Comments Thread For: Fury Stripped of Ring Belt, Joshua-Parker Rejected To Fight For It

[N/A]

You do remember who Stiverne beat for the vacant WBC title, right?


Here is the chain of events leading to Wilder getting his "world title:"

Vitali Klitschko beats Arreola's ass in defending his belt.

Vitali retires.

WBC title becomes vacant. Stiverne and Arreola fight for it. Stiverne draws Arreola first time; second time Stiverne beats Arreola.

Wilder beats Stiverne.

I honestly can't even name Wilder's opponents who he has defended against other than Arreola (LOL), and Spizlka.

none of that changes the fact that stiverne was ranked higher than takam.

[N/A]

Hahah well there ya go! "Ring had him rated higher"

Hahahahaha

There's no way Wilder deserves to be ranked higher than Joshua. No way.

I agree. Who said otherwise? Joshua has the WBA & the IBF. Wilder only has the WBC. Of course Joshua should be ranked higher.

But ok, let's say Stiverne was a better win than Takam.

Was he a better win than Klitschko?

In my opinion? No. Beating the #2 heavyweight in the world, in his prime, to take his title, in a virtual shut out, is more impressive than beating a former champion, past his prime, now in his 40s, coming off a very long layoff and coming off a loss.

However, Klitschko is a much bigger name and we're in the name business. So if I was a fighter, I'd much rather beat Klitschko. It's a far more prestigious win, even if logically it's not a better win in terms of sport.

And let's look at their entire bodies of work. Joshua has done more than Wilder, as has Parker with Hughie Fury and Andy Ruiz.

The previous poster said Takam was a better win than any of Wilder's. Now you're trying to change the subject to something completely different.

[Cheek busting]

I agree. Who said otherwise? Joshua has the WBA & the IBF. Wilder only has the WBC. Of course Joshua should be ranked higher.




In my opinion? No. Beating the #2 heavyweight in the world, in his prime, to take his title, in a virtual shut out, is more impressive than beating a former champion, past his prime, now in his 40s, coming off a very long layoff and coming off a loss.

However, Klitschko is a much bigger name and we're in the name business. So if I was a fighter, I'd much rather beat Klitschko. It's a far more prestigious win, even if logically it's not a better win in terms of sport.




The previous poster said Takam was a better win than any of Wilder's. Now you're trying to change the subject to something completely different.

Wow - you honestly believe Stiverne was a better win than Klitschko. Bermane Stiverne? Whose best win was Chris Arreola?

No - the point was that The Ring claimed Wilder was "on merit" the second=ranked HW in the world. Therefore the MAIN issue was not whether or not Takam was a better win than Stiverne; rather, whether the entirety of their bodies of work should merit Wilder as ranked higher by the Ring than Joshua. Takam being a better win than Stiverne was a SUB-ISSUE of the main issue.

I still stand by Takam being a much better win and better opponent than Stiverne.

Perhaps I misinterpreted the article, as the Ring meaning Wilder was the SECOND BEST behind Fury, ahead of Joshua? Or were they saying that Wilder is the second best behind Joshua, now that Fury is gone from the rankings?

Regardless, Wilder does not deserve to be ranked ahead of even Joseph Parker, IMO. The guy's career has been a joke, and is the EPITOME of "the path of least resistance" and being a paper champion.

[Cheek busting]

none of that changes the fact that stiverne was ranked higher than takam.

Rankings are subjective - evinced by the huge difference in rankings by the different sanctioning bodies.

The Ring is politically motivated just like the sanctioning bodies.

So I take their rankings with a grain of salt, and not as being the end-all-be-all.

I think most posters on here would say Takam is a better opponent than Stiverne.

[N/A]

Wow - you honestly believe Stiverne was a better win than Klitschko. Bermane Stiverne? Whose best win was Chris Arreola?

Yes, it impresses me more to shutout the current #2 heavyweight in the world in his prime and beat him for his WBC championship than it does to face an old former champion in his 40s, coming of a very very long layoff, coming off a loss, and going life and death with him and almost losing.

Commercially, Klitschko is a better win. But looking at things purely as sport, Klitschko had been inactive for so long, was so old, had already looked so horrible against Fury, that to then almost get knocked out by him before ultimately prevailing isn't as impressive as going into the ring with the current #2 and dominating him.

No - the point was that The Ring claimed Wilder was "on merit" the second=ranked HW in the world.

Of course he's #2 on merit. You think he's ranked because of what he had for lunch?

Therefore the MAIN issue was not whether or not Takam was a better win than Stiverne; rather, whether the entirety of their bodies of work should merit Wilder as ranked higher by the Ring than Joshua.

But he's not ranked higher than Joshua. So wtf are you talking about?

[N/A]

Rankings are subjective - evinced by the huge difference in rankings by the different sanctioning bodies.

Nobody was talking about the sanctioning body rankings.

The Ring is politically motivated just like the sanctioning bodies.

Of course it is. Nobody should recognize Ring. It's owned by HBO's lead promoter.

But when Wilder beat Stiverne the fight time, Stiverne was #2 or #3 in every major independent ranking system. Stiverne was the consensus #2 or #3 heavyweight in the world. When AJ beat Takam, Takam was nowhere near that high in any credible ranking system.

So the previous poster claiming Takam was the bigger win was simply wrong. Sorry.

So I take their rankings with a grain of salt, and not as being the end-all-be-all.

You'd have to disregard any credible ranking system in the world to claim 2017 Takam was more highly regarded than 2014 Stiverne. You're rewriting history.

I think most posters on here would say Takam is a better opponent than Stiverne.

Most posters here would say snakes are made of jelly beans if Hearn told them to. "Most posters here" means nothing.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

It was officially announced that Tyson Fury was stripped of his Ring Magazine title for failing to schedule a fight by a deadline of January 31. The former unified world champion has been out of the ring since traveling to Germany to shockingly defeat Wladimir Klitschko in major upset in November 2015 to captured the IBF, IBO, WBA, WBO, Ring heavyweight belts.
[Click Here To Read More]

About time. It may be a while before another champion is declared though.

[Cheek busting]

Nobody was talking about the sanctioning body rankings.




Of course it is. Nobody should recognize Ring. It's owned by HBO's lead promoter.

But when Wilder beat Stiverne the fight time, Stiverne was #2 or #3 in every major independent ranking system. Stiverne was the consensus #2 or #3 heavyweight in the world. When AJ beat Takam, Takam was nowhere near that high in any credible ranking system.

So the previous poster claiming Takam was the bigger win was simply wrong. Sorry.




You'd have to disregard any credible ranking system in the world to claim 2017 Takam was more highly regarded than 2014 Stiverne. You're rewriting history.




Most posters here would say snakes are made of jelly beans if Hearn told them to. "Most posters here" means nothing.

So the opinion of a magazine, who you just admitted was owned and operated with political motivations, means more than the opinion of a majority of boxing fans on a website, with no financial motivations?

And no - even the 2017 Klitschko coming off the Fury loss, was much better than ANY version of Stiverne.

Takam is simply a better fighter than Stiverne - whether it was Stiverne in 2014, or now..

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree..

[N/A]

So the opinion of a magazine, who you just admitted was owned and operated with political motivations, means more than the opinion of a majority of boxing fans on a website, with no financial motivations?

No, the opinions of ALL OF THE WORLD'S LEADING EXPERTS mean more than the opinions of a few internet troll nerds.

Stiverne was CONSENSUS #2/#3 IN THE WORLD. Not just the bull**** Ring Magazine. But TBRB, ESPN, etc. Stop rewriting history. Stiverne was considered top 2 or 3 by everybody.

Takam was not on that level.

[Cheek busting]

No, the opinions of ALL OF THE WORLD'S LEADING EXPERTS mean more than the opinions of a few internet troll nerds.

Stiverne was CONSENSUS #2/#3 IN THE WORLD. Not just the bull**** Ring Magazine. But TBRB, ESPN, etc. Stop rewriting history. Stiverne was considered top 2 or 3 by everybody.

Takam was not on that level.

I'm not rewriting history - I'm looking at history in hindsight, which is always more accurate.

The old saying - hindsight is 20/20, aye??

Jeff Lacy was also a consensus top=ranked fighter, before we knew what he really was made of.

Same with Arreola.

Oh, and who are these "experts"? Dan Rafael? LOL..

Sorry - when it comes to something as subjective as ranking fighters - I regard a poster on here who has knowledge, and appreciation of the sport, just as highly as a "paid expert" for some sports medium.