rock the title, which is the right thing to do.

j · 03-19-2006, 01:27 AM

for good measure, clarification is needed here as to how hasim rahman got a title.

vitali had postponed the fight with an injury. rahman fought his buddy monte barrett for a wbc interim title which is basically mandating a fighter to the #1 spot.

vitali retired because he ended up having surgery and wasn't feeling that he could prepare as he wanted to with having nagging injuries plague him.

there then was a vote held to solve the problem of the vacant belt. rahman got the nod because of having another wbc title and w klitschko had fought already to recieve 2 mandatory title fights for the wbo and ibf. so yeah, he is obligated to fight brewster!

so rahman had the belt basically given to him. i had thought there should've been a fight for the belt atleast. remember vitali klitschko HAD to fight corrie sanders to gain the wbc belt, and didn't have it given to him like rahman had. this made his boring fight against barrett, in essence, the title fight.

j · 03-19-2006, 01:30 AM

and diego, well you don't know ****. vitali had said retiring was the honorable thing to do because his injuries slowed everything down way to much.

now, if you think otherwise......

Why is it Rock's title?