Tweet
Huh? In your other post you are bringing up GGG unifying the division and Berto having won titles. I see the prior as a good thing to do, and the latter as not having much meaning in regards to his current position. I don't see how this thinking involves treating titles as having different values on different people.
The reason unifying the division is a good thing is not because he will have won a lot of alphabet soup titles but rather because we'll have one "true" champ of the division. EDIT: The value of the title fights he has to unify this depend on the level of opposition he faces, but my point is that unifying the division is always a good thing in my view.
Your original post makes it seem like we are demeaning the value of Berto having won championships. We're not. The problem isn't that the belts he had didn't have any meaning. The problem is that he sucks balls.
Berto is not anywhere near where he was when he was the reigning WBC champion. That's why this win won't be very significant, which is part of why people are saying that the statistic is meaningless. Praising beating former champions doesn't always make sense, and Berto is just one example of why.
But on the note of the value of title belts, I'd say they have some meaning but it's all about context. For Berto, the context is that he won a vacant WBC belt against Miguel Angel Rodriguez and later the IBF belt from Jan Zaveck. Neither of these is a terribly impressive way to become a champion. He had some decent defenses of the prior though, before losing it to Ortiz and the latter he lost in his first defense to Guerrero. Given what he has done in the last few years since Guerrero, beating Berto is frankly not a big accomplishment right now even though he had won title belts in the past.
EDIT: TDLR: People are saying that Berto is a weak former champ to include in the record because he is washed up, not because his titles didn't mean anything. But on that note, what makes Berto's title victories so special?
The reason unifying the division is a good thing is not because he will have won a lot of alphabet soup titles but rather because we'll have one "true" champ of the division. EDIT: The value of the title fights he has to unify this depend on the level of opposition he faces, but my point is that unifying the division is always a good thing in my view.
Your original post makes it seem like we are demeaning the value of Berto having won championships. We're not. The problem isn't that the belts he had didn't have any meaning. The problem is that he sucks balls.
Berto is not anywhere near where he was when he was the reigning WBC champion. That's why this win won't be very significant, which is part of why people are saying that the statistic is meaningless. Praising beating former champions doesn't always make sense, and Berto is just one example of why.
But on the note of the value of title belts, I'd say they have some meaning but it's all about context. For Berto, the context is that he won a vacant WBC belt against Miguel Angel Rodriguez and later the IBF belt from Jan Zaveck. Neither of these is a terribly impressive way to become a champion. He had some decent defenses of the prior though, before losing it to Ortiz and the latter he lost in his first defense to Guerrero. Given what he has done in the last few years since Guerrero, beating Berto is frankly not a big accomplishment right now even though he had won title belts in the past.
EDIT: TDLR: People are saying that Berto is a weak former champ to include in the record because he is washed up, not because his titles didn't mean anything. But on that note, what makes Berto's title victories so special?
Comment