Oleg - Emeritus if he retires??

[thesandman]

Well, will Oleg ALSO be crowned Emeritus Champ if he retires, just like Vitlay did?

Oleg won the title, and defended against a voluntary challenger once.

Vitaly won the title, and defended against a voluntary challenger once.


Vitaly retired because of injuries.
Oleg - well, he might too...


Really. What's the difference? Oleg didn't have a losing title shot previously???

[Illmatic]

:rofl..that would be great. Two champions in emeritus and an interim champ.

[Lance_Uppercut]

If they are consistent with their own rules, we'll see. Of course, this just shows how utterly ridiculous they were to begin with.

[KO Boxing]

I don't really care...

As I don't with basically the entire heavyweight division...

Which is probably the reason why boxing doesn't get as much press these days.

[H .]

At least Vitali was Ring champ during retirement. :hey

[thesandman]

:rofl..that would be great. Two champions in emeritus and an interim champ.

That is what we have now - Lewis is also a emeritus champion.

So we would have THREE champions in Emeritus, and ONE interim Champ!!!!

:rofl:rofl:rofl

[left hook 75]

Could almost have a "champion emeritus" tournament with the winner being declared the "ultimate champion emeritus".Now wouldn't that be great...

[Thom]

At least Vitali was Ring champ during retirement. :hey

That was the biggest farce of his entire "title" reign.

[Cruiser1]

The WBC belt has been dragged through the mud since Lennox retired. Every other champ honors their mandatory commitment except Vitali and Oleg. It's ridiculous.

[thesandman]

The WBC belt has been dragged through the mud since Lennox retired. Every other champ honors their mandatory commitment except Vitali and Oleg. It's ridiculous.

Vitali K - number of mandatory defences. 0
Oleg M - number of mandatory defences. 0

I wonder over how many months these two held the WBC title?

What money on some form of miraculous recoveries if Peter loses his interim title belt?

Only to have it happen all over again if Rahman is the mandatory...


The Emeritus thing is total and utter bullshit.

What it means is this. If you win the WBC belt - and don't like the look of the challenger - just get 'injured', and retire. Get given a free pass to unretire and fight the beltholder, and just wait until you like the look of the belt holder, or it will be a big money spinner (eg Oleg v Vitali in Russia), and unretire!!!



Oh, and everyone that voted NO - it's different, (apart from H.) - nobody has said why it's different?

Is it because Vitlay lost to Lewis? Or is more marketable?


Really, Oleg has achieved just as much in his career as Vitali.

You could even argue with his 2 defeats of Rahman, that his resume is better than Vitali's.

[Cruiser1]

Vitali K - number of mandatory defences. 0
Oleg M - number of mandatory defences. 0

I wonder over how many months these two held the WBC title?

What money on some form of miraculous recoveries if Peter loses his interim title belt?

Only to have it happen all over again if Rahman is the mandatory...


The Emeritus thing is total and utter bullshit.

What it means is this. If you win the WBC belt - and don't like the look of the challenger - just get 'injured', and retire. Get given a free pass to unretire and fight the beltholder, and just wait until you like the look of the belt holder, or it will be a big money spinner (eg Oleg v Vitali in Russia), and unretire!!!



Oh, and everyone that voted NO - it's different, (apart from H.) - nobody has said why it's different?

Is it because Vitlay lost to Lewis? Or is more marketable?


Really, Oleg has achieved just as much in his career as Vitali.

You could even argue with his 2 defeats of Rahman, that his resume is better than Vitali's.

I'm not gonna give Oleg too much credit for having an average fighter's number. He won a bunch of meaningless fights before beating an average Samil Sam and then hit the jackpot because Rahman was the champion. Had it been anyone else Maskaev would have lost. Some guys just have your number. He could have really justified his claim to the championship pie by beating Peter but he knew that he had no chance of doing that so he did what Vitali did and snuck out the back door. Same organization, 2 eastern european fighters with 1 bullshit defense each in the month of december, same excuse. Maybe these 2 guys should get together for a cup of coffee and talk about their illustrious careers. Then again that might not be a good idea cuz Oleg might bring up the fact that he cleaned up Vitali's mess by beating Rahman.

[thesandman]

Same organization, 2 eastern european fighters with 1 bullshit defense each in the month of december, same excuse. Maybe these 2 guys should get together for a cup of coffee and talk about their illustrious careers. Then again that might not be a good idea cuz Oleg might bring up the fact that he cleaned up Vitali's mess by beating Rahman.

:rofl:rofl

Glad somebody else is as cynical as me around here about all of these 'injuries'....

[brooklyn1550]

Now that I think about it, who knows?

[lefthook31]

The WBC has a new category for both its called "Champion Injurous" They will both go int he hall of fame as champions of injury.

[Asterion]

No.

Vitali was seen as the best in 2004-2005, as a light after Lewis retired and had a different aura. Maskaev has been seen as a shitty beltholder and as a guy that would be destroyed by some fighters in the division.

[thesandman]

No.

Vitali was seen as the best in 2004-2005, as a light after Lewis retired and had a different aura. Maskaev has been seen as a shitty beltholder and as a guy that would be destroyed by some fighters in the division.


But we can see now that was purely myth.

Vitali and Maskeavs achievements as WBC champion have been identical. Identical.

In fact, Maskaev beat a better fighter than Vitlay did to get the title.


I don't believe the WBC has a "woulda, coulda, shoulda" clause in its rules and regulations. It might though, nothing would surprise me.

[The Kurgan]

Could almost have a "champion emeritus" tournament with the winner being declared the "ultimate champion emeritus".Now wouldn't that be great...

The winner would be the one to get the most pull-outs/no shows/broken promises done in the least amount of time. Currently, their record on this is-

3. Lewis: Verbally agreed to fight Vitali, but didn't.

2. Maskaev: Signed to fight Peter, but pulled out with about 3 weeks to go.

1. Vitali: The runaway leader- signed to fight McCline once and pulled out; signed to fight Rahman on about five times and didn't face him once; refused to show for the 10th round against the hard-punching Chris Byrd.

[thesandman]

The winner would be the one to get the most pull-outs/no shows/broken promises done in the least amount of time. Currently, their record on this is-

3. Lewis: Verbally agreed to fight Vitali, but didn't.

2. Maskaev: Signed to fight Peter, but pulled out with about 3 weeks to go.

1. Vitali: The runaway leader- signed to fight McCline once and pulled out; signed to fight Rahman on about five times and didn't face him once; refused to show for the 10th round against the hard-punching Chris Byrd.

I like it.

How about, the number of days holding the title, divided by number of defences? Most days per defence is the winner. (Winning the title as challenger doesn't count - so defences only)

You also have a 30 day deduction for every mandatory taken on, as that quite obviously is not the done thing anymore.

[T.S.]

If he has herniated discs in his back he's finished.
There will be no emeritus status just back operations, pain pills and traction therapy. What a way to go. :verysad

[radianttwilight]

I don't get the whole "champion emeritus" thing anyway, if you want to "retire" with the belt, then you lose the belt...Because it's not like you "LOST" it anyway, you retired with it, and thus the belt must re-enter the heavyweight divison.

The only thing the "champion emeritus" does is give some guy an excuse to not defend his belt, only to come back two years later and get a title shot he hasn't done ANYTHING for. If you're going to duck your mandatory, then be a man and ditch the belt - don't fake a retirement only to come back and challenge either A. the same guy when he is years older/slower/weaker or B. some other champion that you think you can beat

What seperates today's HW divison from the past is that these guys don't HAVE to fight anybody, you can build your legacy off 2x Rahman and SSS, grab a belt, then "retire" whenever your mandatory isn't president of the bum of the month club, so that you can bide your time until you make your "comeback"

Even if these guys have legitimate injuries (As they probably do), if the champion CANNOT FIGHT then he shouldn't be holding the belt. Vitali lost HOW many years to "injuries"? It's not like he got a cut and had to push a fight back 3-4 weeks...he took several years off IN RETIREMENT...and the clowns at the WBC let him keep his belt? :patsch

[thesandman]

I don't get the whole "champion emeritus" thing anyway, if you want to "retire" with the belt, then you lose the belt...Because it's not like you "LOST" it anyway, you retired with it, and thus the belt must re-enter the heavyweight divison.

The only thing the "champion emeritus" does is give some guy an excuse to not defend his belt, only to come back two years later and get a title shot he hasn't done ANYTHING for. If you're going to duck your mandatory, then be a man and ditch the belt - don't fake a retirement only to come back and challenge either A. the same guy when he is years older/slower/weaker or B. some other champion that you think you can beat

What seperates today's HW divison from the past is that these guys don't HAVE to fight anybody, you can build your legacy off 2x Rahman and SSS, grab a belt, then "retire" whenever your mandatory isn't president of the bum of the month club, so that you can bide your time until you make your "comeback"

Even if these guys have legitimate injuries (As they probably do), if the champion CANNOT FIGHT then he shouldn't be holding the belt. Vitali lost HOW many years to "injuries"? It's not like he got a cut and had to push a fight back 3-4 weeks...he took several years off IN RETIREMENT...and the clowns at the WBC let him keep his belt? :patsch


I agree it's fucking shit.

The WBC didn't give Kostya Tszyu 'emeritus' status with his injury enforced layoff. KT was undisputed division at the time too, not just a belt holder.

KT came back as well. Unlike certain giant Eastern Euros.

[left hook 75]

I don't get the whole "champion emeritus" thing anyway, if you want to "retire" with the belt, then you lose the belt...Because it's not like you "LOST" it anyway, you retired with it, and thus the belt must re-enter the heavyweight divison.

The only thing the "champion emeritus" does is give some guy an excuse to not defend his belt, only to come back two years later and get a title shot he hasn't done ANYTHING for. If you're going to duck your mandatory, then be a man and ditch the belt - don't fake a retirement only to come back and challenge either A. the same guy when he is years older/slower/weaker or B. some other champion that you think you can beat

What seperates today's HW divison from the past is that these guys don't HAVE to fight anybody, you can build your legacy off 2x Rahman and SSS, grab a belt, then "retire" whenever your mandatory isn't president of the bum of the month club, so that you can bide your time until you make your "comeback"

Even if these guys have legitimate injuries (As they probably do), if the champion CANNOT FIGHT then he shouldn't be holding the belt. Vitali lost HOW many years to "injuries"? It's not like he got a cut and had to push a fight back 3-4 weeks...he took several years off IN RETIREMENT...and the clowns at the WBC let him keep his belt? :patschIts just another way for the organizations to make money thats all it is.Similar to how the WBA has its "superchampion" status going on.A loada shit IMO.

[Thread Stealer]

Champion emeritus was a joke when it came to Vitali, and it would be a joke if they gave it to Oleg.

[Zakman]

:rofl..that would be great. Two champions in emeritus and an interim champ.

Exactly. Let's not compound one riddiculous decision with another! :patsch

[thesandman]

Exactly. Let's not compound one riddiculous decision with another! :patsch

That's not my (admittedly tongue in cheek) point though.

My point is this.

Why did the WBC fly so rapidly into the whole Emeritus thing in the first place? What makes Vitlay so different to every other fighter that there has been in the past.

And it's a sly dig at the fact that Vitlay's record as a WBC champ really is no better than Olegs.



Vitlay

Beat Corrie "one shot" Sanders in a title fight (vacant belt)
Beat Danny "Legend Killer" Williams in a title fight (voluntary defence)

Oleg

Beat Hasim "used to be undisputed champ you know" Rahman (Rahman champ)
Beat Peter "WHO?" Okhello in title fight (voluntary)



And that's it.

Losing challenges (no matter how 'valiant' *cough* ) don't count here.



Essentially,

Vitlay has a 66% record in WBC title fights.
Oleg, 100%

[Cruiser1]

No.

Vitali was seen as the best in 2004-2005, as a light after Lewis retired and had a different aura. Maskaev has been seen as a shitty beltholder and as a guy that would be destroyed by some fighters in the division.

I don't recall Vitali fighting in 2005. :huh :huh :huh

[DamonD]

Vitali K - number of mandatory defences. 0
Oleg M - number of mandatory defences. 0

I wonder over how many months these two held the WBC title?
31 months.

[kostya by ko]

no !

it's one thing is you've been active as champion and fans
can see that you're interested in building your status as
champion further and been prepared to bring on new fights
within a reasonable period of time after winning the title

however - if you've been inactive and then when you finally do
get around to fighting again you get injured, then that's too
bad ...

[Ambition_Def]

31 months.

31 Months and the WBC has had zero financial gain from this mess (or at least we are told). :patsch

I thought these guys wanted to make money. I think it's time we start investigating some backhand pocket exchanges between Jose Suliman and some Eastern Euro connections.

[Jennifer Love Hewitt]

This thread is hilarious!
(and a little bit sad...The WBC needs to hire smarter monkeys!)

[DamonD]

31 Months and the WBC has had zero financial gain from this mess (or at least we are told). :patsch

I thought these guys wanted to make money. I think it's time we start investigating some backhand pocket exchanges between Jose Suliman and some Eastern Euro connections.
Mercifully for the WBC, 2006 was actually a better-than-average year as their title was fought for 3 times. Rahman-Toney, Rahman-Maskaev, Maskaev-Okhello. Rahman was a busier champion than either Vitali or Maskaev, naturally.

So they probably did alright out of that.

But with just 1 title fight in 2005 and probably 2007, that's really going to hit the WBC in the wallet...

[Shpion]

Well, will Oleg ALSO be crowned Emeritus Champ if he retires, just like Vitlay did?

Oleg won the title, and defended against a voluntary challenger once.

Vitaly won the title, and defended against a voluntary challenger once.


Vitaly retired because of injuries.
Oleg - well, he might too...


Really. What's the difference? Oleg didn't have a losing title shot previously???

I like the 3rd option in your poll, and probably the majority here will have it as their vote.

[Drexl]

No.

Vitali was seen as the best in 2004-2005, as a light after Lewis retired and had a different aura. Maskaev has been seen as a shitty beltholder and as a guy that would be destroyed by some fighters in the division.

What does that matter? Just because most people thought he was the best doesn't make it so until he proves it in the ring.

Vitali had more fans. So what. There were 3 other "World Champions" at the time, one of whom had defeated Vitali (Byrd).

Maskaev does not deserve to be Emeritus champ, and neither did Vitali.

[thesandman]

What does that matter? Just because most people thought he was the best doesn't make it so until he proves it in the ring.

Vitali had more fans. So what. There were 3 other "World Champions" at the time, one of whom had defeated Vitali (Byrd).

Maskaev does not deserve to be Emeritus champ, and neither did Vitali.

Perhaps Vitlay could have his status changed to

"Peoples Emeritus Champion"

after all, he apparently became the "Peoples champion" after LOSING to Lewis. And now, I read somewhere else that Wald is the "Peoples champion" now.

If I was Vitlay, I'd be asking my brother how he's got the cheek to take one of my titles from me.......

[T.S.]

Can someone verify Maskaev's injuries?
If he has four herniated discs in his back there's no "Emeritus" bullsht only back operations, traction, pain pills, therapy, retirement.
I can see a Peter/Povetkin super fight in 2 years!

[thesandman]

Can someone verify Maskaev's injuries?
If he has four herniated discs in his back there's no "Emeritus" bullsht only back operations, traction, pain pills, therapy, retirement.
I can see a Peter/Povetkin super fight in 2 years!

Retirement = Emeritus if the guy retired as champ. That's the whole point.

Same reason they gave it to Lewis. (who to be honest, if the Emeritus thing HAS to exist - which it shouldn't - is the only one so far deserving of it.)