The WBA has Hasim Rahman rated #1

Well, neither Maskaev fight was bad, the Lewis fights were good, the Sanders fight was exciting fair, both Tua fights had their moments.....he isn't "Un-fan-friendly".....I mean, pfp nominee Donaire just had a 12 round snooze fest where, not only were we bored, but so was he :: Of course none of this vitiates the original point- he's not #1 any more than POVetkin is the Champ.

 

Not even counting when he completely fell off:
- his HBO debut (v. Obed Sullivan) left a lot to be desired
- his next HBO fight (v. Jesse Ferguson) was completely forgettable
- Sorry, the Tua rematch was God-awful. To say it had its moments is like saying Brandon Rios occasionally blocks a punch.
- Ruiz fight. Nuff said (and wasn't completely Ruiz' fault)
- Monte Barrett "title" fight was a glorified media workout
- James Toney bout was survival of fattest.

The fights you mentioned were all good, I agree (save for the Tua rematch). I wouldn't pigeon hole him as a boring fighter by any stretch, but he also wasn't one to carry a fight.

What he can be defined as, is a tremendous waste of talent, once known for a stellar physique who eventually stopped training altogether.

And yes I get that he's no more a #1 contender than Povetkin is a champ. But the fact is that Povetkin has a belt, hypocrite Teddy Atlas refers to him as a world champ, as do fans dumb enough to believe the press clippings, and the record books will list this as a title fight.

I'm sorry, but shit like this goes hand in hand with choosing to recognize/support the alphabets. To steal a line from Robin Williams, it's like partial circumcision - you either go all the way or just don't do it at all.

 

Ruiz-Rahman was by far the most boring title fight i have ever seen

 

Byrd-Williamson, Ruiz-Oquendo, Briggs-Ibragimov and Akinwande-Welsh were worse

 

Oh hey, don't get the wrong impression, I wasn't pegging him as Hasim Action Rahman III or anything like it, and agreed on the "waste of talent"- the Duffel Bag really sums that up for me. He just wasn't entirely soporific. Perversely, some of his most entertaining moments were his losses, laid out by Lewis, with that crown on his head, and Sputnikked by Maskaev, with Steve Smoger being bashed on the head by somebody with a chair. Brilliant moments. ::

Then of course, who could forget the sheer comedy of Lewis' prescience as Rahman shipped flush shots from Maskaev with Lewis declaring "Rahman is gonna get stopped....It's OVAH!" :: Yeah no shit Lenny, ya think? Ya think he might not make it out of this round? Really? Ballsy call Lenny, Ballsy. :laugh11:

Shit, some fights are entertaining for the shit that goes on in the background- though his tussels with Maskaev were decent fare. Maybe not C'Ship timber but quality nonetheless.

Part of the issue with the belts is that you will get Haglered if you don't play along. If Froch threw the WBC belt in the bin, he never would have gotten big fights. Even in the middle of the Super Six, the alphabets still seemed to retain a lot of importance, more than they should have in a tournament that was intended to detour rather than embellish the Alphabet People.

 

I hope they don't and I really don't think they will in the end. Sooner or later the masses will figure out what the WBA is doing and the WBA will stop doing it and/or the public will stop recognizing it. It's not a complicated fix, either. You (the sanctioning body) only get one world champ per weight division at a time.

Recognizing the alphabets doesn't require supporting everything they do anymore than recognizing the importance of the Democratic and Republican parties requires supporting their positions and actions on every topic or issue.

I want people who have the ability to help fix the mistakes of the sanctioning bodies (i.e. boxing writers) to do so by pointing out the mistakes in a fair manner and working to get them fixed. Until someone comes up with a workable and preferable alternative, something I doubt is possible, this is the course that makes the most sense.

 

The course that would make most sense is for boxing writers to completely ignore the belts.

 

It makes the practice (must beat a top 5 guy to get a title shot) more feasible in the UFC, especially since they have monopolistic control of everything, but even though they have the power to do it, they don't.

Three branches right now:
1. Immediate title shots to champions moving up a division.
2. Must beat a top 5 guy to get a title shot.
3. Cruiserweights are even less deserving of immediate title shots when moving up to heavy than champs of lower weight divisions.

1. I support because: This has always happened, some of the biggest fights in the sport are this, why should a champion have to waste a fight in his career to 'earn' a shot at a higher weight champ?, a champion has already proven his worth, you really need a 105 lber to beat a 108 lber?, you really want to prevent big fights from happening by requiring this?, you really think it is necessary when all sanctioning bodies permit voluntary defenses down to top 15 ranked fighters?, should a champion moving down a weight get a pass on this requirement?, you really think one sanctioning body would require this when the others don't? etc. I'm barely started. The counter position is just knee-jerk crap that can't withstand 3.5 seconds of scrutiny, but if anyone wishes to argue otherwise, go ahead.

2. I'm against because: Who determines top 5?, why should top 5 guy have to fight again prior to a title shot since they've already earned the shot by virtue of beating a top 5 guy, right?, there are too many fighters to limit title shots to top 5 guys, top 15 guys have had title shots for as long as I can remember--maybe it was top 10 at one point, but never top 5, history shows time and time again that you don't have to be a top 5 guy to beat a champion, what do you really gain by this requirement?, mandatory challengers mitigate the need for this requirement, multiple sanctioning bodies mitigate the need for this requirement, and so on.

3. Why should cruiserweights be treated differently--they are heavyweights at 205 lbs, we've had smaller heavyweights who have been champions multiple times in the past 20 years, why should they be treated differently?, beating some ranked heavyweight to 'earn' a title shot is just a matter of cherrypicking the weakest ranked guy--why jump through that meaningless hoop?, you really think Adamek or Haye increased their chances at winning by fighting a few dipshit heavies? you really think Adamek or Haye would have increased their chances by fighting better heavies prior to the title shots?, and so on.

 

Profound.

 

I agree. It's a gift, being able to squeeze such a great point into so few words.

 

Agreed, but they can't do that because 1) old habits die hard 2) they still equate the belts with talent and 3) they rarely write or are allowed to write about fights that don't involve a belt, because thats the shit that gets televised and thats the shit people want to read about. There are rare exceptions. But they are, well, rare.

Nobody wants to read about ultra-talented, non-TV appearing 24-0 Marvin Hagler, they want to read about the ABC MW tourney. Doesn't matter that he'd kill them all, they want to read about it.

For years, Wlad and Vitali have been way out in front as the two best heavies. But they would be fucked without the belts. They might not even get fights. Guys would vacate, offer step-aside, you name it, and the networks would play along because the Klitschkos don't make money for anyone bar themselves.

Its like the US Dollar, Its easy to say "why does everyone rate it, its just paper money, its worth less and less each year", but the system is set up to keep it strong.