This one is for ALL the marbles...

[achillesthegreat]

...WBC, WBA, WBO and The Ring belt! Unofficially Calzaghe also owns the IBF and IBO.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]******.tv/phpAd/adimage.php?filename=itson.jpg&contenttype=jpeg

Photo courtesy of frank******.tv

[aliwasthegreatest]

i really believe Kessler doesn't have enough movement to beat JC but we'll see. too straight foward n back

[Piffer]

Calzaghe/Lacy was only the semifinal. This fight will crown the first EVER super-middleweight champ.

[TBooze]

What does it matter? Calzaghe is The World Super Middleweight Champion; Kessler the generally considered #1 contender; that is all you need....

Alphabet crap be it The Ring, WBA, WBC or XYZ means nothing.

[MacManJr.]

What does it matter? Calzaghe is The World Super Middleweight Champion; Kessler the generally considered #1 contender; that is all you need....

Alphabet crap be it The Ring, WBA, WBC or XYZ means nothing.Especially the IBF aka the International Bullshit Federation!

[achillesthegreat]

Kessler is 'the man' and Calzaghe is 'the best'. Historically Kessler is the first man at 168 to start lineage.

[Relentless]

calzaghe is going to sexually assault kessler with his fists.

[Piffer]

What does it matter? Calzaghe is The World Super Middleweight Champion; Kessler the generally considered #1 contender; that is all you need....

No Calzaghe is not the champ until he beats Kessler. You don't become champ just because you've unified two belts, especially in a division that has no established lineage of champions. Kessler has just as much claim to the throne as Calzaghe and thats why they're fighting.

[Stewbear]

calzaghe is going to sexually assault kessler with his fists.

Why would you say such a thing?

[Relentless]

Why would you say such a thing?

you think that was bad?

wait till achilles starts.

[TBooze]

Kessler is 'the man' and Calzaghe is 'the best'. Historically Kessler is the first man at 168 to start lineage.

There is no such thing as lineage in boxing no more.

The last lineage champ was a Super Middleweight, but certainly not Kessler, it was Bruno Girard. Girard gave his claim up when he moved to 175lbs and fought Lou Del Valle...

[THN]

calzaghe is going to sexually assault kessler with his fists.
I dont think it's legal :huh

[TBooze]

No Calzaghe is not the champ until he beats Kessler. You don't become champ just because you've unified two belts, especially in a division that has no established lineage of champions. Kessler has just as much claim to the throne as Calzaghe and thats why they're fighting.

What is all this alphabet crap rubbish you talk about? Calzaghe and Jeff Lacy were the #1 and #2 contenders to the championship Bruno Girard left vacant when he moved up to 175lbs. Calzaghe beat Lacy, thus won the vacant Super Middleweight Championship of the World...

[achillesthegreat]

There is no such thing as lineage in boxing no more.

The last lineage champ was a Super Middleweight, but certainly not Kessler, it was Bruno Girard. Girard gave his claim up when he moved to 175lbs and fought Lou Del Valle...
Historically lineage lay in the WBC and WBA so yes it does still exist. However lineage is losing its importance. People don't care much about who the man is, they care about who the best is.

168 has only ever had ONE champ at that is Kessler.

[achillesthegreat]

you think that was bad?

wait till achilles starts.
:D

ERRONEOUS CLAIMS!

[Piffer]

What is all this alphabet crap rubbish you talk about? Calzaghe and Jeff Lacy were the #1 and #2 contenders to the championship Bruno Girard left vacant when he moved up to 175lbs. Calzaghe beat Lacy, thus won the vacant Super Middleweight Championship of the World...

This 'alphabet crap rubbish' is modern boxing, and it's something every fan has to deal with. You can't oversimplify something that isn't so simple.

[TBooze]

Historically lineage lay in the WBC and WBA so yes it does still exist.

Lineage:

Direct descent from a particular ancestor; ancestry....

Super Middleweight lineage comes from Murray Sutherland, it went Sutherland-Park-Obelmejias-Baek-Tiozzo-Cordoba-Nunn-Little-Liles-Mitchell-Girard

Girard moved up to 175lbs, thus your lineage is broken.

Five years later the #1 contender and #2 contenders for the vacant Championship meet and Joe Calzaghe is your Super Middleweight Champion of the World.

[TBooze]

This 'alphabet crap rubbish' is modern boxing, and it's something every fan has to deal with. You can't oversimplify something that isn't so simple.

Of course you can, you ignore it...

[A-50]

I thought Calzaghe was taller than 5'11?

[achillesthegreat]

I sure hope Kessler kicks this guys ass!!! For someone to talk about how great they are forever, you would think they had fouhght someone in their career.....JC had not fought anyone until he fought Lacy. He did kick Lacy's ass, but before that he fought all the light Euro competition. I cannot call anyone the champ for doing that.

Kessler has been primarily in Europe too, but I like him a lot better than JC. I will watch this fight and scream for KESSLER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Joe Calzaghes first title fight was going to be against an all time top 10 168 pounder - Steve Collins! When Steve Collins pulled out, he fought ANOTHER top 10 P4P. The top 168 pounder of his time wouldn't fight him - Sven Ottke. Hopkins and Jones didn't entertain the idea of fighting him, even when Hopkins was offered a career high pay day.

Now Calzaghe is the strong champ and the young guns need to go through him for recognition, thus he is building his legacy on them.

[achillesthegreat]

Lineage:

Direct descent from a particular ancestor; ancestry....

Super Middleweight lineage comes from Murray Sutherland, it went Sutherland-Park-Obelmejias-Baek-Tiozzo-Cordoba-Nunn-Little-Liles-Mitchell-Girard

Girard moved up to 175lbs, thus your lineage is broken.

Five years later the #1 contender and #2 contenders for the vacant Championship meet and Joe Calzaghe is your Super Middleweight Champion of the World.
Ancestry has to be established, it isn't establish by the first champ. It can only be established via WBC-WBA unification.

Historically, the IBF and WBO have no real substance. They are merely splinter groups from the WBA because of politics.

[achillesthegreat]

Historically the New York champ is lineage , so what

They credit you give this crap is nonsense:patsch
You are forgetting the NBA.

The credit I give this crap? If you want to assess them historically, do it accurately.

[achillesthegreat]

I thought Calzaghe was taller than 5'11?
I think he is closer to 6 foot.

[Marnoff]

you think that was bad?

wait till achilles starts.

Don't worry. No one thinks you're "bad".

[Musashi]

Personally, I will only acknowledge The Ring title. That means, Calzaghe is currently the man at 168.

The Ring is heads and shoulders above any ABC sanctioning body, and the only one whose opinion should count, no matter what "TBOOZE" thinks.

The Ring IS NOT "alphabet crap". They have clearly established themselves as the only ranking organization that isn't for sale and actually has intelligent people establishing the rankings. The incident that happened 30 years ago with The Ring ratings is long since passed, and The Ring has seriously cleaned up since then. When was the last time an ABC group cleaned anything?

[achillesthegreat]

Personally, I will only acknowledge The Ring title. That means, Calzaghe is currently the man at 168.

The Ring is heads and shoulders above any ABC sanctioning body, and the only one whose opinion should count, no matter what "TBOOZE" thinks.

The Ring IS NOT "alphabet crap". They have clearly established themselves as the only ranking organization that isn't for sale and actually has intelligent people establishing the rankings. The incident that happened 30 years ago with The Ring ratings is long since passed, and The Ring has seriously cleaned up since then. When was the last time an ABC group cleaned anything?
Why do you consider The Ring title? It has a history of corruption and has gaps in its history.

People need to stop coming up with new orgs to solve boxing. Imagine if every time we weren't happy with our government or found some corruption, we founded a new political party. Things would just get worse and worse.

You say The Ring has cleaned up, but that is what we need to get done with the orgs that matter.

[Relentless]

Don't worry. No one thinks you're "bad".


still crying i see....... :| :| :|


game-set-match:good

[TBooze]

Ancestry has to be established, it isn't establish by the first champ. It can only be established via WBC-WBA unification.

Historically, the IBF and WBO have no real substance. They are merely splinter groups from the WBA because of politics.

Substance? Again you saying you rate cat crap and dog crap over mouse crap and cow crap...

Murray Sutherand was the first World Champion at 168lbs; thus the lineage began, ending in 2001. Then Calzaghe won the vacant crown at Super Middleweight in 2006, with a victory over Lacy, that is all that matters, screw the WBA, WBC, Xyz and even The Ring...

[PH|LLA]

This is the biggest fight in a long long time.

A monster fight!

Finally we will have a real champion at SMW

[Nawfal]

holllllllllllyyy shit

i cannot wait

[FlatNose]

calzaghe is going to sexually assault kessler with his fists.


I'd hate to see the handwraps afterwards!:yikes

[sandwichsurgeon]

I think,something is wrong with this picture,Kessler is 28 not 29,he was born 1979-03-01

:lol: :lol: :lol:

You even know his birthday, what a hugger.

[He Hate Me]

The unification of the major and unofficial sanctions are nice for a change. I wonder how long it will take the champ not fighting mandatorys, and start to become stripped of championships, it happens more than it doesn't. Then were back to the same old mess, numerous splinter champs.

[achillesthegreat]

The WBA has interim, regular and super champions

THe WBO holds more weight these days LOL

We get it, what you are saying that the WBC and the WBA became 2 entities, however any lineage after that is pure speculation, please stop babbling about it in all your posts:hi:

No-one considered Ernie Terell a champ when he was WBA title holder, Just like everybody believed Larry Holmes the real champ when he was the IBF champ, just give it up, its boring:bbb:bbb:bbb:bbb:bbb:bbb:bbb
Stop throwing a hissy fit.

If the man is not around, unification of the WBC and WBA is what creates lineage.

If you want to talk historically then speak accurately.

[achillesthegreat]

Substance? Again you saying you rate cat crap and dog crap over mouse crap and cow crap...

Murray Sutherand was the first World Champion at 168lbs; thus the lineage began, ending in 2001. Then Calzaghe won the vacant crown at Super Middleweight in 2006, with a victory over Lacy, that is all that matters, screw the WBA, WBC, Xyz and even The Ring...
No!

To establish lineage historically it starts with the WBC and WBA.

Sutherland was not the champ.

Calzaghe has never unified the WBC and WBA and thus isn't the real champ. He is the best but he isnt the man.

[Guru_Too_You]

If the man is not around, unification of the WBC and WBA is what creates lineage.


Kessler first linear champion at 168.

Its true.

[TBooze]

No!

To establish lineage historically it starts with the WBC and WBA.

Sutherland was not the champ.

Calzaghe has never unified the WBC and WBA and thus isn't the real champ. He is the best but he isnt the man.

Sutherland was the first World Champion at Super Middleweight beating Ernie Singletary in 1984, and historically when the NYSAC and NBA champions fought, you very often got the World Champion, although the Richard K Fox Police Gazette belts normally started lineage.

The WBA and WBC only started making money at 168lbs in 1987 and 1988 respectively...

[sandwichsurgeon]

WBC and WBA count for just as little as the other straps, your living in the past.

[achillesthegreat]

Sutherland was the first World Champion at Super Middleweight beating Ernie Singletary in 1984, and historically when the NYSAC and NBA champions fought, you very often got the World Champion, although the Richard K Fox Police Gazette belts normally started lineage.

The WBA and WBC only started making money at 168lbs in 1987 and 1988 respectively...
It does not matter who the first champ is.

If I go and create a division called super heavy and create a belt ABC then that begins lineage? Of course not.

Lineage is a historic entity and it is rooted in the WBC and WBA.

We aren't going back to the Gazette. Prior to the WBC and WBA there were orgs that would decide champs i.e. NBA, NYSAC, EBU, BBBofC etc These groups were coupled under umbrella orgs known as WBC and WBA.

First the WBA formed and then the WBC. The WBO and IBF are splinter groups with no history.

[TBooze]

It does not matter who the first champ is.

If I go and create a division called super heavy and create a belt ABC then that begins lineage? Of course not.

Lineage is a historic entity and it is rooted in the WBC and WBA.

We aren't going back to the Gazette. Prior to the WBC and WBA there were orgs that would decide champs i.e. NBA, NYSAC, EBU, BBBofC etc These groups were coupled under umbrella orgs known as WBC and WBA.

First the WBA formed and then the WBC. The WBO and IBF are splinter groups with no history.

Technically you are wrong, in that NYSAC, EBU, BBB of C did not merge with anyone.... Well that is a lie, the EBU was formed form the IBU and the BBB of C from the NSC.

THE WBA and NBA although have a bit of connection are two very different beasts. The WBA as we know it, was formed in 1976 and as the IBF was formed in 1983 and WBO in 1987 they all have fairly short histories.

If you want true lineage, you do need to go back to the era of the Police Gazette, Richard K Fox, the NSC, IBU and NYSAC from the late 1880's to 1921.

But the man creates the Championship not the alphabet title.

That is why as much as I hate to say it you got to give credit to the IBF (god that was hard to write), who in 83/84 crowned the likes of Holmes, Hagler, Spinks, Pryor and Curry straight off...

Weather you like it or not Sutherland created the Super Middleweights, sure he was no Alfred, but the lineage got stronger and the new championship is in safe hands with Calzaghe; and if Kessler wins, he has all the tools to be equally worthy.

[Guru_Too_You]

Technically you are wrong, in that NYSAC, EBU, BBB of C did not merge with anyone.... Well that is a lie, the EBU was formed form the IBU and the BBB of C from the NSC.

THE WBA and NBA although have a bit of connection are two very different beasts. The WBA as we know it, was formed in 1976 and as the IBF was formed in 1983 and WBO in 1987 they all have fairly short histories.

If you want true lineage, you do need to go back to the era of the Police Gazette, Richard K Fox, the NSC, IBU and NYSAC from the late 1880's to 1921.

But the man creates the Championship not the alphabet title.

That is why as much as I hate to say it you got to give credit to the IBF (god that was hard to write), who in 83/84 crowned the likes of Holmes, Hagler, Spinks, Pryor and Curry straight off...

Weather you like it or not Sutherland created the Super Middleweights, sure he was no Alfred, but the lineage got stronger and the new championship is in safe hands with Calzaghe; and if Kessler wins, he has all the tools to be equally worthy.

Wrong.

So, like Achilles suggested, if I start a sanctioning body and decide that Manfredo is my super middleweight champion of the world, then lineage should follow?

Get a grip dude.

[Amsterdam]

Wrong.

So, like Achilles suggested, if I start a sanctioning body and decide that Manfredo is my super middleweight champion of the world, then lineage should follow?

Get a grip dude.

Manfredo is a busy man, I am gaining a lot of respect for him as he continue's to fight to the best of his abilities.

I also think that Allan Green wil KO him, and would also KO that fuck Jermain Taylor, who would never fight Allan Green.

[TBooze]

Wrong.

So, like Achilles suggested, if I start a sanctioning body and decide that Manfredo is my super middleweight champion of the world, then lineage should follow?

Get a grip dude.

Thta is not what I said... THE MAN makes the championship, so yes you can create your own piece of alphabet crap in a new weight division, but unless you can get Mayweather Jr or Hatton to be your new 144lbs Mini Welterweight Champion, you are going to get very far.;)

[achillesthegreat]

Technically you are wrong, in that NYSAC, EBU, BBB of C did not merge with anyone.... Well that is a lie, the EBU was formed form the IBU and the BBB of C from the NSC.

THE WBA and NBA although have a bit of connection are two very different beasts. The WBA as we know it, was formed in 1976 and as the IBF was formed in 1983 and WBO in 1987 they all have fairly short histories.

If you want true lineage, you do need to go back to the era of the Police Gazette, Richard K Fox, the NSC, IBU and NYSAC from the late 1880's to 1921.

But the man creates the Championship not the alphabet title.

That is why as much as I hate to say it you got to give credit to the IBF (god that was hard to write), who in 83/84 crowned the likes of Holmes, Hagler, Spinks, Pryor and Curry straight off...

So weather you like it or not Sutherland created the Super Middleweights, sure he was no Alfred, but the lineage got stronger and the new championship is in safe hands with Calzaghe; and if Kessler wins, he has all the tools to be equally worthy.
Some of the orgs reformed i.e. NBA into WBA, and some of them came under an umbrella i.e. EBU under WBC. That is why being British, Commonwealth and EBU champ gets you high rankings in the WBC.

NBA did turn into the WBA and EBU, BBBofC did go under the umbrella of WBC.

"Our organization was born as the National Boxing Association (NBA) in 1921"
- [Only registered and activated users can see links]

"The groups that historically had recognized several boxers as champions lacked generally of the one aspect they boasted of: their status of 'international'. Among the most outstanding bodies of those times were the Athletic Council of New York, the National Boxing Association, the European Boxing Union and the British Boxing Board of Control."
- [Only registered and activated users can see links]

Note: You now know the WBA was founded from the NBA. The other orgs however came under the WBC. Not only the EBU but others - "The WBC has nine regional governing bodies affiliated with it, such as the North American Boxing Federation (NABF), the Oriental and Pacific Boxing Federation (OPBF), the European Boxing Union (EBU), and the African Boxing Council (ABC)."
- wikipedia

You don't need to go back to the Gazette. You only need to go back to before the ABCs. Before the ABCs numerous orgs chose the champ. These orgs predominantly were NYSAC and NBA but others like BBBofC also dictated champ. However the linear champ was always known. So even though the BBBofC once said Savold was the heavyweight champ, it was known that he wasn't really.

The man can define the belt by being known as the best i.e. Calzaghe but he isn't really the champ if you want to assess him historically. Otherwise I can consider Savold a titlist and even the coloured champs as titlists.

The WBO and IBF are merely splinter groups with no history, no substance, they are a result of politics:
IBF:
"In 1983, at the WBA's annual convention, held in Puerto Rico that year, Bob Lee, president of the USBA, lost in his bid to become WBA president against Gilberto Mendoza. Lee and others withdrew from the convention after the election, and decided to organize a new world-level organization."
- wikipedia

WBO:
"The WBO started after a group of Puerto Rican and Dominican businessmen broke out of the World Boxing Association's 1988 annual convention in Isla Margarita, Venezuela, claiming to be disgusted by the WBA's questionable rules and ratings systems."
- wikipedia

So just to recap - the WBO and IBF have NO HISTORIC VALUE when it comes to lineage. Lineage is based on who beat who. If that man isn't around then the WBC and WBA have to be unified to re-establish lineage.

Do you understand now? Unforutnately it is a little complicated.

[achillesthegreat]

Thta is not what I said... THE MAN makes the championship, so yes you can create your own piece of alphabet crap in a new weight division, but unless you can get Mayweather Jr or Hatton to be your new 144lbs Mini Welterweight Champion, you are going to get very far.;)
Great so the WBU and IBO are now part of lineage right?

Hatton, Maccranelli, Calzaghe, Hopkins, Tarver and world class fighters have fought for these belts.

[Guru_Too_You]

Great so the WBU and IBO are now part of lineage right?

Hatton, Maccranelli, Calzaghe, Hopkins, Tarver and world class fighters have fought for these belts.
He cant grasp the ramifications of his statements.

Perhaps we should have a vote on who the best is in each division.

Popularity contest anyone?

Or maybe TBooze, you should just pick all the champions.

[achillesthegreat]

He cant grasp the ramifications of his statements.

Perhaps we should have a vote on who the best is in each division.

Popularity contest anyone?

Or maybe TBooze, you should just pick all the champions.
Exactly.

People have created a million ways of who is officially the best.

There is only ONE way to decide who really is the best - lineage. Everything else is opinion.

For example Casamayor and Diaz are currently just as good as each other. You can't argue differently. If one of them wants to set themself apart then they have to unify the WBC and WBA.

[TBooze]

I would not use Wikipedia, but sadly yes I know alphabet crap history, what is not mentioned and indeed rubbed out by the WBA is the 1976 coup by Pepe Coredo that turned the WBA from a USA dominated organization to having a Latin American bias that we know and love today...

Like I said there is a connection between the NBA and WBA but the NBA and WBA pre 1976 (which was not far off just a letter change, with the America States still dominating and able to veto anything they did not like) just does not exist; the WBA of today was formed in 1976.

[TBooze]

Great so the WBU and IBO are now part of lineage right?

Hatton, Maccranelli, Calzaghe, Hopkins, Tarver and world class fighters have fought for these belts.

Lineage does not exist, as I stated the last lineage champion was Girard in 2001

[Guru_Too_You]

Lineage does not exist, as I stated the last lineage champion was Girard in 2001

Dont be naive.

[DanePugilist]

Great picture, Achilles.

Lineage or no lineage, value or no, Kessler will beat JC, and then Bute for the unification of all 5 belts.

The Viking is coming... chanting the mantra: "Veni, vidi, vici".

[achillesthegreat]

I would not use Wikipedia, but sadly yes I know alphabet crap history, what is not mentioned and indeed rubbed out by the WBA is the 1976 coup by Pepe Coredo that turned the WBA from a USA dominated organization to having a Latin American bias that we know and love today...

Like I said there is a connection between the NBA and WBA but the NBA and WBA pre 1976 (which was not far off just a letter change, with the America States still dominating and able to veto anything they did not like) just does not exist; the WBA of today was formed in 1976.
Wikipedia is right. Feel free to verify it with any other sources.

It doesn't matter where the WBA is based or who runs it or who owns it.

The WBA comes from the NBA. This isn't debatable.

[TBooze]

Or maybe TBooze, you should just pick all the champions.

I already have ;)

In this era you have just have to use your own personal criteria, you will never get a true World Champion recognized by everyone. Which is sad if you are a fanatic of the current product, I was spoilt in that my era the 80s...

That is why I think pro boxing should have a debate about going down the path of pro wrestling and manipulate everything to make superstars of fighters and get everyone on board to have one World Champion in each weight division. It would also take the pressure of the sport as far as people wanting it banned.

It would piss a lot of people off, but it would attract new younger fans and could improve the marketability of the sport in the long run...

[achillesthegreat]

Lineage does not exist, as I stated the last lineage champion was Girard in 2001
There has been ONE real champ at 168.

Can you stop being silly now? I've explained it to you. Man up and admit you are wrong. Try and actually learn something from our debate.

[TBooze]

Dont be naive.

Well where does it exist then?

[Guru_Too_You]

Well where does it exist then?

In the established manner of combining the WBC and WBA titles. Once done, the belts essentially do not matter, then it becomes the man.

Its been common knowledge since the inception of the WBC and WBA.

[DanePugilist]

In the established manner of combining the WBC and WBA titles. Once done, the belts essentially do not matter, then it becomes the man.

Its been common knowledge since the inception of the WBC and WBA.:good - Just because people thinks less of the old belts, doesn't mean that phenomenon doesn't exist.

[achillesthegreat]

I'm rooting for Calzaghe against Kessler but I have to admit Kessler is historically the real champ.

[TBooze]

There has been ONE real champ at 168.

Can you stop being silly now? I've explained it to you. Man up and admit you are wrong. Try and actually learn something from our debate.

There is one champ he is the Super Middleweight Champion of the World and his name is Joe Calzaghe...

Lineage is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet it's maker! 'it's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! It's bureaucratic processes are now 'istory! It's off the twig! It's kicked the bucket, it's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! IT IS A EX LINEAGE.;)

[achillesthegreat]

There is one champ he is the Super Middleweight Champion of the World and his name is Joe Calzaghe...

Lineage is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet it's maker! 'it's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! It's bureaucratic processes are now 'istory! It's off the twig! It's kicked the bucket, it's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! IT IS A EX LINEAGE.;)
You have no substance to argument.

I've explained to you how it exists. Why are you being stupid?

[TBooze]

In the established manner of combining the WBC and WBA titles. Once done, the belts essentially do not matter, then it becomes the man.

Its been common knowledge since the inception of the WBC and WBA.

It happened with the NYSAC and NBA and yes in the 70s and early 80's with the WBA and C, but do not be spun by alphabet crap. Lee opened Pandora's Box in 1983, and boxing has not been able to close it since.

[achillesthegreat]

It happened with the NYSAC and NBA and yes in the 70s and early 80's with the WBA and C, but do not be spun by alphabet crap. Lee opened Pandora's Box in 1983, and boxing has not been able to close it since.
Silly fans such as yourself are killing boxing. You are muddling up what the truth is. You are embracing fucking magazines to rule our sport.

[Danny Ocean]

I also think that Allan Green wil KO him, and would also KO that fuck Jermain Taylor, who would never fight Allan Green.

why would taylor fight green whos never won a big fight in his career when he can fight the guy who ktfo the guy who beat green

think about it

[DanePugilist]

I'm rooting for Calzaghe against Kessler but I have to admit Kessler is historically the real champ.If JC looses to Kessler will you start rooting for him?

[TBooze]

You have no substance to argument.

I've explained to you how it exists. Why are you being stupid?

I will give you the empathy you want; you are getting confused with how Calzaghe is World Champion, all you have added is that as well as the dog crap, Kessler has pocketed the cat crap title as well...

You are clearly not stupid, a bit green and idealistic maybe, but you will learn. The cynicism will get you in the end if you carry on following the sport.:good

[TBooze]

Silly fans such as yourself are killing boxing. You are muddling up what the truth is. You are embracing fucking magazines to rule our sport.

I have no time for The Ring either; it is just another form of alphabet crap, but unlike some organizations having allegedly manipulated ratings, the Ring has been proven to. Either though Nat having his own personal agenda, the US Boxing Championships, or to try and relaunch the magazine's popularity by jumping on a bandwagon...

[Irish Steel]

In the established manner of combining the WBC and WBA titles. Once done, the belts essentially do not matter, then it becomes the man.

Its been common knowledge since the inception of the WBC and WBA.

:good

True, to be the true champ, I say you need 3 of the four belts. Or at least WBA and WBC. But still, having the RIng belt makes you the peoples champ.

[DanePugilist]

:good

True, to be the true champ, I say you need 3 of the four belts. Or at least WBA and WBC. But still, having the RIng belt makes you the peoples champ.Does this mean I can cast my vote on whom I think is the best ring champ? Or is the ring belt, like the others just rate what they themselves think? Or do they chose the concensus of the general conception of peoples beliefs?

Needless to say, I don't read Ring Magazine, so help me out here.

[Max Molyneux]

...WBC, WBA, WBO and The Ring belt! Unofficially Calzaghe also owns the IBF and IBO.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]******.tv/phpAd/adimage.php?filename=itson.jpg&contenttype=jpeg

Photo courtesy of frank******.tv

Calzaghe Is going to be a baaaaad man.:shock:

[Max Molyneux]

Manfredo is a busy man, I am gaining a lot of respect for him as he continue's to fight to the best of his abilities.

I also think that Allan Green wil KO him, and would also KO that fuck Jermain Taylor, who would never fight Allan Green.

Doesn't Allan Green have a glass jaw though?

[achillesthegreat]

If JC looses to Kessler will you start rooting for him?
I do root for Mikkel, like I root for Floyd but I've got to be patriotic. JC winning helps boxing in my country.

[achillesthegreat]

I will give you the empathy you want; you are getting confused with how Calzaghe is World Champion, all you have added is that as well as the dog crap, Kessler has pocketed the cat crap title as well...

You are clearly not stupid, a bit green and idealistic maybe, but you will learn. The cynicism will get you in the end if you carry on following the sport.:good
Sorry mate but you are a fucking moron. I'm not being rude and I'm not dissing you but you are mind numbingly stupid.

I give you facts and you don't change your mind.

[Amsterdam]

Does this mean I can cast my vote on whom I think is the best ring champ? Or is the ring belt, like the others just rate what they themselves think? Or do they chose the concensus of the general conception of peoples beliefs?

Needless to say, I don't read Ring Magazine, so help me out here.

Ring mag isn't worth shit to me.

[achillesthegreat]

I have no time for The Ring either; it is just another form of alphabet crap, but unlike some organizations having allegedly manipulated ratings, the Ring has been proven to. Either though Nat having his own personal agenda, the US Boxing Championships, or to try and relaunch the magazine's popularity by jumping on a bandwagon...
At least we agree on this.

[DanePugilist]

I do root for Mikkel, like I root for Floyd but I've got to be patriotic. JC winning helps boxing in my country.I sincerely respect that, since I do the same:cool: (with the exception of Floyd:lol: ).

Didn't realize you were Welsh, since I haven't spotted you as much in the endless Kessler vs JC threads. I hope I can afford to come to your country and see these two elites doing what all greats should be doing.

[DanePugilist]

Ring mag isn't worth shit to me.This was all I needed to be confirmed - thank you, my friend. Btw does this mean you don't rate JCs ring belt for anything other than a paper belt(pun intended).

[achillesthegreat]

I sincerely respect that, since I do the same:cool: (with the exception of Floyd:lol: ).

Didn't realize you were Welsh, since I haven't spotted you as much in the endless Kessler vs JC threads. I hope I can afford to come to your country and see these two elites doing what all greats should be doing.
I don't fuck sheep, I'm English but I support Brits as a whole. English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irisih - I support em. Obviously we have our own littles comps in house i.e. Scot v England.

JC winning brings more attention to boxing in the UK. More kids will become amateurs, more people will watch it etc

[TBooze]

Sorry mate but you are a fucking moron. I'm not being rude and I'm not dissing you but you are mind numbingly stupid.

I give you facts and you don't change your mind.

You giving opinions not facts, and your arguments are not strong enough to change my mind. This is a forum for debate and you lack the vision on this subject, it is not black and white...

[Amsterdam]

This was all I needed to be confirmed - thank you, my friend. Btw does this mean you don't rate JCs ring belt for anything other than a paper belt(pun intended).

Yeah, it's another trinket. Belts don't matter, the fighters matter.

For example, if Kessler had the WBO currently and Calzaghe the IBF and the unification was IBF to WBO and a guy like Froch had the WBC and Mundine the WBA... which belts matter?

For me, the champ would be the winner of that IBF and WBO because it was contested between the two best. There is no SMW 'champ' at the moment, there is the longest reigning titlist who is the MAN to BEAT and the respective #1 in the division, but there is no undisputed champ.

Calzaghe's WBO belt is just the WBO, but it comes down from the Eubank fight, that means more than Berrio getting the IBF from Stieglitz.

[Amsterdam]

Also I'd like to add that the WBO belt in the SMW division was one that Eubank, Hearns and Collins held, historically at SMW it is a significant belt.

All of these disgusting organisations are the same, let's see what fighters contested for them before picking favourites.

[blueballs1978]

I've enjoyed reading this debate!

[sst]

No Calzaghe is not the champ until he beats Kessler. You don't become champ just because you've unified two belts, especially in a division that has no established lineage of champions. Kessler has just as much claim to the throne as Calzaghe and thats why they're fighting.
No way. Calzaghe is the man at super middleweight no matter how you spin it.

[Bummy Davis]

Kesslers the bigger,younger man...but I am rooting for Joe

[Axe]

Claiming Kessler as linear at 168 is quite ridiculous at this stage, Calzaghe has been the universally recognized #1 ranked supermiddleweight in the world for at least 5 years now. You cannot crown a new linear champion when the title is vacant without involving the man who is unanimously rated at #1 in the world.

That being said, things may change after November 3rd. In the fight itself I see a rather robotic but fundamentally sound Kessler facing off against an aging Calzaghe who has looked vulnerable over the last few years, barring one exceptional performance against the limited Lacy. The fight being in Wales should give Joe a bit of an edge however, as I believe it will go the full twelve rounds.

[DanePugilist]

I don't fuck sheep, I'm English but I support Brits as a whole. English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irisih - I support em. Obviously we have our own littles comps in house i.e. Scot v England.

JC winning brings more attention to boxing in the UK. More kids will become amateurs, more people will watch it etcYou should never forget the fact that Kessler is half-english on his mothers side - so in lieu with that, you can't loose:lol: . The comps are great, we have the same vs the other scandinavians - especially vs the swedes. However, there haven't been many clashes in boxing though.

How would you feel if JC meets Froch?

[DanePugilist]

Claiming Kessler as linear at 168 is quite ridiculous at this stage, Calzaghe has been the universally recognized #1 ranked supermiddleweight in the world for at least 5 years now. You cannot crown a new linear champion when the title is vacant without involving the man who is unanimously rated at #1 in the world.

That being said, things may change after November 3rd. In the fight itself I see a rather robotic but fundamentally sound Kessler facing off against an aging Calzaghe who has looked vulnerable over the last few years, barring one exceptional performance against the limited Lacy. The fight being in Wales should give Joe a bit of an edge however, as I believe it will go the full twelve rounds.Being the man and being considered the best are two different variables, as explained neatly in the thread.

Deservedbly JC is considered to be the best, no matter how many belts or how great Kessler is. However until they meet there is a questionmark who is the best at this point that has to be erased, and luckily they grant us as much.

I fail to understand why you think Kessler is roboticly? He fights nothing like Ivan Drago. His style is correct boxing, whereas JCs is not. That said, he is not stiff as a board, nor is JC an inferior boxer because of his style - but its not textbook like Kessler.

Other than that lets hope for a great competetive fight, where we see the best of each.

[Zakman]

Ancestry has to be established, it isn't establish by the first champ. It can only be established via WBC-WBA unification.

Historically, the IBF and WBO have no real substance. They are merely splinter groups from the WBA because of politics.

Yeah, but so is the WBC - just an earlier one. Simply because it split from the WBA earlier doesn't make it ANY more legitimate than the others.

[DanePugilist]

Yeah, but so is the WBC - just an earlier one. Simply because it split from the WBA earlier doesn't make it ANY more legitimate than the others.Nobody are discussing legitimacy, but whom is linear champ, and you get that recognition from uniting the WBA and WBC only.

What you are saying is the reason why less people care for this old term. WBO was considered a bogus belt for many years, and still is by some.

[achillesthegreat]

You giving opinions not facts, and your arguments are not strong enough to change my mind. This is a forum for debate and you lack the vision on this subject, it is not black and white...
I've given you facts with sources.

It isn't debatable.

You are denying lineage now exists. This is ridiculous.

[achillesthegreat]

Yeah, but so is the WBC - just an earlier one. Simply because it split from the WBA earlier doesn't make it ANY more legitimate than the others.
You are right but pre WBC, the NBA wasn't lineal on its own. The NYSAC, EU, BBBofC still had power in ruling. The WBC broke away but unified these bodies.

[achillesthegreat]

You should never forget the fact that Kessler is half-english on his mothers side - so in lieu with that, you can't loose:lol: . The comps are great, we have the same vs the other scandinavians - especially vs the swedes. However, there haven't been many clashes in boxing though.

How would you feel if JC meets Froch?
This is true. I will not be sad if JC loses.

It was hard for me to choose who to root for but JC edged it because he lives in Britain. It is hard for me.

[DanePugilist]

Yeah, it's another trinket. Belts don't matter, the fighters matter.

For example, if Kessler had the WBO currently and Calzaghe the IBF and the unification was IBF to WBO and a guy like Froch had the WBC and Mundine the WBA... which belts matter?

For me, the champ would be the winner of that IBF and WBO because it was contested between the two best. There is no SMW 'champ' at the moment, there is the longest reigning titlist who is the MAN to BEAT and the respective #1 in the division, but there is no undisputed champ.

Calzaghe's WBO belt is just the WBO, but it comes down from the Eubank fight, that means more than Berrio getting the IBF from Stieglitz.I agree, but that trinket is considered to be the label of the concensus whom is considered the best. The fighter matters, hence the constallation which you present would be correct. However, I am old skool in such a way that I would feel they held the weaker belts - a feeling that I can't(won't?) shake.

Even if we feel that JC and Kessler are the best at 168, the two others hold enough quality to be considered as well, especially if we play that Kessler and Mundine have never fought. Would be too big a questionmark to just think that JC and Kessler are the best. I wouldn't consider those two as weak champions like I feel Berrio is.

Having said that I agree that it matters alot whom they have claimed the belts from - maybe more than anything else, cept skills.

Again having said skills, we all know that A may beat B, but lose to C, while B can beat C, which will make it even worse.

[DanePugilist]

This is true. I will not be sad if JC loses.

It was hard for me to choose who to root for but JC edged it because he lives in Britain. It is hard for me.Haha - yeah it can be tough to be patriotic and a fan of someone else at the same time(JC - Froch). Maybe the thought - "may the best man win" - and lean back in the sofa and enjoy:cool: .

[TBooze]

You are denying lineage now exists. This is ridiculous.

LOL, you do not learn;)

It is a matter fact, there is no such thing as a boxing linear champion now a days, and there will not ever be again unless a new weight division is created.

Lineage:

Direct descent from a particular ancestor

The descendants of a ancestor considered to be the founder of the line.

No one fighter claiming a world title today meets either criteria....

[Zakman]

You are right but pre WBC, the NBA wasn't lineal on its own. The NYSAC, EU, BBBofC still had power in ruling. The WBC broke away but unified these bodies.

OK, I get it. So because the WBC incorporated those OTHER pre-existing bodies, that gave it greater legitimacy. I hadn't realized this. My recollections were that it was strictly a WBA offshoot. Do you know of any articles discussing this split-and-combination process in depth?? I'm actually sort of interested in this. My memories of the WBC date from the 70s, when it had already become Suliaman's fiefdom, and was regarded as quite corrupt.

And this lineal/linear distinction is rather interesting also. Could you explain this in greater detail. I've heard of it before, but both seem like "man who beat the man" concepts. I'm not sure I fully grasp the distinction.

For what it's worth, I think Calzaghe is going to render this all moot and win a rather wide, Lacy-like UD. :yep

[Axe]

Being the man and being considered the best are two different variables, as explained neatly in the thread.

Deservedbly JC is considered to be the best, no matter how many belts or how great Kessler is. However until they meet there is a questionmark who is the best at this point that has to be erased, and luckily they grant us as much.

I fail to understand why you think Kessler is roboticly? He fights nothing like Ivan Drago. His style is correct boxing, whereas JCs is not. That said, he is not stiff as a board, nor is JC an inferior boxer because of his style - but its not textbook like Kessler.

Other than that lets hope for a great competetive fight, where we see the best of each.

He is a rather robotic fighter to me, I consider that his biggest weakness. Don't get me wrong, Kessler is a worthy champion, but once elite fighters start meeting elite fighters, these kinds of small weaknesses can become exploited to full effect, and can mean the difference between victory and defeat. Both fighters have their weaknesses, though I believe prime for prime that Calzaghe was the more complete boxer. He is also a southpaw, which will cause Mikkel further problems. However one cannot ignore the fact that Kessler is hungry, and that Calzaghe is 35 years of age.

[Guru_Too_You]

LOL, you do not learn;)

It is a matter fact, there is no such thing as a boxing linear champion now a days, and there will not ever be again unless a new weight division is created.

Lineage:

Direct descent from a particular ancestor

The descendants of a ancestor considered to be the founder of the line.

No one fighter claiming a world title today meets either criteria....

Its a matter of semantics.

Sure, lineage does not exist to the first champion. But there is a way to re-establish lineage. Now you cant do that if you have a webster's dictionary stuck up your ass, but in this world known as professional boxing you can.

So learn the rules of BOXING before you sit on a dictionary.

[achillesthegreat]

LOL, you do not learn;)

It is a matter fact, there is no such thing as a boxing linear champion now a days, and there will not ever be again unless a new weight division is created.

Lineage:

Direct descent from a particular ancestor

The descendants of a ancestor considered to be the founder of the line.

No one fighter claiming a world title today meets either criteria....
Are you being serious or stubborn?

Of course lineage breaks, it has broken when there was just one champ BUT it gets re-established. Me and Guru are saying this really simply for you. What are you not understanding.

Championship lineage isn't like DNA lineage. When lineage breaks it gets RE-ESTABLISHED!

[Guru_Too_You]

Are you being serious or stubborn?

Of course lineage breaks, it has broken when there was just one champ BUT it gets re-established. Me and Guru are saying this really simply for you. What are you not understanding.

Championship lineage isn't like DNA lineage. When lineage breaks it gets RE-ESTABLISHED!

LOL. If only he knew that we disagree 95% of the time maybe he would understand.

[achillesthegreat]

OK, I get it. So because the WBC incorporated those OTHER pre-existing bodies, that gave it greater legitimacy. I hadn't realized this. My recollections were that it was strictly a WBA offshoot. Do you know of any articles discussing this split-and-combination process in depth?? I'm actually sort of interested in this. My memories of the WBC date from the 70s, when it had already become Suliaman's fiefdom, and was regarded as quite corrupt.

And this lineal/linear distinction is rather interesting also. Could you explain this in greater detail. I've heard of it before, but both seem like "man who beat the man" concepts. I'm not sure I fully grasp the distinction.

For what it's worth, I think Calzaghe is going to render this all moot and win a rather wide, Lacy-like UD. :yep
Someone willing to learn, I like. Try telling TBooze to do the same rather than being stubborn.

Pre ABCs people think there was just one champ but not always.

The NBA and NYSAC were the main guys who ruled who was the champ. On some occassions they were split but thankfully the best fought the best and the people always knew who the man was i.e. who beat who.

The NBA and NYSAC weren't the only guys who dictated who the champ was. For example BBBofC said Lee Savold was the champ but that isn't true at all. At the time it was Rocky Marciano. The BBBofC considering Savold a champ is like him being a titlist, so when Louis beat him, he was a titlist. Thankfully back in the day, they never paid attention to these pathetic divisions. Today however, moronic fans, promoters etc give minor champs all the attention in the world.

For many reasons the NBA decided to change, it became the WBA. However ONLY the NBA became the WBA. This can't be the sole governing body because it wasn't like that to start with.

When the WBC broke away it brought together all the floundering bodies such as NYSAC, EBU, BBBofC etc

Back in the day to be THE MAN the bodies had to recognise you. Historically these bodies became the WBC and the WBA.

The IBF and WBO broke away but have no history other than politics. These belts were not legitimised by top fighters, otherwise the IBO and WBU are now part of lineage.

The most ridiculous thing I head is unifying three of the four major belts. What does this mean? What substance does this argument have?

The man today is only the man if he unifies the WBC and WBA. Thus its very nice the Diaz may have three belts, or Corrales, or Castillo, or Casamayor but they are not the man.

When Castillo and Corrales were in ownership of the WBC, WBO and IBF they were deemed the best. They are not the best, they don't have the WBA, which was owned by Diaz. Everyone thought Diaz wasn't in their league. Now it is apparent Diaz may have beaten them all. You see, the man isn't decided in our minds, its decided in the ring.

Lineage is very simple. The people who decided the champs are now known as the WBC and WBA - NOTHING ELSE!

YES THEY ARE CORRUPT but so is your government and mine. Now I am not about to get The New York Times or The Guardian to start running the country and making decisions. In effect this is what morons are doing by appointing The Ring MAGAZINE king.

Edit: Wikipedia, WBA website, WBC website, more or less any source will confirm this. Its a puzzle, people just don't know how to piece it together so they:
a- make up their own rules i.e. win three of four belts
b- find new solutions i.e. magazine belts
c- not give a shit, which stops us from assessing fighters accurately. A crime in sport so rich with history
d- make shit up i.e. Calzaghe is the champ when nothing historically suggests this

[achillesthegreat]

LOL. If only he knew that we disagree 95% of the time maybe he would understand.
lol. He needs to check the other threads. We aren't ganging up on him and trying to win via thread takeover. Its just the way it is.

[Guru_Too_You]

Someone willing to learn, I like. Try telling TBooze to do the same rather than being stubborn.

Pre ABCs people think there was just one champ but not always.

The NBA and NYSAC were the main guys who ruled who was the champ. On some occassions they were split but thankfully the best fought the best and the people always knew who the man was i.e. who beat who.

The NBA and NYSAC weren't the only guys who dictated who the champ was. For example BBBofC said Lee Savold was the champ but that isn't true at all. At the time it was Rocky Marciano. The BBBofC considering Savold a champ is like him being a titlist, so when Louis beat him, he was a titlist. Thankfully back in the day, they never paid attention to these pathetic divisions. Today however, moronic fans, promoters etc give minor champs all the attention in the world.

For many reasons the NBA decided to change, it became the WBA. However ONLY the NBA became the WBA. This can't be the sole governing body because it wasn't like that to start with.

When the WBC broke away it brought together all the floundering bodies such as NYSAC, EBU, BBBofC etc

Back in the day to be THE MAN the bodies had to recognise you. Historically these bodies became the WBC and the WBA.

The IBF and WBO broke away but have no history other than politics. These belts were not legitimised by top fighters, otherwise the IBO and WBU are now part of lineage.

The most ridiculous thing I head is unifying three of the four major belts. What does this mean? What substance does this argument have?

The man today is only the man if he unifies the WBC and WBA. Thus its very nice the Diaz may have three belts, or Corrales, or Castillo, or Casamayor but they are not the man.

When Castillo and Corrales were in ownership of the WBC, WBO and IBF they were deemed the best. They are not the best, they don't have the WBA, which was owned by Diaz. Everyone thought Diaz wasn't in their league. Now it is apparent Diaz may have beaten them all. You see, the man isn't decided in our minds, its decided in the ring.

Lineage is very simple. The people who decided the champs are now known as the WBC and WBA - NOTHING ELSE!

YES THEY ARE CORRUPT but so is your government and mine. Now I am not about to get The New York Times or The Guardian to start running the country and making decisions. In effect this is what morons are doing by appointing The Ring MAGAZINE king.

Edit: Wikipedia, WBA website, WBC website, more or less any source will confirm this. Its a puzzle, people just don't know how to piece it together so they:
a- make up their own rules i.e. win three of four belts
b- find new solutions i.e. magazine belts
c- not give a shit, which stops us from assessing fighters accurately. A crime in sport so rich with history
d- make shit up i.e. Calzaghe is the champ when nothing historically suggests this

Great work Achilles.

This post should be a new thread, and stickied for those that dont know the history.

[Astola]

Someone willing to learn, I like. Try telling TBooze to do the same rather than being stubborn.

Pre ABCs people think there was just one champ but not always.

The NBA and NYSAC were the main guys who ruled who was the champ. On some occassions they were split but thankfully the best fought the best and the people always knew who the man was i.e. who beat who.

The NBA and NYSAC weren't the only guys who dictated who the champ was. For example BBBofC said Lee Savold was the champ but that isn't true at all. At the time it was Rocky Marciano. The BBBofC considering Savold a champ is like him being a titlist, so when Louis beat him, he was a titlist. Thankfully back in the day, they never paid attention to these pathetic divisions. Today however, moronic fans, promoters etc give minor champs all the attention in the world.

For many reasons the NBA decided to change, it became the WBA. However ONLY the NBA became the WBA. This can't be the sole governing body because it wasn't like that to start with.

When the WBC broke away it brought together all the floundering bodies such as NYSAC, EBU, BBBofC etc

Back in the day to be THE MAN the bodies had to recognise you. Historically these bodies became the WBC and the WBA.

The IBF and WBO broke away but have no history other than politics. These belts were not legitimised by top fighters, otherwise the IBO and WBU are now part of lineage.

The most ridiculous thing I head is unifying three of the four major belts. What does this mean? What substance does this argument have?

The man today is only the man if he unifies the WBC and WBA. Thus its very nice the Diaz may have three belts, or Corrales, or Castillo, or Casamayor but they are not the man.

When Castillo and Corrales were in ownership of the WBC, WBO and IBF they were deemed the best. They are not the best, they don't have the WBA, which was owned by Diaz. Everyone thought Diaz wasn't in their league. Now it is apparent Diaz may have beaten them all. You see, the man isn't decided in our minds, its decided in the ring.

Lineage is very simple. The people who decided the champs are now known as the WBC and WBA - NOTHING ELSE!

YES THEY ARE CORRUPT but so is your government and mine. Now I am not about to get The New York Times or The Guardian to start running the country and making decisions. In effect this is what morons are doing by appointing The Ring MAGAZINE king.

Edit: Wikipedia, WBA website, WBC website, more or less any source will confirm this. Its a puzzle, people just don't know how to piece it together so they:
a- make up their own rules i.e. win three of four belts
b- find new solutions i.e. magazine belts
c- not give a shit, which stops us from assessing fighters accurately. A crime in sport so rich with history
d- make shit up i.e. Calzaghe is the champ when nothing historically suggests this


Best post ive seen. It should be highlighted on the front page of ESB :good

[Guru_Too_You]

Best post ive seen. It should be highlighted on the front page of ESB :good

aka a sticky.....

that was definitely thorough work thats for sure.

[TBooze]

Its a matter of semantics.

Sure, lineage does not exist to the first champion. But there is a way to re-establish lineage. Now you cant do that if you have a webster's dictionary stuck up your ass, but in this world known as professional boxing you can.

So learn the rules of BOXING before you sit on a dictionary.

Well use the correct words, lineage in boxing no longer exists, it is your opinion that X is a champion, the same as it is mine that Y is.

Do not pretend there is some formula or science to what is yours and mine opinions.

[Guru_Too_You]

Well use the correct words, lineage in boxing no longer exists, it is your opinion that X is a champion, the same as it is mine that Y is.

Do not pretend there is some formula or science to what is yours and mine opinions.

Shove your dictionary up your ass.

[TBooze]

Best post ive seen. It should be highlighted on the front page of ESB :good

It is intresting but some of it is not true, or spun...

The National Sporting Club was formed by Lord Lonsdale to regulate English boxing in 1891

The British Boxing Board of Control was formed in 1930ish and continues to regulate British boxing to this day

The IBU (International Boxing Union) was formed in Paris in 1911, it was replaced in 1946 by the European Boxing Union (EBU), which is still going today.

In the USA, Richard K. Fox publisher of the Police Gazzette issued championship belts in the late 1880's.

With the Walker Law in 1920, boxing became legal in New York under New York State Athletic Commission (NYSAC).

New York quickly became the centre of the boxing world as the sport expanded. In 1921, 15 State Athletic Commissions formed the National Boxing Association (NBA). Although formed in New York, the NBA did not have NYSAC as one of its memebers. This in effect led to both organizations crowning different champions.

Boxing was getting bigger and bigger globaly which led to the NBA changing its name to the World Boxing Association in 1962, with members from Africa, South America and Asia joining. But because each state in America still had a vote, the WBA was still basically an American organization.

Because of the American domination George Parnassus formed the World Boxing Council (WBC) in 1963. The WBC consisted of 11 countries placed into continental federations each with two votes each.

In 1976 a Pepe Cordedo fronted a 'coup' to the WBA which ended its control by the USA.

In 1983 Bob Lee lost a battle to become President of the WBA, and left the WBA to form the International Boxing Federation (IBF)

Latrn American countries then helped form the World Boxing Organization (WBO) in 1987, in another internal row in the WBA.

[TBooze]

Shove your dictionary up your ass.

Ohhh That feels rather good:good

[achillesthegreat]

It is intresting but some of it is not true, or spun...

The National Sporting Club was formed by Lord Lonsdale to regulate English boxing in 1891

The British Boxing Board of Control was formed in 1930ish and continues to regulate British boxing to this day

The IBU (International Boxing Union) was formed in Paris in 1911, it was replaced in 1946 by the European Boxing Union (EBU), which is still going today.

In the USA, Richard K. Fox publisher of the Police Gazzette issued championship belts in the late 1880's.

With the Walker Law in 1920, boxing became legal in New York under New York State Athletic Commission (NYSAC).

New York quickly became the centre of the boxing world as the sport expanded. In 1921, 15 State Athletic Commissions formed the National Boxing Association (NBA). Although formed in New York, the NBA did not have NYSAC as one of its memebers. This in effect led to both organizations crowning different champions.

Boxing was getting bigger and bigger globaly which led to the NBA changing its name to the World Boxing Association in 1962, with members from Africa, South America and Asia joining. But because each state in America still had a vote, the WBA was still basically an American organization.

Because of the American domination George Parnassus formed the World Boxing Council (WBC) in 1963. The WBC consisted of 11 countries placed into continental federations each with two votes each.

In 1976 a Pepe Cordedo fronted a 'coup' to the WBA which ended its control by the USA.

In 1983 Bob Lee lost a battle to become President of the WBA, and left the WBA to form the International Boxing Federation (IBF)

Latrn American countries then helped form the World Boxing Organization (WBO) in 1987, in another internal row in the WBA.
Stop trying to confuse people so they give up and think they are right.

History prior to the ABCs is as I stated.

What I stated prior to the ABCs is what determined lineage. A new era formed with the ABCs. It is important to understand how lineage is still determind, I explained it.

Just man up and admit you are wrong.

EDIT: Actually, your post works as a could pre history to mine. Still, don't try and confuse people. The topic here is lineage.

[Zakman]

Someone willing to learn, I like. Try telling TBooze to do the same rather than being stubborn.

Pre ABCs people think there was just one champ but not always.

The NBA and NYSAC were the main guys who ruled who was the champ. On some occassions they were split but thankfully the best fought the best and the people always knew who the man was i.e. who beat who.

The NBA and NYSAC weren't the only guys who dictated who the champ was. For example BBBofC said Lee Savold was the champ but that isn't true at all. At the time it was Rocky Marciano. The BBBofC considering Savold a champ is like him being a titlist, so when Louis beat him, he was a titlist. Thankfully back in the day, they never paid attention to these pathetic divisions. Today however, moronic fans, promoters etc give minor champs all the attention in the world.

For many reasons the NBA decided to change, it became the WBA. However ONLY the NBA became the WBA. This can't be the sole governing body because it wasn't like that to start with.

When the WBC broke away it brought together all the floundering bodies such as NYSAC, EBU, BBBofC etc

Back in the day to be THE MAN the bodies had to recognise you. Historically these bodies became the WBC and the WBA.

The IBF and WBO broke away but have no history other than politics. These belts were not legitimised by top fighters, otherwise the IBO and WBU are now part of lineage.
Very interesting. You have answered one question I have always had regarding these bodies - why people gave the WBC greater legitimacy than some of the others. I knew it was older - I'm old enough to remember when the IBF split occurred, let alone the WBO and the others. I knew the WBC was older, because I remember when there was JUST the WBA and WBC. And I knew of the earlier NBA/NYSAC fracture, although didn't know all the details. What I didn't know at all was that the WBC incorporated those other entities when it split. Essentially, I thought it was simply another IBF or WBO - another split off faction of the WBA.

I must say that your arguments are interesting, and seem to be based on a solid, and well-thought out rationale. To me, this would argue, then, for a RE-UNIFICATION of the WBA and WBC to create one title. If this title, because of its historic lineage was then accorded the greater legitimacy it therefore would deserve, perhaps this would lead to a corresponding dimmution in the "prestige" of the IBF and WBO.

I've always been a big proponent of the Ring belt, because it created, at least, some clarity out of this chaos. But if it could be achieved, your thesis - extended to its logical conclusion of re-unification - is a much better solution. Thanks for the info!:good

[achillesthegreat]

TBooze you clearly know SOMETHING about boxing. This is why it is hurting my head to read some of the drivel you are writing.

[achillesthegreat]

Very interesting. You have answered one question I have always had regarding these bodies - why people gave the WBC greater legitimacy than some of the others. I knew it was older - I'm old enough to remember when the IBF split occurred, let alone the WBO and the others. I knew the WBC was older, because I remember when there was JUST the WBA and WBC. And I knew of the earlier NBA/NYSAC fracture, although didn't know all the details. What I didn't know at all was that the WBC incorporated those other entities when it split. Essentially, I thought it was simply another IBF or WBO - another split off faction of the WBA.

I must say that your arguments are interesting, and seem to be based on a solid, and well-thought out rationale. To me, this would argue, then, for a RE-UNIFICATION of the WBA and WBC to create one title. If this title, because of its historic lineage was then accorded the greater legitimacy it therefore would deserve, perhaps this would lead to a corresponding dimmution in the "prestige" of the IBF and WBO.

I've always been a big proponent of the Ring belt, because it created, at least, some clarity out of this chaos. But if it could be achieved, your thesis - extended to its logical conclusion of re-unification - is a much better solution. Thanks for the info!:good
The MAJOR issue that needs to be issued in boxing is the end of ALL belts other than WBC and WBA. All the other belts have to be boycotted. Most likely we need a commission that will recognise the history behind the WBC and WBA and then end any power among the other belts.

Zak do not fall for The Ring belt. It is a trinket and a disgrace upon the game. For a source with so much history and knowledge, they have chosen to use their power to further ruin boxing rather than help it.

You are welcome for the info. I've been preaching it for years and yet VERY FEW on a HARDCORE website know anything about it.

[TBooze]

Stop trying to confuse people so they give up and think they are right.

History prior to the ABCs is as I stated.

What I stated prior to the ABCs is what determined lineage. A new era formed with the ABCs. It is important to understand how lineage is still determind, I explained it.

Just man up and admit you are wrong.

You are doing what you believe you are supposed on a forum, you spin it to try and get your point across.

Personally I do not mind if anyone agree's or disagree's with me, I am here to debate.

I put information in my threads for which people can make their own mind up.

You have polarized your views, because you think there is something to win or lose, you do not get it. Just because you know that two add two is four, unless you know the meaning of it, you will not know what four add four is.

No one in boxing knows everything, but if you open your mind up to different opinions you will learn a lot more. You do not need to be in alpha male mode.;)

[achillesthegreat]

You are doing what you believe you are supposed on a forum, you spin it to try and get your point across.

Personally I do not mind if anyone agree's or disagree's with me, I am here to debate.

I put information in my threads for which people can make their own mind up.

You have polarized your views, because you think there is something to win or lose, you do not get it. Just because you know that two add two is four, unless you know the meaning of it, you will not know what four add four is.

No one in boxing knows everything, but if you open your mind up to different opinions you will learn a lot more. You do not need to be an alpha male;)
I've spun nothing. I've given three sources so far. Two of my sources come from the ACTUAL entities I am talking about.

You are saying lineage does not exist. This is ludicrous.

It is a puzzle but its not a hard one to piece together if you try. I have laid it out.

You have found it impossible to refute what I say. Others coming along can see this except you.

Given that you do know SOMETHING it makes it increasingly difficult to stomach your drivel.

[TBooze]

I've spun nothing. I've given three sources so far. Two of my sources come from the ACTUAL entities I am talking about.

You are saying lineage does not exist. This is ludicrous.

It is a puzzle but its not a hard one to piece together if you try. I have laid it out.

You have found it impossible to refute what I say. Others coming along can see this except you.

Given that you do know SOMETHING it makes it increasingly difficult to stomach your drivel.

Your use of the word Lineage is wrong, that is all you got to change, and just say something like achillesthegreat champions, and I would completely agree with you.

It is your narcissism in this debate that flaws your arguments...

[achillesthegreat]

Your use of the word Lineage is wrong, that is all you got to change, and just say something like achillesthegreat champions, and I would completely agree with you.

It is your narcissism in this debate that flaws your arguments...
The use of the word is right.

We are discussing lineage in BOXING CONTEXT.

[TBooze]

The use of the word is right.

We are discussing lineage in BOXING CONTEXT.

It does not make sense...

You cannot make things up as you go along.

Lineage finished in boxing in 2001 with Girard.

The way to recognize a World Champion is to call him a World champion, not a lineage champion, not an alphabet champion, not a title holder...

It is not rocket science in that sense, but who is a World Champion and who is not, indeed who was and who was not, may never be definitively answered, because it is purely personal opinion.

At least I am half way there by calling Joe Calzaghe THE World Champion, calling Mr Kessler a Lineage Champion, kind is a double zero.

[Axe]

I agree with TBooze, achilles' definition of lineage is subjective, and he is trying to pass it off as something that is widely accepted. Unfortunately I do not know of a single boxing historian--not one--who uses a WBA/WBC unification as the exclusive definition of crowning a new linear champ in the modern era of boxing.

Further, as was stated, the WBC hardly conglomerated all the bodies recognizing champions at the time into itself; hence choosing it as one of two necessary elements (WBA/WBC) as opposed to 3 (WBC/WBA/IBF) or more (IBU, IBO--these did not splinter off from the WBC/WBA) is completely arbitrary.

Most historians whose work I've read opt for a consensus rating system: if there is a clear #1 in a division and he faces the clear #2, a new champion is then crowned. If there is no general consensus in the ratings (in modern times, these would include Ring, Boxing Monthly, Fightnews, BTalk, and a host of other ratings submitted by reknown boxing publications), it may take more than one fight to determine who the champion of the world really is.

[achillesthegreat]

It does not make sense...

You cannot make things up as you go along.

Lineage finished in boxing in 2001 with Girard.

The way to recognize a World Champion is to call him a World champion, not a lineage champion, not an alphabet champion, not a title holder...

It is not rocket science in that sense, but who is a World Champion and who is not, indeed who was and who was not, may never be definitively answered, because it is purely personal opinion.

At least I am half way there by calling Joe Calzaghe THE World Champion, calling Mr Kessler a Lineage Champion, kind is a double zero.
What has been made up. How I have described lineage is how lineage has been understood in boxing since forever.

Historically Joe is NOT the champ.

[achillesthegreat]

I agree with TBooze, achilles' definition of lineage is subjective, and he is trying to pass it off as something that is widely accepted. Unfortunately I do not know of a single boxing historian--not one--who uses a WBA/WBC unification as the exclusive definition of crowning a new linear champ in the modern era of boxing.

Further, as was stated, the WBC hardly conglomerated all the bodies recognizing champions at the time into itself; hence choosing it as one of two necessary elements (WBA/WBC) as opposed to 3 (WBC/WBA/IBF) or more (IBU, IBO--these did not splinter off from the WBC/WBA) is completely arbitrary.

Most historians whose work I've read opt for a consensus rating system: if there is a clear #1 in a division and he faces the clear #2, a new champion is then crowned. If there is no general consensus in the ratings (in modern times, these would include Ring, Boxing Monthly, Fightnews, BTalk, and a host of other ratings submitted by reknown boxing publications), it may take more than one fight to determine who the champion of the world really is.
There is no such thing as a boxing historian. There are just people who study the sport, some more than others. Boxing historian is not an offical title. Based off of our talks, me and TBooze are boxing historians.

You agree with me on what lineage is. We have had this discussion before.

Lineage is the man who beats the man. If the man is not around the two best must face off.

The WBC did unite the remaining bodies.

[Axe]

There is no such thing as a boxing historian. There are just people who study the sport, some more than others. Boxing historian is not an offical title. Based off of our talks, me and TBooze are boxing historians.

You agree with me on what lineage is. We have had this discussion before.

Lineage is the man who beats the man. If the man is not around the two best must face off.

The WBC did unite the remaining bodies.

Quite right, though there are "boxing historians" out there that make you and I both look clueless when it comes to knowing the ins and outs of this sport and its history. I am talking about reknown boxing writers here; none stick to your exact definition for re-establishing a vacant lineage.

Thus I do agree with your idea about the possibility of re-establishing a lineage in general, though not on the exact criteria.

I also strongly agree with your third point; this however contradicts what you say about uniting the WBA and WBC in particular. If the #1 and #2 don't hold one of these titles, can lineage still be re-established? I say yes, you say no. Differences of opinion, not fact.

As to the WBC uniting all the remaining bodies, you have only to look at TBooze's list to see that this was not the case.

[achillesthegreat]

Quite right, though there are "boxing historians" out there that make you and I both look clueless when it comes to knowing the ins and outs of this sport and its history. I am talking about reknown boxing writers here; none stick to your exact definition for re-establishing a vacant lineage.

Thus I do agree with your idea about the possibility of re-establishing a lineage in general, though not on the exact criteria.

I also strongly agree with your third point; this however contradicts what you say about uniting the WBA and WBC in particular. If the #1 and #2 don't hold one of these titles, can lineage still be re-established? I say yes, you say no. Differences of opinion, not fact.

As to the WBC uniting all the remaining bodies, you have only to look at TBooze's list to see that this was not the case.
Agreed, there are guys out there with unbelievable knowledge. However this doesn't mean they are right about everything. If someone can't give their point substance then it means nothing.

We agree on lineage existing and once broken it can be re-estalished. We disagree with how.

There is NO OTHER WAY that a fighter can be number 1 and 2 unless they hold the WBC and WBA.

Like I said, at 135 guys who were PERCEIVED as the better fighters weren't necessarily.

You say lineage can be re-established without 1 and 2 fighting but this is historically inaccurate. Lineage is a product of history and thus you HAVE TO go by what history dictates.

TBoozes list doesn't dictate other bodies that were not united. What he mentions agrees with what I say. His problem is he is making ridiculous claims like lienage doesn't exist.

[achillesthegreat]

Not better then Jones !
It is impossible for Jones to compare with Calzaghe on paper after he beats Kessler. It would be impossible for ANY 168 pounder to compete for the top spot.

[Guru_Too_You]

It does not make sense...

You cannot make things up as you go along.

Lineage finished in boxing in 2001 with Girard.

The way to recognize a World Champion is to call him a World champion, not a lineage champion, not an alphabet champion, not a title holder...

It is not rocket science in that sense, but who is a World Champion and who is not, indeed who was and who was not, may never be definitively answered, because it is purely personal opinion.

At least I am half way there by calling Joe Calzaghe THE World Champion, calling Mr Kessler a Lineage Champion, kind is a double zero.

There is nothing personal with rules.

WBA + WBC = Linear champion. If a Linear champion is already established, it is the man and not the belts that make him the champion.

[Axe]

Agreed, there are guys out there with unbelievable knowledge. However this doesn't mean they are right about everything. If someone can't give their point substance then it means nothing.

We agree on lineage existing and once broken it can be re-estalished. We disagree with how.

There is NO OTHER WAY that a fighter can be number 1 and 2 unless they hold the WBC and WBA.

Like I said, at 135 guys who were PERCEIVED as the better fighters weren't necessarily.

You say lineage can be re-established without 1 and 2 fighting but this is historically inaccurate. Lineage is a product of history and thus you HAVE TO go by what history dictates.

TBoozes list doesn't dictate other bodies that were not united. What he mentions agrees with what I say. His problem is he is making ridiculous claims like lienage doesn't exist.

Agree to disagree on the rest, but you surely can't be serious when you state that:

There is NO OTHER WAY that a fighter can be number 1 and 2 unless they hold the WBC and WBA.

When Kessler and Beyer were getting it on, Calzaghe was the clear #1 at the weight, according to every respectable boxing source. That is the definition of a general consensus in the ratings and a universal ranking for Calzaghe. Thus by that criteria, neither Kessler nor Calzaghe is champion, as #1 and #2 haven't fought, and their showdown will establish the new lineage.

Some more extreme examples include Stipe Drews holding the WBA LHW title today; nobody even has Drews in their top 5, much less top 2. Michelle Piccirilo holding the WBC 154 belt last year was a joke, most had him around #11 or 12 when he was champ...the list is endless really.

[achillesthegreat]

Agree to disagree on the rest, but you surely can't be serious when you state that:

When Kessler and Beyer were getting it on, Calzaghe was the clear #1 at the weight, according to every respectable boxing source. That is the definition of a general consensus in the ratings and a universal ranking for Calzaghe. Thus by that criteria, neither Kessler nor Calzaghe is champion, as #1 and #2 haven't fought, and their showdown will establish the new lineage.

Some more extreme examples include Stipe Drews holding the WBA LHW title today; nobody even has Drews in their top 5, much less top 2. Michelle Piccirilo holding the WBC 154 belt last year was a joke, most had him around #11 or 12 when he was champ...the list is endless really.
100% serious. Historically the orgs who decided the number 1 and 2 are in the form of the WBC and WBA.

Calzaghe being the clear number 1 is an opinion. If Kessler beats him then it is clear he wasn't the best all along. Just like when they thought Diaz wasn't as good as guys like Corrales, Freitas and Castillo. Hindsight shows that is wrong.

People thought Calzaghe was number 1 but many thought Kessler was number 2 and not Lacy. Hindsight shows they were probably right. So consensus means little when it comes to lineage. History is what matters.

You saw Drews is an example, I say Valero. No one thinks he is as good as Pac, MAB and JMM but hindsight could be different.

Who the champ is doesn't matter. I'm sure people thought Louis was better than Braddock but Braddock was the champ and Louis wasn't.

The champs aren't necessarily the best fighters but it does give the fight OFFICIAL status that is decided in THE RING!

History can't be denied, it is what it is. If someone wants to talk lineage and the guy being the REAL champ then he must be the WBC and WBA champ.

[Max Molyneux]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Like Shaw did Palle will be shouting GET HIM OUTTA THERE!

[TBooze]

There is nothing personal with rules.

WBA + WBC = Linear champion. If a Linear champion is already established, it is the man and not the belts that make him the champion.

Well how comes there was lineage champions pre 1962?

Like I said it is personal thing there are no rules, you can use the word lineage, but in the English language, that would not make sense in the context you seek.

[PH|LLA]

Lineage:

Direct descent from a particular ancestor; ancestry....

Super Middleweight lineage comes from Murray Sutherland, it went Sutherland-Park-Obelmejias-Baek-Tiozzo-Cordoba-Nunn-Little-Liles-Mitchell-Girard

Girard moved up to 175lbs, thus your lineage is broken.

Five years later the #1 contender and #2 contenders for the vacant Championship meet and Joe Calzaghe is your Super Middleweight Champion of the World.
#1 and #2 contenders according to who?

[TBooze]

#1 and #2 contenders according to who?

Me; like I said it is personal thing, there will never be an Undisupted World Champion again, because you will always find someone or some organization who will disagree, so IMO, you have to create your own champions with you own criteria.

[mike464]

Someone willing to learn, I like. Try telling TBooze to do the same rather than being stubborn.

Pre ABCs people think there was just one champ but not always.

The NBA and NYSAC were the main guys who ruled who was the champ. On some occassions they were split but thankfully the best fought the best and the people always knew who the man was i.e. who beat who.

The NBA and NYSAC weren't the only guys who dictated who the champ was. For example BBBofC said Lee Savold was the champ but that isn't true at all. At the time it was Rocky Marciano. The BBBofC considering Savold a champ is like him being a titlist, so when Louis beat him, he was a titlist. Thankfully back in the day, they never paid attention to these pathetic divisions. Today however, moronic fans, promoters etc give minor champs all the attention in the world.

For many reasons the NBA decided to change, it became the WBA. However ONLY the NBA became the WBA. This can't be the sole governing body because it wasn't like that to start with.

When the WBC broke away it brought together all the floundering bodies such as NYSAC, EBU, BBBofC etc

Back in the day to be THE MAN the bodies had to recognise you. Historically these bodies became the WBC and the WBA.

The IBF and WBO broke away but have no history other than politics. These belts were not legitimised by top fighters, otherwise the IBO and WBU are now part of lineage.

The most ridiculous thing I head is unifying three of the four major belts. What does this mean? What substance does this argument have?

The man today is only the man if he unifies the WBC and WBA. Thus its very nice the Diaz may have three belts, or Corrales, or Castillo, or Casamayor but they are not the man.

When Castillo and Corrales were in ownership of the WBC, WBO and IBF they were deemed the best. They are not the best, they don't have the WBA, which was owned by Diaz. Everyone thought Diaz wasn't in their league. Now it is apparent Diaz may have beaten them all. You see, the man isn't decided in our minds, its decided in the ring.

Lineage is very simple. The people who decided the champs are now known as the WBC and WBA - NOTHING ELSE!

YES THEY ARE CORRUPT but so is your government and mine. Now I am not about to get The New York Times or The Guardian to start running the country and making decisions. In effect this is what morons are doing by appointing The Ring MAGAZINE king.

Edit: Wikipedia, WBA website, WBC website, more or less any source will confirm this. Its a puzzle, people just don't know how to piece it together so they:
a- make up their own rules i.e. win three of four belts
b- find new solutions i.e. magazine belts
c- not give a shit, which stops us from assessing fighters accurately. A crime in sport so rich with history
d- make shit up i.e. Calzaghe is the champ when nothing historically suggests thisYou make a very good case. It's a shame no one is really listening.

It's clear, and all boxing fans will agree, that we have too many belts and 'world champions'. The problem comes when these fans then start claiming the latest WBO or IBO or Ring champion is legitimate. The WBO used to be viewed as a joke and now people claim it's a proper world title.

One thing I hate is when fans claim that The Ring title is linear. The Ring title is just another title to add to all the others but with the weakness that the magazine can't force champions to fight the number one challengers. It's just an invitation to duck the best guys. This is the last belt we need. Imagine if The Ring title was linear and Calzaghe just refused to fight Kessler. Kessler would never have a chance to be a real champion.

The only way to get a linear champ is to look back in history at what makes a linear champ. The WBA and WBC belts. It's in the fans' best interests too as it clears the picture up a bit.

[pioterbezkitu]

Great thread and great posts! It's a nice reading!

[Decebal]

So, Achillesthegreat, what happens when the WBA and the WBC disagree about their rankings and their number one and number two and champ? Unless the WBA and WBC champ fight...whom do you consider the true champ? It just doesn't make sense to say they are two legitimate champs - one is surely better, even if they never fight...so which one is it? Don't you have to decide yourself? And doesn't this lead us to the fact that the best fighter in the division might not in fact be either the WBA or the WBC champ? Please explain!

[mike464]

So, Achillesthegreat, what happens when the WBA and the WBC disagree about their rankings and their number one and number two and champ? Unless the WBA and WBC champ fight...whom do you consider the true champ? It just doesn't make sense to say they are two legitimate champs - one is surely better, even if they never fight...so which one is it? Don't you have to decide yourself? And doesn't this lead us to the fact that the best fighter in the division might not in fact be either the WBA or the WBC champ? Please explain!If the best fighter in the division keeps winning he will get a shot at one of the two titles. Unless he settles for the IBF or WBO first.

[knockout]

Fake! :verysad

[TBooze]

If the best fighter in the division keeps winning he will get a shot at one of the two titles. Unless he settles for the IBF or WBO first.

Marco Antonio Barrera did fine just on himself. Nobody would of given two hoots if Ray Robinson were not alphabet crap champ. And do really see people calling Tony Sibson a World Champion if the WBA stripped Hagler in 1983?

The piece alphabet crap means nothing, it is the man that holds it that counts;)

[Decebal]

If the best fighter in the division keeps winning he will get a shot at one of the two titles. Unless he settles for the IBF or WBO first.

What if he does get a shot at the IBF or WBO first and once he becomes champ, the other champs dodge him, because he is the best and they don't want to lose their titles?

[mike464]

Marco Antonio Barrera did fine just on himself. Nobody would of given two hoots if Ray Robinson were not alphabet crap champ. And do really see people calling Tony Sibson a World Champion if the WBA stripped Hagler in 1983?

The piece alphabet crap means nothing, it is the man that holds it that counts;)That's fine. The champion is not always the best but the best can always choose to have a shot at the champion.

[Decebal]

That's fine. The champion is not always the best but the best can always choose to have a shot at the champion.

What if the Champion dodges the best?!!!

[caballo]

i really believe Kessler doesn't have enough movement to beat JC but we'll see. too straight foward n back

I have to agree with this post. As strong as Kessler is, he doesn't move much and basically comes straight in. I think Calzaghe is too quick and elusive and has too much stamina for Kessler.

[mike464]

What if the Champion dodges the best?!!!That's hardly an argument, ducking has always happened in boxing and always will. You simply cannot force one fighter to fight another if he doesn't want to. I would say that at least if we require a champion to have WBA/WBC titles, "the best" can force a shot if he keeps winning which is a lot more than we can say for your Ring titles. Also remember that this argument isn't about who the best is, it's about who the champion is.

[TBooze]

That's fine. The champion is not always the best but the best can always choose to have a shot at the champion.

Charley Burley may beg to differ...

[Decebal]

That's hardly an argument, ducking has always happened in boxing and always will. You simply cannot force one fighter to fight another if he doesn't want to. I would say that at least if we require a champion to have WBA/WBC titles, "the best" can force a shot if he keeps winning which is a lot more than we can say for your Ring titles. Also remember that this argument isn't about who the best is, it's about who the champion is.

Sorry Mike, but I'm not buying it - what is the whole point of this whole continuity story and passing on the batton and all that if the Champ is not the best? Why should we care which of the belts any Champ holds? I don't! I don't even care if he's Champ. All I care about is who the best guy is in a division and what the ranking is after him...I call the best guy Champ and the number two guy The Number One Contender...everything else is just mouthwash...

[mike464]

Sorry Mike, but I'm not buying it - what is the whole point of this whole continuity story and passing on the batton and all that if the Champ is not the best? Why should we care which of the belts any Champ holds? I don't! I don't even care if he's Champ. All I care about is who the best guy is in a division and what the ranking is after him...I call the best guy Champ and the number two guy The Number One Contender...everything else is just mouthwash...The thing is, we never really know who the best is in any sport. It's very subjective. That's why boxing has world titles, football has a world cup etc. We just have to use the world titles properly.

[Decebal]

The thing is, we never really know who the best is in any sport. It's very subjective. That's why boxing has world titles, football has a world cup etc. We just have to use the world titles properly.

This is impossible in pro-boxing! In football World Cup...you qualify from the group stages and then it's an eliminatory process until one team remains unbeaten. You cannot dodge anyone and decide that instead of playing Brazil in the final, you'll play Spain instead, cause, hey! You didn't play them in the semis anyway...

[mike464]

This is impossible in pro-boxing! In football World Cup...you qualify from the group stages and then it's an eliminatory process until one team remains unbeaten. You cannot dodge anyone and decide that instead of playing Brazil in the final, you'll play Spain instead, cause, hey! You didn't play them in the semis anyway...I know that but world titles are to indicate who the best is. If some one else thinks he is the best then he should keep winning and force a shot at a title. If the champion ducks him the title will be vacated and the best can have a crack at it. If he doesn't want to, he shouldn't claim to be the best.

You say that the best is the champion. I say what if some guy comes along with god-like boxing talents. Ten times better than Ali, SRR, RJJ etc (no, not Anthony Small) and every one ducks him" He can't get a single fight. His record is 0-0. If he were a football team he'd win every title but as he's a boxer he can't get a single fight. Would he be the champion? That's in the nature of how titles work in boxing. Fighters will be ducked whether we use the Ring title, WBA/WBC titles or even WBO/WBU titles.

[TBooze]

I know that but world titles are to indicate who the best is. If some one else thinks he is the best then he should keep winning and force a shot at a title.

Too right; I have been the SHBF Heavyweight Champion of the World since 1988, that is 19 years now, still undefeated...

I must be the Greatest!

[mike464]

Too right; I have been the SHBF Heavyweight Champion of the World since 1988, that is 19 years now, still undefeated...

I must be the Greatest!If you keep winning the WBC and WBA may rank you and maybe one day you'll get a shot.

[TBooze]

If you keep winning the WBC and WBA may rank you and maybe one day you'll get a shot.

Like I stated if anyone is prepared to pay $100 Million (I made challenge in 1988; when the Dollar was worth something;)), as well as full Life and Health Insurance, they can have a shot at the SHBF World Heavyweight Championship; until that day I will remain champ and continue to break longevity records, for all those silly enough to count alphabet crap as a World Championship!

[mike464]

Like I stated if anyone is prepared to pay $100 Million (I made challenge in 1988; when the Dollar was worth something;)), as well as full Life and Health Insurance, they can have a shot at the SHBF World Heavyweight Championship; until that day I will remain champ and continue to break longevity records, for all those silly enough to count alphabet crap as a World Championship!I'm not quite sure who you're arguing against here. I, in agreement with the thread starter, said that only the WBA and WBC titles matter and not the other alphabet titles (including the SHBF). Maybe you're having a dig at Calzaghe's "20 defenses" of the WBO title. Are you an advocate of the Ring title? Explain yourself.

[TBooze]

I'm not quite sure who you're arguing against here. I, in agreement with the thread starter, said that only the WBA and WBC titles matter and not the other alphabet titles (including the SHBF). Maybe you're having a dig at Calzaghe's "20 defenses" of the WBO title. Are you an advocate of the Ring title? Explain yourself.

I have no respect any form of alphabet crap be it the WBC, WBA, SHBF or The Ring. I understand why they are there, but they in no way have any claim to crowning a legitmate World Champion, that, in this day and age can only be done by personal opinion.

[mike464]

I have no respect any form of alphabet crap be it the WBC, WBA, SHBF or The Ring. I understand why they are there, but they in no way have any claim to crowning a legitmate World Champion, that, in this day and age can only be done by personal opinion.The only reason it's like that in this day and age is because we've accepted every new title that's been put in front of us.

[TBooze]

The only reason it's like that in this day and age is because we've accepted every new title that's been put in front of us.

No, the reason is money; boxers need alphabet crap, it gets them TV appearances and TV appearance purses, I cannot begrudge a fighter getting a £20,000 pay day instead of £10,000 because the fight is a WBF Intercontinental, Pan America-Asian, Australiasia, Junior European, Super prelimary Interim Championship fight.

[mike464]

No, the reason is money; boxers need alphabet crap, it gets them TV appearances and TV appearance purses, I cannot begrudge a fighter getting a £20,000 pay day instead of £10,000 because the fight is a WBF Intercontinental, Pan America-Asian, Australiasia, Junior European, Super prelimary Interim Championship fight.Possibly, billing a fight as world title does attract more casual fans but I think the serious fans could do more to stop the spread of these micky mouse titles.

[Decebal]

I have no respect any form of alphabet crap be it the WBC, WBA, SHBF or The Ring. I understand why they are there, but they in no way have any claim to crowning a legitmate World Champion, that, in this day and age can only be done by personal opinion.

:good

[achillesthegreat]

So, Achillesthegreat, what happens when the WBA and the WBC disagree about their rankings and their number one and number two and champ? Unless the WBA and WBC champ fight...whom do you consider the true champ? It just doesn't make sense to say they are two legitimate champs - one is surely better, even if they never fight...so which one is it? Don't you have to decide yourself? And doesn't this lead us to the fact that the best fighter in the division might not in fact be either the WBA or the WBC champ? Please explain!
The disagreement will never occur. The WBC and WBA are more than happy to unify. Their top 10 contenders would do nothing to affect a unified champ.

The WBC and WBA champs are the number 1 and 2 and must face each other.

To be the man, you have to beat the man. If there is no man, WBC and WBA must be unified or there is NO CHAMPION!

I've already explained the best fighter may not be the champ but being the champ is OFFICIAL, saying someone else is better is an OPINION.

When Braddock was champ, he wasn't necessarily better than Schmeling or Louis but he was the OFFICIAL CHAMP!

[achillesthegreat]

You make a very good case. It's a shame no one is really listening.

It's clear, and all boxing fans will agree, that we have too many belts and 'world champions'. The problem comes when these fans then start claiming the latest WBO or IBO or Ring champion is legitimate. The WBO used to be viewed as a joke and now people claim it's a proper world title.

One thing I hate is when fans claim that The Ring title is linear. The Ring title is just another title to add to all the others but with the weakness that the magazine can't force champions to fight the number one challengers. It's just an invitation to duck the best guys. This is the last belt we need. Imagine if The Ring title was linear and Calzaghe just refused to fight Kessler. Kessler would never have a chance to be a real champion.

The only way to get a linear champ is to look back in history at what makes a linear champ. The WBA and WBC belts. It's in the fans' best interests too as it clears the picture up a bit.
Yep.

[achillesthegreat]

What if he does get a shot at the IBF or WBO first and once he becomes champ, the other champs dodge him, because he is the best and they don't want to lose their titles?
If fighters only fought for the WBC and WBA then they wouldn't be dodged. They'd become mandatory and get their shot.

The existence of IBF, WBO etc promotes dodging.

[achillesthegreat]

Lets not get off topic about how boxing would work under the WBC and WBA.

It is irrefutable that if a fighter wants to be recognised as the man that he has to own the WBC and WBA or beat the man.

TBooze is simply refusing to accept facts. The guys who dictated the man pre ABCs turned into the WBC and WBA. Its not complicated at all.

To help boxing all the other ABCs should be frozen out and we should work on keeping the WBC and WBA as clean as possible.

[achillesthegreat]

:good
You are letting personal opinion get in the way of FACT.

[Decebal]

The disagreement will never occur. The WBC and WBA are more than happy to unify. Their top 10 contenders would do nothing to affect a unified champ.



All right, so why are they not already unified then? WHY? Please explain that...if you can!

Why are they not putting pressure on all the other bodies either to unify too or to disappear? Why are they not putting pressure on all the top contenders to join their ranks...by unifying? Surely because they make more money keeping things as they are...them and the top contenders and champs!

[Decebal]

You are letting personal opinion get in the way of FACT.

In the way of which fact(s), exactly? Not in the way of the fact that the Champion, as you describe him, is in fact not necessarily the best, and is under no compulsion to fight the best either...unless the best guns for him time after time and faces a mandatory.

So you will say: "Yes, the best should work his ass of to become mandatory - what is the problem with that?" None, except that the rankings that even your favourite bodies make are not precisely right, are they? So the best might have to fight lesser fighters to go up the rankings just to become the mandatory, when in fact he might get fights against better opposition outside the ranks of your favourite bodies...

i.e. He is no.1. The Champ is really no. 3. The guy ranked just above the no.1 fighter is really no. 5...so why should the no.1 fighter fight the no.5 fighter just to go up the rankings, when he could fight the one who is really the number 2. fighter...who might appear as number 4 in the rankings of your body?

Champ....3
No.1 contender....4
No.2 contender....5
No.3 contender....1
No.4 contender....2

So now you will say: well, eventually these things will sort themselves out if everyone plays ball - BUT, the coordination problem cannot be surpassed though - you cannot make people play ball in the short term just because it would be in their long-term interest, if it isn't in their hort term interest.

[achillesthegreat]

All right, so why are they not already unified then? WHY? Please explain that...if you can!

Why are they not putting pressure on all the other bodies either to unify too or to disappear? Why are they not putting pressure on all the top contenders to join their ranks...by unifying? Surely because they make more money keeping things as they are...them and the top contenders and champs!
I get a feeling you are asking silly questions.

You agree that for someone to be the man they have to unify? This is irrefutable.

Why are they not putting pressure? What pressure can they put?

Even if WBC and WBA were the only two they'd still get their 3% sanctioning fees along with their other sources of income.

[Decebal]

I get a feeling you are asking silly questions.

You agree that for someone to be the man they have to unify? This is irrefutable.

Why are they not putting pressure? What pressure can they put?

Even if WBC and WBA were the only two they'd still get their 3% sanctioning fees along with their other sources of income.

Achillesthegreat, mate, why are you not answering my question? Why are the WBC and the WBA not unifying? In fact, why have they not done it already?:think

[achillesthegreat]

In the way of which fact(s), exactly? Not in the way of the fact that the Champion, as you describe him, is in fact not necessarily the best, and is under no compulsion to fight the best either...unless the best guns for him time after time and faces a mandatory.

So you will say: "Yes, the best should work his ass of to become mandatory - what is the problem with that?" None, except that the rankings that even your favourite bodies make are not precisely right, are they? So the best might have to fight lesser fighters to go up the rankings just to become the mandatory, when in fact he might get fights against better opposition outside the ranks of your favourite bodies...

i.e. He is no.1. The Champ is really no. 3. The guy ranked just above the no.1 fighter is really no. 5...so why should the no.1 fighter fight the no.5 fighter just to go up the rankings, when he could fight the one who is really the number 2. fighter...who might appear as number 4 in the rankings of your body?

Champ....3
No.1 contender....4
No.2 contender....5
No.3 contender....1
No.4 contender....2

So now you will say: well, eventually these things will sort themselves out if everyone plays ball - BUT, the coordination problem cannot be surpassed though - you cannot make people play ball in the short term just because it would be in their long-term interest, if it isn't in their hort term interest.
I have explained the facts of history. Have you read the debate?

You are making a silly point about the champ not necessarily being the best. This is true prior to ABCs and I've already given you an example of it. This will always exist in boxing but the great thing about boxing is they can settle their differences in the ring.

Calzaghe may be linear after beating Kessler but Bute could be better than him. That doesn't mean shit though because OFFICIALLY Calzaghe is the champ and that is what matters. If you've read the debate you'll realise I have given you old and new examples of how the champ isn't always the best but how that doesn't matter.

Rankings are never 100% but a fighter sorts out his issues in the ring - he fights and he wins. Eventually he gets a shot. Fighters today get their shot evenually. They have it easier than they did in the past.

Ultimately your point is silly has nothing to do with the fact that the WBC and WBA is what dictates who the man is.

Things will never be perfect. Nothing is, thats life and thats man for you. We can only try to make things perfect and in doing so we will get as close to perfection as humanly possible. The first step to perfecting boxing is by recognising what makes a fighter THE REAL CHAMP!

[A-50]

The only belt that matters is the Ring Magazine belt which Calzaghe already has.

[achillesthegreat]

Achillesthegreat, mate, why are you not answering my question? Why are the WBC and the WBA not unifying? In fact, why have they not done it already?:think
Because of politics and money. This is a stupid question though. The NYSAC, NBA, EBU etc didn't unify back in the day. We still knew who the champ was. What difference does it make.

Its probably better to have two belts because two champs, unification etc creates hype i.e. Hearns-Leonard type affairs.

[Decebal]

Because of politics and money. This is a stupid question though. The NYSAC, NBA, EBU etc didn't unify back in the day. We still knew who the champ was. What difference does it make.

Its probably better to have two belts because two champs, unification etc creates hype i.e. Hearns-Leonard type affairs.

EXACTLY! Because of politics and money! So they are not whiter than white, and don't care about the sport more that about their influence and money...So why should I care whether someone is WBC Champ or IBF Champ? Because historically the WBC and the WBA came first and because of continuity and all that? Well, that would be all well and nice if I agreed with the rankings of the WBC and WBA more than with the rankings of the other bodies...but what if in some cases I don't...and most don't either?

Let me put it this way - I will let you call anyone you like "The Champ", "The Real Champ", "The Only Champ", etc. - and, fine, associate the WBA and WBC unifier with these labels - I can live with that...

...but would a rose smell any less sweat by another name?

Ultimately, the labels shouldn't matter to knowledgeable fans -but how good the opposition that you have beaten was when you beat them, right? And if the politics and money stands in the way of you fighting the best, I don't care whether you are "The Champ" or not - what I care about is whether you are the best.

:good

[TBooze]

...but would a rose smell any less sweat by another name?



Yes, if they were called stench-blossoms or crapweeds. I know the misses sure would hate to get 12 crapweeds for Valentine's Day. She much rather have chocolate!;)

[Axe]

100% serious. Historically the orgs who decided the number 1 and 2 are in the form of the WBC and WBA.

Calzaghe being the clear number 1 is an opinion. If Kessler beats him then it is clear he wasn't the best all along. Just like when they thought Diaz wasn't as good as guys like Corrales, Freitas and Castillo. Hindsight shows that is wrong.

People thought Calzaghe was number 1 but many thought Kessler was number 2 and not Lacy. Hindsight shows they were probably right. So consensus means little when it comes to lineage. History is what matters.

You saw Drews is an example, I say Valero. No one thinks he is as good as Pac, MAB and JMM but hindsight could be different.

Who the champ is doesn't matter. I'm sure people thought Louis was better than Braddock but Braddock was the champ and Louis wasn't.

The champs aren't necessarily the best fighters but it does give the fight OFFICIAL status that is decided in THE RING!

History can't be denied, it is what it is. If someone wants to talk lineage and the guy being the REAL champ then he must be the WBC and WBA champ.

IMO it is ridiculous to rank a trinket holder as high as #1 or #2 just because they hold the WBA or WBC in particular.

Agree to disagree. :good

[achillesthegreat]

EXACTLY! Because of politics and money! So they are not whiter than white, and don't care about the sport more that about their influence and money...So why should I care whether someone is WBC Champ or IBF Champ? Because historically the WBC and the WBA came first and because of continuity and all that? Well, that would be all well and nice if I agreed with the rankings of the WBC and WBA more than with the rankings of the other bodies...but what if in some cases I don't...and most don't either?

Let me put it this way - I will let you call anyone you like "The Champ", "The Real Champ", "The Only Champ", etc. - and, fine, associate the WBA and WBC unifier with these labels - I can live with that...

...but would a rose smell any less sweat by another name?

Ultimately, the labels shouldn't matter to knowledgeable fans -but how good the opposition that you have beaten was when you beat them, right? And if the politics and money stands in the way of you fighting the best, I don't care whether you are "The Champ" or not - what I care about is whether you are the best.

:good
If you want to assess a fighter accurately historically then you need to include lineage as a major talking point.

The ultimate goal in boxing is to be the champ and if you want that title, you need to win the WBC and WBA.

Yes they have elements of corrupt but WHAT DOESN'T? Every government in the world is shady. Do you go breaking the law because of it? Don't think so.

Ultimately who the champ is does matter to knowledgable fans. It matters when assessing a fighter today or historically. Whats the point of boxing if there isn't THE MAN.

[achillesthegreat]

IMO it is ridiculous to rank a trinket holder as high as #1 or #2 just because they hold the WBA or WBC in particular.

Agree to disagree. :good
Then you disagree with lineage as a whole and don't care about champs at all.

There have always been numerous orgs:
Coloured Champ
NYSAC
NBA
EBU

The difference is people were unified who the champ was. It was easy to understand.

The WBO, IBF, WBU, WBF, IBO, IBU, IBC etc have ruined this. But I blame the people who decided to include the WBO and IBF in lineage.

When it was just the WBC and WBA there were NO PROBLEMS in defining who the champ was. Now that people recognise other belts there is a problem.

[achillesthegreat]

I'd love to agree to disagree but in this case there is right and wrong. Unfortunately you, TBooze and Decebal are wrong. Its an irrefutable argument.

If you want to recognise the true champ in the division then he has to either beat the man or unify the WBC and WBA.

[Decebal]

I'd love to agree to disagree but in this case there is right and wrong. Unfortunately you, TBooze and Decebal are wrong. Its an irrefutable argument.

If you want to recognise the true champ in the division then he has to either beat the man or unify the WBC and WBA.

OK...Kessler is "the true champ in the division"...and the second best in the division, after Calzaghe. Happy?:D

[TBooze]

I'd love to agree to disagree but in this case there is right and wrong. Unfortunately you, TBooze and Decebal are wrong. Its an irrefutable argument.


185 posts pretty much says that is not the case; but that is your opinion... which was my point; World Championships are a personal thing, with no stedfast rules:good

[achillesthegreat]

185 posts pretty much says that is not the case; but that is your opinion... which was my point; World Championships are a personal thing, with no stedfast rules:good
185 posts don't say that - just you, Decebal and Axe.

Decebal has now seen sense. I'm hoping Axe will follow the facts and then you're left all alone with your ridiculous thought that -

LINEAGE DOESN'T EXIST! :patsch

[achillesthegreat]

OK...Kessler is "the true champ in the division"...and the second best in the division, after Calzaghe. Happy?:D
Agreed.

Kessler is the man but Calzaghe is considered the best.

[Decebal]

Agreed.

Kessler is the man but Calzaghe is considered the best.

:nono Calzaghe is the man; Kessler is just the Champ! :D

[achillesthegreat]

:nono Calzaghe is the man; Kessler is just the Champ! :D
This is an empty statement - FACT!

[Decebal]

This is an empty statement - FACT!

:shock:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

;)

[achillesthegreat]

I want you to fight your corner if you believe what you are saying. I have provided irrefutable facts. I still don't know what your argument or axes is.

[Decebal]

I want you to fight your corner if you believe what you are saying. I have provided irrefutable facts. I still don't know what your argument or axes is.

I am saying...even if everyone accepts that what you said about lineage is true, and thus, the unifier of the WBA and WBC really is "The Champ", being Champ in boxing is not on par with being World Champ, say, in athletics...where the World Champ is always, by definition, the best, because he has beaten the best of the rest in a competition designed expressly to find the best...

...This is all I am saying.

Now, it is true that because in boxing transitivity doesn't work, ...so that A might be able to beat B-Y but still get beat by Z, even theough Z would himself get beat by C,D,E,F, J, L, P, S and W...it is impossible to design a competition whereby the winner would be the best, unless they all fought all the other and you allocated points for each win...and even then, because who wins is not always clear in boxing, you might have problems deciding...

...but that shouldn't mean that just because the Champ always has a good claim to being one of the best, he has more than a claim to being that...

...the only way the Champ would have a claim to that is if the Champ would be forced to fight the best out there, whether the best was mandatory according to his regulatory body or not...and beat him...

...Thus, if Kessler beats Calzaghe, he will be a Champ who will be able to claim that he is the best, because he has beaten the best.

...If Bute (having beaten Berrio for the IBF title) was fighting Calzaghe next, instead of Kessler, and he somehow managed to beat him, Bute would be the best, even though he wouldn't be Champ (because his IBF title wouldn't count, and neither would Joe's WBO title); Kessler would be Champ...but not the best, until he beat Bute...

[achillesthegreat]

I am saying...even if everyone accepts that what you said about lineage is true, and thus, the unifier of the WBA and WBC really is "The Champ", being Champ in boxing is not on par with being World Champ, say, in athletics...where the World Champ is always, by definition, the best, because he has beaten the best of the rest in a competition designed expressly to find the best...

...This is all I am saying.

Now, it is true that because in boxing transitivity doesn't work, ...so that A might be able to beat B-Y but still get beat by Z, even theough Z would himself get beat by C,D,E,F, J, L, P, S and W...it is impossible to design a competition whereby the winner would be the best, unless they all fought all the other and you allocated points for each win...and even then, because who wins is not always clear in boxing, you might have problems deciding...

...but that shouldn't mean that just because the Champ always has a good claim to being one of the best, he has more than a claim to being that...

...the only way the Champ would have a claim to that is if the Champ would be forced to fight the best out there, whether the best was mandatory according to his regulatory body or not...and beat him...

...Thus, if Kessler beats Calzaghe, he will be a Champ who will be able to claim that he is the best, because he has beaten the best.

...If Bute (having beaten Berrio for the IBF title) was fighting Calzaghe next, instead of Kessler, and he somehow managed to beat him, Bute would be the best, even though he wouldn't be Champ (because his IBF title wouldn't count, and neither would Joe's WBO title); Kessler would be Champ...but not the best, until he beat Bute...
If other belts didn't exist then the unifier would be the best.

There were many governing bodies pre ABC and the champ wasn't always the best.

Your point has no place in the argument of lineage.

Calzaghe is not the champ - this is a fact. Kessler is the champ - this is a fact.

Stop trying to rewrite history.

[Decebal]

If other belts didn't exist then the unifier would be the best.


Stop trying to rewrite history.

Yes...if other belts didn't exist then the unifier would be the best. But they do...so the unifier, The Champ, isn't necessarily the best!

"Stop trying to rewrite history?":nut

When did I try to rewrite history? Didn't I accept that Kessler was The Champ?:huh

[TBooze]

When it was just the WBC and WBA there were NO PROBLEMS in defining who the champ was. Now that people recognise other belts there is a problem.

That is untrue, the NYSAC still had a major say, as did Fleischer's Ring....

Like I said the WBA was still the NBA with a letter change until 1976; the WBC meant nothing to anyone but the 11 countries that were in it.

By the time the WBA and WBC became what they are today, the WBC was stripping Larry Holmes and crowning Tin Whitherspoon instead, giving instant credit to Lee's IBF who picked up the balls called Holmes, Spinks, Hagler, Curry and Pryor and running with them.

The IBF also created the last line of boxing lineage by crowning Murray Sutherland World Super Middleweight Champion.

[achillesthegreat]

Yes...if other belts didn't exist then the unifier would be the best. But they do...so the unifier, The Champ, isn't necessarily the best!

"Stop trying to rewrite history?":nut

When did I try to rewrite history? Didn't I accept that Kessler was The Champ?:huh
"Calzaghe is the man; Kessler is just the Champ!"

Kessler is the man!

Well boxing has to clean up in some way. Your just accepting its decay.

[achillesthegreat]

That is untrue, the NYSAC still had a major say, as did Fleischer's Ring....

Like I said the WBA was still the NBA with a letter change until 1976; the WBC meant nothing to anyone but the 11 countries that were in it.

By the time the WBA and WBC became what they are today, the WBC was stripping Larry Holmes and crowning Tin Whitherspoon instead, giving instant credit to Lee's IBF who picked up the balls called Holmes, Spinks, Hagler, Curry and Pryor and running with them.

The IBF also created the last line of boxing lineage by crowning Murray Sutherland World Super Middleweight Champion.
Of course the NYSAC had a major say. You'll see someone like Frazier winning their belt up until their last days. However once all the remaining orgs were united the WBC took over and fighters looked to unify that. It included important entities such as the NYSAC, BBBofC etc Major bodies that dictated who the champ was pre ABCs.

The WBA did not lose its historical significance in dictating lineage.

You can bring in all the corruption you want about the WBC but it doesn't change history or facts. Corruption will always exist, you are trying to use the same pathetic arguments Decebal was. How about when Braddock left Schmeling at the weigh in? Denying him the chance to be two time champ! That is corruption at its finest pre ABCs.

Larry Holmes had beaten the man so he didn't need to unify or care about ABCs.

The IBF has nothing to do with lineage and this is an empty statement that can not be substantiated.

The WBC and WBA encapsulate the necessary orgs that dictate lineage. Period.

[Decebal]

"Calzaghe is the man; Kessler is just the Champ!"

Kessler is the man!

Well boxing has to clean up in some way. Your just accepting its decay.

Yes, that is right - I am responsible for all the evils that occur in pro-boxing.:roll:

So, is your strategy: we should put the WBC WBA unifier, The Champ, on a pedestal and insist that he is the man, the boss, the best, just so that if there is a better man out there, he is forced to fight him to be truly considered the best,

1. for the sake of the legacy/continuity thing, or

2. for the sake of "cleaning up boxing", or

3. BOTH?

Because I don't think it will clean up boxing of the decay...because unless everyone agrees with you that the best has to fight The Champ to truly be recognised as the best, nothing will ever happen.

As far as I am concerned, fine! Let us do it. It's as good a strategy as any other out there - so how are we going to convince everyone - and more importantly, the boxers and promoters and money men of all sorts, not to mention the politicians that run the other bodies?

[achillesthegreat]

Yes, that is right - I am responsible for all the evils that occur in pro-boxing.:roll:

So, is your strategy: we should put the WBC WBA unifier, The Champ, on a pedestal and insist that he is the man, the boss, the best, just so that if there is a better man out there, he is forced to fight him to be truly considered the best,

1. for the sake of the legacy/continuity thing, or

2. for the sake of "cleaning up boxing", or

3. BOTH?

Because I don't think it will clean up boxing of the decay...because unless everyone agrees with you that the best has to fight The Champ to truly be recognised as the best, nothing will ever happen.

As far as I am concerned, fine! Let us do it. It's as good a strategy as any other out there - so how are we going to convince everyone - and more importantly, the boxers and promoters and money men of all sorts, not to mention the politicians that run the other bodies?
I didn't say you were responsible, I said you are accepting boxings decay.

My solution would be to alert people of what really makes a champion. What he has to do to be recognised with the true greats. This is boxing and there are divisions. How can you call yourself the world champ when your not the champ or the proven best.

Let the other belts fizzle out. Let the mainstream fans know who the real champ is. Reduce fighters avoiding/ducking each other. Let fighters establish legacies that are historically significant. Lets work on cleaning up the WBC and WBA instead of polluting boxing.

If the IBF, WBO and co were phased out boxing would be revitalised.

[Decebal]

I didn't say you were responsible, I said you are accepting boxings decay.

My solution would be to alert people of what really makes a champion. What he has to do to be recognised with the true greats. This is boxing and there are divisions. How can you call yourself the world champ when your not the champ or the proven best.

Let the other belts fizzle out. Let the mainstream fans know who the real champ is. Reduce fighters avoiding/ducking each other. Let fighters establish legacies that are historically significant. Lets work on cleaning up the WBC and WBA instead of polluting boxing.

If the IBF, WBO and co were phased out boxing would be revitalised.

Dammit, I have posted almost 5000 posts here (granted, 95% crap ), but I am truly surprised that you are placing me in the "those who accept the decay of boxing" camp...

Why are you forgetting that I always go on about how I agree with achillesthegreat, that fighters should fight the best and "dare to be great" and not dodge and fight live threats and not have-been NAMES - bla, bla, bla and then I go on about morality - bla, bla, bla - and everyone is already asleep if not bored to death - and I go on about "daring to be great" and not dodging and I repreat and repeat and bla, bla, bla...? And after almost 5000 posts, you come and say: "You are one of the indifferent ones who contribute to the decay through your attitude!"

Well, Sir, you are unfair! But I will plead guilty to preferring fighters fighting the best opposition out there instead of opposition that the WBC or WBA rate more highly...I do because I don't care at all about the titles and the belts and the championships but only about how competitive the fights out there really are. And if that isn't to your liking, then, too bad, Sir!

[TBooze]

The IBF has nothing to do with lineage and this is an empty statement that can not be substantiated.


To substantiate; your beloved lineage at Super Middleweight, and indeed its final moments of existance:

Murray Sutherland (Your King Alfred of 168lbs) WU15 Ernie Singletary (vacant IBF 168lbs title fight)

Chong Pal Park KO11 Murray Sutherland

December 1987 Park gives up the IBF trinket

Fulgencio Obelmijias WU12 Chong Pal Park (Park loses WBA 168lbs championship)

In Chul Baek TKO11 Fulgencio Obelmijias

Christophe Tiozzo TKO6 In Chul Baek

Victor Cordoba TKO9 Christophe Tiozzo

Michael Nunn WS12 Victor Cordoba

Steve Little WS12 Michael Nunn

Frankie Liles WU12 Steve Little

Byron Mitchell TKO11 Frankie Liles

Bruno Girard WU12 Byron Mitchell

Now stop getting so excited achillesthegreat; put it away;). The lineage story is about to have a sad ending...

That horrible Frenchman Girard only goes and decides that lineage means nothing to him when he can make better money at 175lbs; so he vacated his crown and lineage died...

So there we have it; pure unadulterated lineage with not a WBA/WBC unification fight in sight!

[achillesthegreat]

To substantiate; your beloved lineage at Super Middleweight, and indeed its final moments of existance:

Murray Sutherland (Your King Alfred of 168lbs) WU15 Ernie Singletary (vacant IBF 168lbs title fight)

Chong Pal Park KO11 Murray Sutherland

December 1987 Park gives up the IBF trinket

Fulgencio Obelmijias WU12 Chong Pal Park (Park loses WBA 168lbs championship)

In Chul Baek TKO11 Fulgencio Obelmijias

Christophe Tiozzo TKO6 In Chul Baek

Victor Cordoba TKO9 Christophe Tiozzo

Michael Nunn WS12 Victor Cordoba

Steve Little WS12 Michael Nunn

Frankie Liles WU12 Steve Little

Byron Mitchell TKO11 Frankie Liles

Bruno Girard WU12 Byron Mitchell

Now stop getting so excited achillesthegreat; put it away;). The lineage story is about to have a sad ending...

That horrible Frenchman Girard only goes and decides that lineage means nothing to him when he can make better money at 175lbs; so he vacated his crown and lineage died...

So there we have it; pure unadulterated lineage with not a WBA/WBC unification fight in sight!
I've already explained the IBF will never have ANYTHING to do with lineage. This is irrefutable...

...and no the IBF being the first belt at 168 means NOTHING! 168 isn't a historically recognised division without the orgs that matter - WBC and WBA!

[achillesthegreat]

Dammit, I have posted almost 5000 posts here (granted, 95% crap ), but I am truly surprised that you are placing me in the "those who accept the decay of boxing" camp...

Why are you forgetting that I always go on about how I agree with achillesthegreat, that fighters should fight the best and "dare to be great" and not dodge and fight live threats and not have-been NAMES - bla, bla, bla and then I go on about morality - bla, bla, bla - and everyone is already asleep if not bored to death - and I go on about "daring to be great" and not dodging and I repreat and repeat and bla, bla, bla...? And after almost 5000 posts, you come and say: "You are one of the indifferent ones who contribute to the decay through your attitude!"

Well, Sir, you are unfair! But I will plead guilty to preferring fighters fighting the best opposition out there instead of opposition that the WBC or WBA rate more highly...I do because I don't care at all about the titles and the belts and the championships but only about how competitive the fights out there really are. And if that isn't to your liking, then, too bad, Sir!
You are a good pointer but you need to be clear on lineage. It is as I dictated. There is no opposing argument and people have to stop believing in unsubstantiated crap.

[TBooze]

I've already explained the IBF will never have ANYTHING to do with lineage. This is irrefutable...



To refute:

Murray Sutherland (Your King Alfred of 168lbs) WU15 Ernie Singletary (vacant IBF 168lbs title fight)

Chong Pal Park KO11 Murray Sutherland

December 1987 Park gives up the IBF trinket

Fulgencio Obelmijias WU12 Chong Pal Park (Park loses WBA 168lbs championship)

In Chul Baek TKO11 Fulgencio Obelmijias

Christophe Tiozzo TKO6 In Chul Baek

Victor Cordoba TKO9 Christophe Tiozzo

Michael Nunn WS12 Victor Cordoba

Steve Little WS12 Michael Nunn

Frankie Liles WU12 Steve Little

Byron Mitchell TKO11 Frankie Liles

Bruno Girard WU12 Byron Mitchell

The shaggy dog of history has spoken;)

[Axe]

Then you disagree with lineage as a whole and don't care about champs at all.

There have always been numerous orgs:
Coloured Champ
NYSAC
NBA
EBU

The difference is people were unified who the champ was. It was easy to understand.

The WBO, IBF, WBU, WBF, IBO, IBU, IBC etc have ruined this. But I blame the people who decided to include the WBO and IBF in lineage.

How do I disagree with lineage as a whole? Which premise tells you that? I already stated that it is your precise definition of lineage that I disagree with.

When it was just the WBC and WBA there were NO PROBLEMS in defining who the champ was. Now that people recognise other belts there is a problem.

Times have changed, things are no longer as they were in the mid seventies. The WBA and WBC have dug their own graves in more ways than one.

[achillesthegreat]

To refute:

Murray Sutherland (Your King Alfred of 168lbs) WU15 Ernie Singletary (vacant IBF 168lbs title fight)

Chong Pal Park KO11 Murray Sutherland

December 1987 Park gives up the IBF trinket

Fulgencio Obelmijias WU12 Chong Pal Park (Park loses WBA 168lbs championship)

In Chul Baek TKO11 Fulgencio Obelmijias

Christophe Tiozzo TKO6 In Chul Baek

Victor Cordoba TKO9 Christophe Tiozzo

Michael Nunn WS12 Victor Cordoba

Steve Little WS12 Michael Nunn

Frankie Liles WU12 Steve Little

Byron Mitchell TKO11 Frankie Liles

Bruno Girard WU12 Byron Mitchell

The shaggy dog of history has spoken;)
Stop being silly. I've explained how lineage works.

The first champ at 168 is Kessler because he unified the WBC and WBA.

Until you can refute that the WBC and WBA constitutes lineage then your argument is non existant.

[achillesthegreat]

How do I disagree with lineage as a whole? Which premise tells you that? I already stated that it is your precise definition of lineage that I disagree with.

Times have changed, things are no longer as they were in the mid seventies. The WBA and WBC have dug their own graves in more ways than one.
Lineage is beating the man or in the event he doesn't exist, being recognised by the necessary governing bodies (WBC and WBA). Its this or nothing unfortunately.

Times haven't changed. Lineage is a product of history so things are just like they were.

There were numerous corrupt bodies in the past and there are numerous corrupt bodies today. What has changed? Nothing!

[TBooze]

Stop being silly. I've explained how lineage works.

The first champ at 168 is Kessler because he unified the WBC and WBA.

Until you can refute that the WBC and WBA constitutes lineage then your argument is non existant.

In your opinion you need two pieces of alphabet crap, but you are in pretty small minority, the vast majority of history is on my side.

So perhaps you should be the better person, and accept your are wrong, about lineage.;)

[achillesthegreat]

In your opinion you need two pieces of alphabet crap, but you are in pretty small minority, the vast majority of history is on my side.

So perhaps you should be the better person, and accept your are wrong, about lineage.;)
Its not my opinion its fact. Just like you needed more than one body to recognise you PRE ABCs.

Look at history and it tells you all you need to know. Its irrefutable facts. Even you haven't refuted the history.

[TBooze]

Its not my opinion its fact. Just like you needed more than one body to recognise you PRE ABCs.

Look at history and it tells you all you need to know. Its irrefutable facts. Even you haven't refuted the history.

It is nothing to do with having organizations backing you, history will show you that....

Just pre 1900 Billy Pillmer, Pedler Palmer, Terry McGovern, George Dixon, George Lavigne, Fred Erne, Bob Fitzsimmons, James J Corbett and James J Jeffries, all won lineage at their own weight division, without the need of a WBA, WBC, IBU, IBC, ABZ, NYSAC, NBA or any other piece of alphabet crap.

As well as lineage, I think you do not understand what irrefutable means as well.;)

[achillesthegreat]

It is nothing to do with having organizations backing you, history will show you that....

Just pre 1900 Billy Pillmer, Pedler Palmer, Terry McGovern, George Dixon, George Lavigne, Fred Erne, Bob Fitzsimmons, James J Corbett and James J Jeffries, all won lineage at their own weight division, without the need of a WBA, WBC, IBU, IBC, ABZ, NYSAC, NBA or any other piece of alphabet crap.

As well as lineage, I think you do not understand what irrefutable means as well.;)
Pre ABCs certain orgs dictated lineage. Those orgs turned into the WBC and WBA. Its not hard. This is irrefutable.

We are dating back to the 1920s.

[TBooze]

Pre ABCs certain orgs dictated lineage. Those orgs turned into the WBC and WBA. Its not hard. This is irrefutable.

We are dating back to the 1920s.

I am going back even further, alphabet crap meant nothing then, but you still had lineage, boxing did not start with the NBA in 1921.

Jack Broughton was the first rule maker in the 1700's; James Figg pre dates him as the first champion and so began a line of champs. Not lineage as many retired undefeated; but that was not the case when when London Prize Rules were replaced with Queensberry, then true lineage began as early as 1889, ending as it was known in the 19th century with Bruno Girard in 2001.

[achillesthegreat]

I am going back even further, alphabet crap meant nothing then, but you still had lineage, boxing did not start with the NBA in 1921.

Jack Broughton was the first rule maker in the 1700's; James Figg pre dates him as the first champion and so began a line of champs. Not lineage as many retired undefeated; but that was not the case when when London Prize Rules were replaced with Queensberry, then true lineage began as early as 1889, ending as it was known in the 19th century with Bruno Girard in 2001.
The necessary governing bodies continued the known lineage. Stop mentioning Girard, it's ridiculous.

How can you argue ABCs have nothing to do with lineage, then argue the IBF has something to do with lineage. Just because it was the first at 168 doesn't mean it is lineage. So if I create the ABC belt and start the superheavyweight division then I have lineage there. Your thoughts are ridiculous.

[TBooze]

Just because it was the first at 168 doesn't mean it is lineage. So if I create the ABC belt and start the superheavyweight division then I have lineage there. Your thoughts are ridiculous.

you create lineage by being the first; Alfred unifed England thus he was the first King of England. Murray Sutherland won the first championship fight at 168lbs, thus he was the first lineage champion at 168lbs. Bruno Girard was at the end of that lineage, thus he was the last lineage champion.

You are trying to spin a fairly simple subject into something that makes rocket science seem easy. I think you need to improve or use your so far unseen knowledge of boxing, if you wish to foward this debate, otherwise you just go over the same ground, with your exposed reasoning; just saying I am right because I say I am right, and not showing why you are.

[Decebal]

you create lineage by being the first; Alfred unifed England thus he was the first King of England. Murray Sutherland won the first championship fight at 168lbs, thus he was the first lineage champion at 168lbs. Bruno Girard was at the end of that lineage, thus he was the last lineage champion.

You are trying to spin a fairly simple subject into something that makes rocket science seem easy. I think you need to improve or use your so far unseen knowledge of boxing, if you wish to foward this debate, otherwise you just go over the same ground, with your exposed reasoning; just saying I am right because I say I am right, and not showing why you are.

If you are right about Murray Sutherland winning the first Championship at 168lbs, then the Championship he won is the one that provides lineage, not any of the others...:good

[achillesthegreat]

you create lineage by being the first; Alfred unifed England thus he was the first King of England. Murray Sutherland won the first championship fight at 168lbs, thus he was the first lineage champion at 168lbs. Bruno Girard was at the end of that lineage, thus he was the last lineage champion.

You are trying to spin a fairly simple subject into something that makes rocket science seem easy. I think you need to improve or use your so far unseen knowledge of boxing, if you wish to foward this debate, otherwise you just go over the same ground, with your exposed reasoning; just saying I am right because I say I am right, and not showing why you are.
The IBF has nothing to do with lineage, this is a FACT. They can't make any rulings in boxing that are going to be taken into consideration. That is the jobs of the org in power - WBC and WBA.

Your example does not stick. You are trying to lose people with your points.

Divisions are made legitimate when the governing bodies say they exist.

What you say is pathetic. I can go and create a belt called ABC and a division called Super Heavy and butterbean can begin lineage in it. Then the WBC and WBA come along but lineage belongs to me. Of course it doesn't.

You also think lineage is genetic. It isn't like humans, it isn't the man who beats the man all the time. If that is broken, lineage is re-established.

You are trying to give the impression that things are so complicated that we should forget it all and be left with our opinion of what is what. This is ridiculous.

Pre ABCs the orgs who dictated lineage, simply became the WBC and WBA. Its as easy to understand as A B C!!!

[achillesthegreat]

If you are right about Murray Sutherland winning the first Championship at 168lbs, then the Championship he won is the one that provides lineage, not any of the others...:good
He isn't right. IBF has no say in lineage. 168 becomes legitimate upon the arrival of the WBC and WBA. Kessler became the first to unify them and thus is the first real champion in the history of the divison.

[yesihavearm]

the first real champion in the history of the divison.

So people who dont unify the wbc and wba belts are not actually champions ?

[achillesthegreat]

So people who dont unify the wbc and wba belts are not actually champions ?
Historically they are not champions. WBO and IBF really have little to do with it. Otherwise the IBO is suddenly a legitimate belt. I mean Lewis, Hopkins, Tarver, Johnson etc have fought for it. So the story about fighters making the belt doesn't wash.

[TBooze]

So people who dont unify the wbc and wba belts are not actually champions ?

Historically they are not champions.

Because everybody knows there was no such thing as a World Champion pre 1963 because the WBA and the WBC did not exist until that time....

I remember Fleischer in 1922 like it was yesterday:

"When will we start crowning World Champions for our great sport?"

And achilliesthegreat response:

"Don't worry Nat, less than 50 years to go son"

Everyone knows as good as Robinson, Armstrong, Moore, Charles, Marciano, Louis, Greb, Tunney, Leonard, Ross, Johnson, Dempsey, Jeffries, Fitzsimmons and Corbett were, they were never Champions, because as achilliesthegreat points out, you could not have one, until George Parnassus got off his sorry arse and created the WBC...

[achillesthegreat]

Because everybody knows there was no such thing as a World Champion pre 1963 because the WBA and the WBC did not exist until that time....

I remember Fleischer in 1922 like it was yesterday:

"When will we start crowning World Champions for our great sport?"

And achilliesthegreat response:

"Don't worry Nat, less than 50 years to go son"

Everyone knows as good as Robinson, Armstrong, Moore, Charles, Marciano, Louis, Greb, Tunney, Leonard, Ross, Johnson, Dempsey, Jeffries, Fitzsimmons and Corbett were, they were never Champions, because as achilliesthegreat points out, you could not have one, until George Parnassus got off his sorry arse and created the WBC...
The orgs became or were under the WBC and WBA. The governing orgs. Its like saying Cassius Clay and Muhammad Ali are different entities. You are being ridiculous.

[TBooze]

The orgs became or were under the WBC and WBA. The governing orgs. Its like saying Cassius Clay and Muhammad Ali are different entities. You are being ridiculous.

There is a huge difference between the NBA and WBA, and the WBC was the work of Parnassus. The NBA did not even start until 1921, boxing first champion was in 1719...

I think you should stopping reading Wikipedia and start investing in some boxing books, as you seem to have little understanding of this aspect of boxing history; and you are not prepared to listen to me, which although not always a bad thing, is a little naive in this instance....

I suggest The Boxing Register as the first port of call, it has an excellent article on the history of boxing organizations (pages 48 to 51)

I also suggest buying some old Ring's or Boxing Illustrated's and perhaps if you are British, Boxing News, there you will get a feel in the ratings for who was and was not a champion, and what organizations they represented, I think you would be suprised with the results.;)

[achillesthegreat]

TBooze your arguments are ridiculous:
- lineage doesn't exist
- IBF has a say in lineage
- WBA doesn't come from NBA
- lineage is like dna

Through this all you manager NOT to make a clear argument. Bravo.

You are now try to lose people in history so that you may appear right.

You are also trying to make a power play by insulting my intelligence and going deeper into history.

Wikipedia has nothing to do with it. I gave sources to the wbc and wba website.

The orgs that dictated lineage evolved into the WBC and WBA. Period.

[TBooze]

TBooze your arguments are ridiculous:
- lineage doesn't exist
- IBF has a say in lineage
- WBA doesn't come from NBA
- lineage is like dna

Through this all you manager NOT to make a clear argument. Bravo.

You are now try to lose people in history so that you may appear right.

You are also trying to make a power play by insulting my intelligence and going deeper into history.

Wikipedia has nothing to do with it. I gave sources to the wbc and wba website.

The orgs that dictated lineage evolved into the WBC and WBA. Period.

LOL

Well to finish, I might as well steal a line or two...

Who's got two thumbs and don't give a damn anymore?

That's right; TBooze :thumbsup

Read up on the subject my friend, and if you further the debate with some well thought out points, I will comment;)