Klitchko Wasnt A Unification Bout Says Wilder

[Abovetheclouds]

Why didn't Wilder ever unify with Klitschko?

[Eff Pandas]

No because the titles were already unified.

Well that dude said Joshua vs Klitschko was a unification cuz "it involved a match that has more than one belt" hence why I asked that question. I was just trying to understand what nutty logic he was working with.

[Tom Cruise]

Well that dude said Joshua vs Klitschko was a unification cuz "it involved a match that has more than one belt" hence why I asked that question. I was just trying to understand what nutty logic he was working with.

I think in strict terms it was a 'unification'

The belts were seperate before they fought, and the winner was unified champion.

Bit of a wierd one though.

[kafkod]

Yea....noooooooooo. LOL.

Like I said the basic requirement of a unification is two fighters with one or more title each fighting each other. This isn't something in dispute by anyone ever except people in this very thread for some reason. I've never even heard this argument or mentioned with any other fighter.

Although it is a rare situation I'd admit cuz I don't even recall a situation where a champion fought another guy for a vacant 2nd belt although I'm sure it has happened before.

But okay if you got two belts than yes you are a unified title holder, BUT if you did it via winning a vacant title vs a non-title holder you didn't gain that status with a unification fight. So no unified status doesn't necessarily need a unification fight to get there.

True, because guys can become champions by default and unify titles that way. But if it does neeed a fight to unify titles, then that fight, by definition, is a unification fight!

The IBF viewed it as a unification fight, which is why their rules, which they stick to rigidly, meant they could order the winner to fight their mando, Pulev, next, instead of stripping AJ for fighting Wlad instead of him.

I think the WBA must have viewed it as a unification too, or they wouldn't have recognised the winner as their champion.

When the WBA have a vacant title they order their top 2 contenders to fight for it. Wlad was No1 with them, but AJ wasn't No2, Ortiz was. The way I understand it, the WBA viewing AJ/Wlad as a unification fight was the reason they agreed to recognise the winner as their champ, instead of moving down the list and ordering Ortiz vs their No3, whoever that was.

[kafkod]

Why didn't Wilder ever unify with Klitschko?

Wlad wanted to fight Wilder in the US, but Shelly Finkel said Wilder wasn't ready for him, so Wlad fought Jennings instead then lost his titles to Fury.

[juggernaut666]

I think in strict terms it was a 'unification'

The belts were seperate before they fought, and the winner was unified champion.

Bit of a wierd one though.

Its not weird its what it was . Seperate belts up for grabs .... they wouldn't have sanctioned it as a unification fight , i cant believe idiots want to ignore reality on here DAILY . lol

[minemax]

This Wilder guy needs a good shrink...

[Tom Cruise]

Its not weird its what it was . Seperate belts up for grabs ....

Yeah but its pretty unusual for a champion to get the opportunity to fight for another vacant belt. Especially vs a guy who lost his last fight. Most orgs have rules preventing that.

I agree its a unification, but it is an odd situation that you dont often see.

[juggernaut666]

Yeah but its pretty unusual for a champion to get the opportunity to fight for another vacant belt. Especially vs a guy who lost his last fight. Most orgs have rules preventing that.

I agree its a unification, but it is an odd situation that you dont often see.

Yea apparently its MY nutty logic at work again not the ACTUAL situation created to make it a unification bout which in turn makes me a fanboy . lol ?

['b']

this Juicehua V bum squad debate is really boring, we should relocate all the fat yank fanboys & AJ Cucksquad to a lockable part of the forum and let them argue for eternity.

Hear, hear!