There's obviously more to being a champion than winning a belt. Serious boxing fans know to ignore the 4 title belts for the most part. FWIW, the Ring belt is largely seen as the real prize to obtain for fighters even if it's just a magazine creation. But even a Ring/lineal titleholder can be a subpar fighter on the whole. (ex. Baldomir at WW)
Some people look down on a dominant titlist. They ain't quick to give him props because it looks like he's never challenged. Some people still think this way even if he's beating nothing but top 10 ranked opponents. (ex. Wlad at HW)
Now flip the script. A fighter with a tenuous hold on his crown gets a bad rep from some fans because he ain't as dominant as they'd like him to be. (ex. Jermain at MW)
I wanna know from you guys in here how you define a champion.
Do you prefer him to destroy everyone he faces?
Do you prefer to see him in a lotta tough fights?
Do you just accept whoever has a Ring belt?
Do you value any one of the alphabet belts over the others?
Do you just accept the consensus #1 guy in a division as champ?
Some people look down on a dominant titlist. They ain't quick to give him props because it looks like he's never challenged. Some people still think this way even if he's beating nothing but top 10 ranked opponents. (ex. Wlad at HW)
Now flip the script. A fighter with a tenuous hold on his crown gets a bad rep from some fans because he ain't as dominant as they'd like him to be. (ex. Jermain at MW)
I wanna know from you guys in here how you define a champion.
Do you prefer him to destroy everyone he faces?
Do you prefer to see him in a lotta tough fights?
Do you just accept whoever has a Ring belt?
Do you value any one of the alphabet belts over the others?
Do you just accept the consensus #1 guy in a division as champ?
Comment