Klitchko Wasnt A Unification Bout Says Wilder

Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Boxing Goat
    The G.O.A.T.
    Unified Champion - 10,00-20,000 posts
    • Aug 2013
    • 13150
    • 557
    • 1,027
    • 128,865

    #81
    Wlad lost all his belts when he lost to Fury so there's no way he could have been in a unification fight right afterwards. He was fighting for a vacant belt so Wilder is right.

    Comment

    • LacedUp
      Still Smokin'
      Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
      • Oct 2009
      • 29171
      • 781
      • 381
      • 132,163

      #82
      Originally posted by Kezzer
      No it wasn't but klitschko had said he would only fight if the WBA put it on the line which is what held the fight being announced for a long while.

      Eventually they did and he unification fight was born. Not sure why we are debating it now ? I mean Joshua has unified again since then!
      You might be right. I just remember something about Klitschko and the WBA. Because he wanted to go in as champion or something. I don’t exactly remember but yeah who cares.

      Comment

      • LacedUp
        Still Smokin'
        Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
        • Oct 2009
        • 29171
        • 781
        • 381
        • 132,163

        #83
        Originally posted by Boxing Goat
        Wlad lost all his belts when he lost to Fury so there's no way he could have been in a unification fight right afterwards. He was fighting for a vacant belt so Wilder is right.
        There’s plenty of ways. These orgs are the most corrupt crap organizations in history, so yeah don’t be surprised.

        Comment

        • kafkod
          I am Fanboy. Very Fanboy
          Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
          • Sep 2013
          • 24746
          • 2,173
          • 1,787
          • 405,373

          #84
          Originally posted by Eff Pandas
          Never heard that ever in my life. Its SOMETHING different I'll give you that, but its clearly no unification fight.

          A unifying can't happen with only one champ going in. It needs two mfers with one or more belt each. Otherwise what are we unifying exactly? I'd say not a damn thing.


          http://www.sportsdefinitions.com/box...ion-fight.html
          Originally posted by Eff Pandas
          Again the definition suggests we need two champions fighting to unify. Klitschko was highly respected still, but he was no champion.

          This is simple. I don't think a ABC Group can change a long held definition of a word.
          In boxing, unified titles are separate titles which are held by the same champion. A unification fight is a fight which unifies one or more titles.

          That's my definition and I believe I know more about boxing and have as much authority as the anonymous person who posted that mistaken definition at the site you linked to.
          Last edited by kafkod; 04-16-2018, 03:38 PM.

          Comment

          • Robbie Barrett
            Banned
            Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
            • Nov 2013
            • 40891
            • 2,779
            • 667
            • 570,921

            #85
            Originally posted by Boxing Goat
            Wlad lost all his belts when he lost to Fury so there's no way he could have been in a unification fight right afterwards. He was fighting for a vacant belt so Wilder is right.


            Did the fight make Joshua a unified champion? If yes then it was a unification fight.

            It really isn't that difficult.

            By your logic a fight for a vacant title isn't a world title fight.

            Comment

            Working...
            TOP