Printable View
Why do you see Diaz winning? Do you really think that or are you just saying that becus Marquez is Pac mans biggest rival?Quote:
Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer
Quote:
Originally Posted by fan johnnyIt's all guud!....:allhail:JMMQuote:
Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer
Before JMM will attain this status at LW, he has to beat Juan Diaz this weekend but I think Diaz will win by decision...
I already discussed in the other threads why I see Diaz winning...Quote:
Originally Posted by HulkWhy do you see Diaz winning? Do you really think that or are you just saying that becus Marquez is Pac mans biggest rival?Quote:
Originally Posted by SaddoBoxerQuote:
Originally Posted by fan johnny
Before JMM will attain this status at LW, he has to beat Juan Diaz this weekend but I think Diaz will win by decision...
I picked JMM to defeat Barrera but I pick Juan Diaz over JMM... Weird isn't it? But styles makes fights... Juan Diaz via decision win...
JMM beat Casamayor who beat Corrallas.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaddoBoxerI didn't say PAC is the champ at LW... I consider it vacant... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by JazMerkin
.
You didn't consider Corrallas to be champ. And if you did, at what point did the champ stop being the champ?
No, JMM became the champ when he beat Casamayor, who won it by beating Corrales, etc. etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaddoBoxerYes... after Campbell lost his WBA, IBF and WBO LW titles on the scale and PAC vacated his WBC LW belt... Is this the way you want your champ to get his "real champ at LW" title??Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepJMM is the real champ at LW.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer
.
I know what you mean... Casamayor was the champ but other people also regarded Juan Diaz at that time as "the champ" at LW with 3 belts (WBA, IBF & WBO)... As far as I'm concerned, there's no real champ at LW until this weekend's fight...Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepNo, JMM became the champ when he beat Casamayor, who won it by beating Corrales, etc. etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaddoBoxerYes... after Campbell lost his WBA, IBF and WBO LW titles on the scale and PAC vacated his WBC LW belt... Is this the way you want your champ to get his "real champ at LW" title??Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheep
.
.
2 of those belts Diaz had collected had either been stripped or given up in place of the linear title.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaddoBoxerI know what you mean... Casamayor was the champ but other people also regarded Juan Diaz at that time as "the champ" at LW with 3 belts (WBA, IBF & WBO)... As far as I'm concerned, there's no real champ at LW until this weekend's fight...Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepNo, JMM became the champ when he beat Casamayor, who won it by beating Corrales, etc. etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer
.
Julio Diaz gave up one to face Castillo who was Ring champion & Corrales brought one from his win over Freitas into the Castillo fight (who held Suliamans one).
Corrales lost the championship to Casamayor lost it to Marquez... simple!
Now its true Campbell won those belts from Juan Diaz but they were meaningless because the lineal champion had already been established!
I know that Casamayor's fight with Santa Cruz was controversial (A clear as day robbery imo) but that is the official decision & we have to stand by that... when Pacquiao defeated Marquez I thought Marquez won (I'm not comparing the decision with the Casamayor fight) but I have to accept the offical decision!
JMM deserves credit & recognition as the true lightweight champion!
The very essence of what makes a fighter who he is is defined on who he faces and who he defeats and who he looses to. If winning a belt or defeating another fighter is meaningless then there is no need to even fight. You are a complete moron if you stand by those words.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galaxy2 of those belts Diaz had collected had either been stripped or given up in place of the linear title.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaddoBoxerI know what you mean... Casamayor was the champ but other people also regarded Juan Diaz at that time as "the champ" at LW with 3 belts (WBA, IBF & WBO)... As far as I'm concerned, there's no real champ at LW until this weekend's fight...Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheep
.
Julio Diaz gave up one to face Castillo who was Ring champion & Corrales brought one from his win over Freitas into the Castillo fight (who held Suliamans one).
Corrales lost the championship to Casamayor lost it to Marquez... simple!
Now its true Campbell won those belts from Juan Diaz but they were meaningless because the lineal champion had already been established!
I know that Casamayor's fight with Santa Cruz was controversial (A clear as day robbery imo) but that is the official decision & we have to stand by that... when Pacquiao defeated Marquez I thought Marquez won (I'm not comparing the decision with the Casamayor fight) but I have to accept the offical decision!
JMM deserves credit & recognition as the true lightweight champion!
Your missing the point. We are taking about who the champion is; not who is the best fighter. The champion is the man who beat the last champion, not the person who purchased titles through sanctioning fees. Campbell's belts were meaning less; but that doesn't mean his win over Diaz meant nothing. In most people's minds in elevated him to #1 contender.Quote:
Originally Posted by fan johnnyThe very essence of what makes a fighter who he is is defined on who he faces and who he defeats and who he looses to. If winning a belt or defeating another fighter is meaningless then there is no need to even fight. You are a complete moron if you stand by those words.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galaxy2 of those belts Diaz had collected had either been stripped or given up in place of the linear title.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer
Julio Diaz gave up one to face Castillo who was Ring champion & Corrales brought one from his win over Freitas into the Castillo fight (who held Suliamans one).
Corrales lost the championship to Casamayor lost it to Marquez... simple!
Now its true Campbell won those belts from Juan Diaz but they were meaningless because the lineal champion had already been established!
I know that Casamayor's fight with Santa Cruz was controversial (A clear as day robbery imo) but that is the official decision & we have to stand by that... when Pacquiao defeated Marquez I thought Marquez won (I'm not comparing the decision with the Casamayor fight) but I have to accept the offical decision!
JMM deserves credit & recognition as the true lightweight champion!
I don't know what your problem is but nowhere did I say Campbell beating Juan Diaz was meaningless. It was a great win & as Lance has stated the win made him the #1 contender. But it didn't make him champion!Quote:
Originally Posted by fan johnnyThe very essence of what makes a fighter who he is is defined on who he faces and who he defeats and who he looses to. If winning a belt or defeating another fighter is meaningless then there is no need to even fight. You are a complete moron if you stand by those words.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galaxy2 of those belts Diaz had collected had either been stripped or given up in place of the linear title.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaddoBoxer
Julio Diaz gave up one to face Castillo who was Ring champion & Corrales brought one from his win over Freitas into the Castillo fight (who held Suliamans one).
Corrales lost the championship to Casamayor lost it to Marquez... simple!
Now its true Campbell won those belts from Juan Diaz but they were meaningless because the lineal champion had already been established!
I know that Casamayor's fight with Santa Cruz was controversial (A clear as day robbery imo) but that is the official decision & we have to stand by that... when Pacquiao defeated Marquez I thought Marquez won (I'm not comparing the decision with the Casamayor fight) but I have to accept the offical decision!
JMM deserves credit & recognition as the true lightweight champion!
But the belts themselves were/ are meaningless & I'll stand by that statement! I'd prefer to see the best fight the best with no trinket attached than mis-matched mandatories.
You say that a fighter is defined by who he fights & I agree & the same goes for a champion. A champion wins the title in the ring by fighting & beating the champ not by collecting stripped or already discarded belts!
Ok, i take back the moron part, howeverQuote:
Originally Posted by GalaxyI don't know what your problem is but nowhere did I say Campbell beating Juan Diaz was meaningless. It was a great win & as Lance has stated the win made him the #1 contender. But it didn't make him champion!Quote:
Originally Posted by fan johnnyThe very essence of what makes a fighter who he is is defined on who he faces and who he defeats and who he looses to. If winning a belt or defeating another fighter is meaningless then there is no need to even fight. You are a complete moron if you stand by those words.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galaxy
But the belts themselves were/ are meaningless & I'll stand by that statement! I'd prefer to see the best fight the best with no trinket attached than mis-matched mandatories.
You say that a fighter is defined by who he fights & I agree & the same goes for a champion. A champion wins the title in the ring by fighting & beating the champ not by collecting stripped or already discarded belts!
Here is the problem with your premise "Meaningless".
And I get the point! (A Linear Champion is the "Real Champion")
The problem is the premise "Meaningless" is servery flawed! You belittle and disregard a fighters achievements. A fighter faces every worthy contender in his weight class and wins belts abc. Those abc belts are a measurement of his achievements and carry both physical & symbolic value. Regardless of your opinion about who is the greater champion.
I'll post an analogy or example for you of the problem so it can be clearly seen.
Taking things a little to literally Johnny. I don't think he was trying to belittle anyone, he was talking about the straps being meaningless not the win.
These posts are making my mind go numb, Pac was NEVER the champ at lightweight. Just like Floyd was never the champ at 140 even though he may have been the best fighter in the division.
Champs are champs for a reason. If you have a lineal champ and he doesn't vacate the lineal title to go to another division, then there has to remain only 1 real champ in that division no matter what.
I don't belittle or disreguard a fighters achievements at all! Like in your other post where you said a fighter is defined by who he faces... I value Juan Diaz' wins over Sim, Freitas, Julio Diaz & Katsidis plus his performance with Campbell. That sort of opposition is more of a measurement of a fighters achievements!Quote:
Originally Posted by fan johnnyOk, i take back the moron part, howeverQuote:
Originally Posted by GalaxyI don't know what your problem is but nowhere did I say Campbell beating Juan Diaz was meaningless. It was a great win & as Lance has stated the win made him the #1 contender. But it didn't make him champion!Quote:
Originally Posted by fan johnny
But the belts themselves were/ are meaningless & I'll stand by that statement! I'd prefer to see the best fight the best with no trinket attached than mis-matched mandatories.
You say that a fighter is defined by who he fights & I agree & the same goes for a champion. A champion wins the title in the ring by fighting & beating the champ not by collecting stripped or already discarded belts!
Here is the problem with your premise "Meaningless".
And I get the point! (A Linear Champion is the "Real Champion")
The problem is the premise "Meaningless" is servery flawed! You belittle and disregard a fighters achievements. A fighter faces every worthy contender in his weight class and wins belts abc. Those abc belts are a measurement of his achievements and carry both physical & symbolic value. Regardless of your opinion about who is the greater champion.
I'll post an analogy or example for you of the problem so it can be clearly seen.
The belts don't mean sh*t, it maybe symbolic but is it worth the sanctioning fees? When everyone knows Juan Diaz is one of the best lightweights around whether he holds an alphabet trinket or not!
I don't know about you but I'd rather rate a fighters achievements based on how he performed & against what sort of competition rather than what ABC bauble he's held!
Yes of course, I mostly agree with the principles laid out here more specifically a fighters achievements and the ways those achievements are measured. An I apologise again for calling you a "moron" It's a little more clear to me that you have a broader understanding of the game, However to me if you say belts themselves are meaningless then the door 'must' swing both ways and the Ring belt is also be deemed meaningless.... If not then it's a double standard because All fighters, no matter the origin, should be measured with the same measuring stick (methodology).Quote:
Originally Posted by GalaxyI don't belittle or disreguard a fighters achievements at all! Like in your other post where you said a fighter is defined by who he faces... I value Juan Diaz' wins over Sim, Freitas, Julio Diaz & Katsidis plus his performance with Campbell. That sort of opposition is more of a measurement of a fighters achievements!Quote:
Originally Posted by fan johnnyOk, i take back the moron part, howeverQuote:
Originally Posted by Galaxy
Here is the problem with your premise "Meaningless".
And I get the point! (A Linear Champion is the "Real Champion")
The problem is the premise "Meaningless" is servery flawed! You belittle and disregard a fighters achievements. A fighter faces every worthy contender in his weight class and wins belts abc. Those abc belts are a measurement of his achievements and carry both physical & symbolic value. Regardless of your opinion about who is the greater champion.
I'll post an analogy or example for you of the problem so it can be clearly seen.
The belts don't mean sh*t, it maybe symbolic but is it worth the sanctioning fees? When everyone knows Juan Diaz is one of the best lightweights around whether he holds an alphabet trinket or not!
I don't know about you but I'd rather rate a fighters achievements based on how he performed & against what sort of competition rather than what ABC bauble he's held!
At the root of the game are sanctioning organizations that were All born from the exploitation of fighters. Unless you can change the the way boxing is presented to the fan base then money will always be the motivator. That being the case, money is used to motivate the fighter. A fighters goal is to make as much money playing the game as he can. (Of course, it is not the only motivator it is what the game was built upon) The belt is what is used to symbolize the ultimate prize (or the biggest purse). Sanctioning organizations know this all to well and use the belt as a bargaining tool. Ring magazine is no different than other sanctioning bodies although that is surely that is what they want you to believe. The more followers an organization has the more value can be placed on the prize. In the case of the Ring Magazine this translates into readership. You may deem the belts as a useless trinket, but the reality is they have tangible value. To the fighter, to the trainer, to the promoter, to the sanctioning body, to the fan and to everyone that earns from the fight game.
So to answer the question, "Is the belt worth the sanctioning fees?" Well.... to those seeking a bigger prize, yes it is. To Manny Pacquiao, No!
Ok, I in no way shape or form condone exploitation. I'm just saying the reality of the game is that exploitation is what is used. We may not like it, but that is the reality. Yes, I would much rather see fighters under one set of rules and measurements that would make the game more universally reconsized, but I also realise that just aint going to happen in my life time either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fan johnny
This is the key point that you are missing. The Ring Magazine title IS much different
1) there are no sanctioning fees
2) you can only loss in the Ring
3) the champion is the man who beat the last champion
There was once a time where there was one champion per division, and the best fighter fought the best fighters. Every sports fan knew all the boxing champions. Boxing was a mainstream sport in the US.
The alphabet titles ruined this and the Ring trying to restore it.
I'd really like to agree and Yes, 2 & 3 are all noble points probably meant with good intentions toward boxing. And I don't dispute the merits. The motives.... well...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance UppercutQuote:
Originally Posted by fan johnny
This is the key point that you are missing. The Ring Magazine title IS much different
1) there are no sanctioning fees
2) you can only loss in the Ring
3) the champion is the man who beat the last champion
There was once a time where there was one champion per division, and the best fighter fought the best fighters. Every sports fan knew all the boxing champions. Boxing was a mainstream sport in the US.
The alphabet titles ruined this and the Ring trying to restore it.
Tell me what is the purpose of 1. sanctioning fees?
Sanctioning fees for the Ring come from its followers rather than from the fighter. It does not change the fact that the organization behind it makes its money through exploitation as do all sanctioning bodies. The beauty behind the Ring is that while the abc sanctioning bodies foot the bill, it can just reap the profits. All the while maintaining a positive image toward boxing fans and can even direct hostility toward them without looking like the bad guy.
There were fewer promoters and fewer sanctioning bodies in those times in history you write about which meant there were larger slices of the pie, and most of it went to the promoter and not the fighter. Today that pie has turned into a banquet at least for big$ fighters and the game is forced to evolve. I'm not so sure about the unknown fighters.
As far as the abc's ruing boxing, I'm not so sure it is valid. I might agree that the greed is infectious and they contributed to the downward attraction of the sport in terms of popularity, but ruing the sport, I doubt it.
Personally, I think people are drawn to drama that they can identify with or at least are entertained by.