Tweet
For instance.. Exhibit A & B.
Winning Titles Against Known Champs vs Elevated Champion Status Defense
discuss.
Winning Titles Against Known Champs vs Elevated Champion Status Defense
discuss.
-
-
No, they are fortunate. Without them an undeserving fighter would remain champion while the fighter who should be the champion would not be the champion. When the WBC or WBA orders a fight between number 1 challenger GGG and their champion who has being ducking him GGG is always right there ready and willing to fight for the title. When the champion refuses to fight GGG for the title GGG becomes the new champion. This the way it should be. Everybody knows GGG would have knocked the champion out if they did fight. You need to quit trashing GGG for getting elevated to champion without fighting the champion because he was there and happy to fight for the title. You need to put the blame on the champion who refused to defend his title against GGG when ordered to do so. By refusing to fight GGG he has shown himself unworthy to be the champion. -
Its unfortunate that 'champions' refuse to fight their mandatory opponents. I think they should strip the 'champion' and let the mandatory fight an opponent for the vacant title afterwards
We shouldnt blame fighters like Lara for never becoming world champion in the ringComment
-
It's not unfortunate, it's BS. Sanctioning bodies do not have to do crap like this. Instead, they should just force champions to defend against the mandatory at least once a year. if they refuse, strip them and let the #1 and #2 ranked fighters fight for the title.
Allowing an interim champ just to get the increased sanctioning fee and then elevating someone taints the title IMO.
That said, if a guy gets elevated to champ he doesn't get the same credit as someone that won the belt in the ring.Comment
-
There should no automatic elevation. Championships should be won and lost in the ring wherever possible.
If a current champ wont fight his mandatory, let the belt become vacant and the next 2 top ranked guys fight for it.
In a time where belts mean less and less, I think doing something like this will be a step towards restoring some stature.
Because one of the easiest ways to knock a fighter- and perhaps undeservedly- is to point out he didn't win his title in the ring.Comment
-
World title belts mean very little anyway. Fighters make the belt, not the other way around. We have regular, super duper and emeritus champions, might aswell have elevated champions, which are as legitimate as champions who win belts in the ring against guys who get gifted no. 15 ranking automatically. Its all a mess, so its nothing to really care about. In Golovkin's and Lara's case, the elevated titles went to the right person, the universally recognised no.1 fighters in their divisions. I see it more as correcting a mistake in those casesComment
-
this is really wyat it comes down to.
do you value the super diamond mega champ who, in reality, is hardly in the top 15, when there's a more deserving fighter without a belt? do you then devalue the better fighter's belt simply because he's been "gifted" the belt? he's the better fighter, FFS. belts are a means to an end. they are not the end. you should get the belt [and the credit,] for being the better fighter. not have your value based on getting the belt. that's just backwards.
floyd mayweather used to drop belts to avoid the freaking insane sanctioning fees. six or seven figures to be able to parade around 1 of 4 "championship belts?" "this one's green doe!!" did anybodyr eally need a belt to know floyd was the best fighter on the planet in '14? anybody need a belt to know manny was the best in '09?Comment
-
I disagree that fighters make the belt. That allows for too much objective BS. I remember debating with someone who was killing Broner's title wins as not legit because his promoter got him the fights. When I asked about Manny, the poster then said well it's different. No it isn't.
If a great fighter is given a belt that isn't ok IMO. No fighter "deserves" a belt, even if public opinion says they are the best in a division. Popular opinion doesn't make the opinion a fact.
IMO a title should never be awarded to a fighter. The sanctioning body should strip then have #1 and #2 fight for the title belt. Frankly, I don't even count super champs, interim or any other BS designation created by a sanctioning body for more fees.Comment
-
its pretty sad and its all politics by the alphabet boys
they can strip a fighter for whatever reason they like and they can hand fighters their belt when they like
Oh how I miss the days when you actually had to fight someone to win a world title. Boxing is all watered down. fighters are being protected but the media want to say they are being ducked.
its unfortunate to fighters who have earned title shots not to get them and its unfortunate when fighters who didnt fight for titles are handed them. The fighter who recieves the belt and his team is winning, while fans are left wanting.
its bad for the sport. We already have too many belts. Now they are just starting to give them away.Comment
-
I think theres a bit of a difference between 'popular opinion' and being the universally recognised no.1 fighter. When theres a guy who is clearly ahead of the pack, the other world titles are pretty meaningless. So it doesn't even matter if they are handed out, sold, or put in a trash can or whatever. I don't think anyone should care for the WBC/IBF heavyweight titles, because the recognised champion doesn't hold them.
With Broner, the only title that really mattered was his WBC lightweight crown, because it reflected the no.1 lightweight. The others we shouldn't really care so much about. The same goes for some of Manny' titles, his 154 WBC title especially. I think you're giving these titles far too much respect, when all they are pretty much, are promotional toys in most casesComment
Comment