Who is the definitive HW champion today?

That is my view here too. The question asks for a DEFINITIVE champion.

MTF

 

For what it is worth, I think Vitali is better but wlad certainly has a better claim to be the Champion. He can't be a 'definitive' champion, though, because a good few people think he would lose to the one guy who he wont fight/won't fight him. Definitive to me means 'unquestionably the best guy in a division'. The belts held might assist in determining who has a good claim, but they are not decisive unless they are taken in the ring from a guy who was themself the 'definitive' champion. Wlad never fought that guy (Lewis) and Vitali did but lost.

MTF

 

Dude, EVERY Facet of your Posting Existence Centers Around "Teenybopper" Shit...You Consistently Throw Out THE Most Off the Wall Boxing Opinions for the SOLE Purpose of Getting Attention, just like a Fucking ADOLESCENT Would...

Being a "Mandatory" & Being WORTHY of a Title Shot AREN'T the Same Thing...But REED's Words are WASTED on You, the Sanctioning Body WHORE that you Are...



REED:boohoo:

 

Here's one someone else suggested: the definitive champion is the man who holds the Ring Magazine title. What do folks make of this?

MTF :dunno:

 

What's there to Understand???...

According to your Join Date, U've Been a Member Since '04, Which Means U've Spent the Last 8 Years Bombarding this Site w/Contrarian IDIOCY...Sorry, but there's ZERO Depth or Meaning to what U Type, so "Understanding" your Bullshit Requires as Much Effort as Blowing your Nose would...


REED:wack:

 

Currently, the RING Seems to B the LESSER of the Sanctioning Body "Evils", but History Shows that the RING has ALSO Been on the Take...

Don King has Set Up Televised Tournaments Based EXCLUSIVELY on the Rankings he PAID RING Magazine for...w/Out Researching the Matter, REED is Quite Confident that Rankings were Being Paid for in the "Gangster" Era of Boxing (1940's & 50's) as Well...

For NOW, the RING is Perhaps Our Most "Legitimate" Source, but they're NOT Above Compromising their Own Rankings to Make their Wallets Fatter...



REED:cheer:

 

agREED.

The Ring isn't without their bullshit too but at least they back up the reasons for the positions they've taken.

 

Even the textbook definition of the word doesn't apply here. Nobody was clamoring for a Lewis-Byrd fight, nor has it ever been suggested that Lewis' reign suffered one bit from the fight never happening.

Hell even Byrd and Don King themselves didn't do very much to pursue the fight; they too were perfectly content with fighting for a vacant title, same with John Ruiz.

Where your logic falls short is that there is a distinct difference between ducking and taking another fight for financial sense (for the most part). In order to duck a challenge, there has to be a demand for it or the suggestion that a fighter was avoiding a legitimate threat, even in the presence of a more lucrative fight. None of that applies here, as Byrd was outgunned across the board and had little to no following.

Just like Oscar de la Hoya didn't duck Miguel Julio, Kostya Tszyu didn't duck Gianluca Branco, Sergio Martinez didn't duck Sebastian Zbik, etc. ...

Not everything is as simple as "mandatory challenger = deserved title shot"

steve_dave already corrected the other part of your post, so no need to address that part.

 

I'd say the past decade spent arguing just who in fact is/was the man at 175 kind of kicks a hole in that theory.

I can just as easily argue that the guys recognized by Boxingscene as lineal champs should be the sport's only source.

I honestly don't have a problem w/ a lack of consensus, as long as spirited and logical debate comes of it. I'd rather see a situation where you always have to fight for the top spot, as opposed to one guy getting there and then sitting on his lead, which almost always seems to become the case.

 

Not very definitive at all.

 

REED, you are stupid.

 

Someone else wasn't familiar with The Ring. If they were, they wouldn't make such a suggestion. 1 vs 3 to fill spot...start policy so michalczewski gets screwed...base determination on sanctioning body champs...etc

 

If you give up titles voluntarily and don't fight the guy in line, you are ducking. The examples you list, I would say the same thing for. (and the dlh example did have people claiming he was ducking, not just the technical ducking I'm talking about.)

 

:laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing:

 

that's because you're the last remaining fan who still swears by the sanctioning bodies. No offense by that, but seriously, how was Sergio Martinez ducking Sebastian Zbik when he and his team wanted the fight AND presented it to HBO?

If you define EVERYTHING as ducking, then you seriously compromise the impact of the word. You can't compare Martinez-Zbik to Chavez Jr.-Martinez, yet by your standards, the same definition applies. That makes no sense.

 

I would give Martinez a pass. I also think there is 20/20 hindsight that is a legitimate factor in how to perceive this stuff. Martinez's 'duck' is also weakened by the fact that Zbik then lost to Chavez Jr. If Zbik goes on to a lengthy reign and Martinez never addresses it, it changes things.

Hamed had the same thing going on during his reign. Pass for Hector Lizarraga (won the vacated title, lost next fight to Medina, a guy already in Hamed's lineage), lighter pass for Juan Manuel Marquez (who lost to Norwood fighting for WBA lineage that Hamed owned through Vazquez. The fact that JMM looks far more dangerous to Hamed in retrospect matters, though. Perhaps no pass for Hamed jumping over Barrera at jr feather since he eventually lost to Barrera at feather.

Byrd earned his title shot legit, through no fault of his own (I think) he didn't fight Lennox, and he went on to have a decent reign after winning the belt Lennox vacated rather than fight him. I never blamed Lennox for taking $5M to step aside for Tyson and I'm not saying anyone needs to blame Lennox for not fighting Byrd, but I do think he ducked Byrd technically. And while I rate Lennox as the best heavy ever, he showed twice that he could lose to guys of Byrd's level.

 

Odd that you would rate Lewis as the best heavy ever and know nothing about his career.

 

There's no hindsight about it. Martinez was willing to fight Zbik. HBO told him cold they wouldn't accept the fight, but still wanted him on the network - in fact, rejecting Cotto-Mayorga (which in effect led to a series of events that resulted in Ross Greenburg being forced to resign). Martinez took the HBO date. Had Zbik beaten Chavez, perhaps HBO realizes the error of its ways and Martinez-Zbik happens next. My point being, Martinez never avoided the fight.

Dead wrong. Hamed was always accused of ducking Marquez, even well before Marquez became the fighter we know him as today. There are legit claims to those cries. Hamed did everything in his power to avoid the fight. He blatantly avoided Marquez. That was never disputed, and it's not something that gained legs years after the fact. It was stated at the time and always believed to be the truth.

Byrd's reign:
- won vacant title fight v. ancient Holyfied in a shit fight
- won gift decision v. Oquendo
- fought to disputed draw v. Golota
- won close decision v. McCline
- won painfully dull decision v. Williamson, in fact arguably the worst HW title fight ever (saying a lot considering it took place during the John Ruiz era)
- got lit up by Wlad for second time in as many tries

Want to know the two common themes in Byrd's reign?
- Every title defense came against an undeserving challenger who did nothing more than sign w/ Don King in order to "earn" title shot
- Never fought a unification match or against Top 5 heavy during his reign until Wlad fight, despite all being promoted by King.

So again, you can see where we continue to disagree on Byrd. I don't recall him making very much noise about truly wanting a Lewis fight more so than a shot at the title.

 

Lewis lost to two guys who, if nothing else, could hit hard. Chris Byrd couldn't crack an egg.

 

Neither McCall or Rahman were particularly hard punchers...especially McCall. Those were aberrations. Lewis took much bigger bombs from Tyson, Vitali, Bruno, Tua, Morrison without going down.

 

Compared to Chris Byrd? Both had respectable power.

 

REED's Always ADMIRED how U Politely & Professionally Deal w/Certified DIPSHITS like mikE, TWIN...



REED:cheer:

 

this part is simply not true

 

Jake said the same in page 6 of this thread. If you know better, fill us in

 

More probably, Ruiz team thought they d have far more negotiation power with a belt wich would translate to more money than the 25% as per the mandantory challenger rule. Plus, they were getting the payday for the Holy fight wich was probably in the same range they would have gotten for the Lewis fight at the time. It would have been a terrible businnes move for them to step aside unless they were offered a huge amount to do so.

I don't blame Lewis at all for dropping the WBA belt at the time, Ruiz was a nobody and he saw that Grant was a far more lucrative fight in top of being far easier. But I do blame him a bit for not fighting him down the pipe when he had established himself as a top hw ( yes, I know that the timeline wasn't necesseraly favorable with the Rahman upset and Ruiz defeat to Jones )

 

For some reason, I thought you had say Botha was a replacement for Ruiz because Ruiz injured himself. But even then, I doubt your post. I have never read, save from Jake, that Ruiz camp agreed to step aside for Grant and fight Lewis next and that lewis signed a contract/send Ruiz team a contract saying so. And while I do think Jake is extremely knowledgeable, it will take more than his lone word for me to take it as a truth.

 

Lewis signed to fight the winner of Ibeabuchi-Grant ( the WBC's top two contenders). Ibeabuchi had his spazz attack and he was replaced by Golota. When Grant beat Golota, Lewis signed to fight Grant.

Then the WBA switched Akinwande in its ratings with Ruiz, and demanded Lewis fight Ruiz before Grant. Ruiz and King took it to court, and the week of the Lewis-Grant fight, a judge ordered Lewis to fight Ruiz first or give up the WBA belt. So Lewis gave up the WBA belt.

 

I never said Lewis signed a contract for it. I said it was his plan all along to fight three times in 2000, and the WBA even admitted to having knowledge of the game plan. What came about in the hearing was the WBA's insistence that Lewis' handlers only informally mentioned their plan and never actually put in a legal request. That was the legal loophole Ruiz' team exploited in having Lewis stripped of the belt.

The truth is that it was easier for King to control both sides; same as when he literally paid for Lewis' IBF title a couple of years late to stage Byrd-Holyfield.

For what it's worth, Ruiz benefited in the long run as he collected five consecutive seven-figure paydays - three against Holyfield, the Kirk Johnson fight and his career-best take-home pay against Roy Jones (even in foregoing a guaranteed purse, a move I'll still never understand to this day).

That said - he actually made less for the first Holyfield fight ($1.1 million) than Botha received to fight Lewis ($1.6 million) at the time. It stands to reason that between step aside money and whatever payday he'd have received against Lewis, he'd have made far more than what he got for Holyfied, in fact probably more or equal to what he made for their first two fights ($1 million for the rematch).

 

If he'd taken bigger punches from Vitali, Tyson, Tua he would have been knocked out. The point is he didn't because he took those opponents seriously.

 

McCall had a very good dig