Edited reality in boxing records.

[erics44]

I'm just curious about this, do any of you do this?

When I believe a fighter has lost a fight, I class it as a loss, and every time they fight I just sort of ignore the bullshit record they read out and go by my own edited reality.

For instance

In my own mind Adrien Broners record is 25-1-1.
Tyson Fury is 20-1-0
Calzaghe is 46-0-1 (Robin Reid got the draw)

I almost cringe when they mention these 2 in the same sentence as the word undefeated.



So when I fighter gets a bum decision do you class it as a loss or just accepted it and consider it a legit win?

I've done this for years. I accept the record on paper tho as you cannot really change what's happened. Thats why we have a number of paper champs throughout history like David Haye being a Heavyweight champ, er no, but I do refer to him as a former Cruiser Champ.

Personally I think you have to accept what's occurred but still have your own take on the situation. For me Calzaghe would have 2 draws, Reid & Hopkins although the Hopkins fight leaves a sour taste because if Joe could have carried on without Bernard feigning injury then it would have been a razor thin win the the Welshman.

Clarification: Yes I do this but also accept the record that's put forward. Contradictory I know.

Just coz you dont like shit doesnt mean some shit didnt happen

[scribbs]

I'm just curious about this, do any of you do this?

When I believe a fighter has lost a fight, I class it as a loss, and every time they fight I just sort of ignore the bullshit record they read out and go by my own edited reality.

For instance

In my own mind Adrien Broners record is 25-1-1.
Tyson Fury is 20-1-0
Calzaghe is 46-0-1 (Robin Reid got the draw)

I almost cringe when they mention these 2 in the same sentence as the word undefeated.



So when I fighter gets a bum decision do you class it as a loss or just accepted it and consider it a legit win?

I've done this for years. I accept the record on paper tho as you cannot really change what's happened. Thats why we have a number of paper champs throughout history like David Haye being a Heavyweight champ, er no, but I do refer to him as a former Cruiser Champ.

Personally I think you have to accept what's occurred but still have your own take on the situation. For me Calzaghe would have 2 draws, Reid & Hopkins although the Hopkins fight leaves a sour taste because if Joe could have carried on without Bernard feigning injury then it would have been a razor thin win the the Welshman.

Clarification: Yes I do this but also accept the record that's put forward. Contradictory I know.

Just coz you dont like shit doesnt mean some shit didnt happen

but he ain't a heavy champ. he's a heavyweight titlist & that's the difference.

being a boxing fan I would have thought you had some intelligence to know that

[erics44]

I'm just curious about this, do any of you do this?

When I believe a fighter has lost a fight, I class it as a loss, and every time they fight I just sort of ignore the bullshit record they read out and go by my own edited reality.

For instance

In my own mind Adrien Broners record is 25-1-1.
Tyson Fury is 20-1-0
Calzaghe is 46-0-1 (Robin Reid got the draw)

I almost cringe when they mention these 2 in the same sentence as the word undefeated.



So when I fighter gets a bum decision do you class it as a loss or just accepted it and consider it a legit win?

I've done this for years. I accept the record on paper tho as you cannot really change what's happened. Thats why we have a number of paper champs throughout history like David Haye being a Heavyweight champ, er no, but I do refer to him as a former Cruiser Champ.

Personally I think you have to accept what's occurred but still have your own take on the situation. For me Calzaghe would have 2 draws, Reid & Hopkins although the Hopkins fight leaves a sour taste because if Joe could have carried on without Bernard feigning injury then it would have been a razor thin win the the Welshman.

Clarification: Yes I do this but also accept the record that's put forward. Contradictory I know.

Just coz you dont like shit doesnt mean some shit didnt happen

but he ain't a heavy champ. he's a heavyweight titlist & that's the difference.

being a boxing fan I would have thought you had some intelligence to know that

o right soz, we now have gold champs, silver champs, interim belt holders, ring magazine champs, champs in recess, and titlists

that clears things up for me

but if you mean he wasnt the number one in the division then yes youre right, taking that approach tho you would have to go back through the last 30 years and strip a lot of very good world champions of their belts

[scribbs]

o right soz, we now have gold champs, silver champs, interim belt holders, ring magazine champs, champs in recess, and titlists

that clears things up for me

but if you mean he wasnt the number one in the division then yes youre right, taking that approach tho you would have to go back through the last 30 years and strip a lot of very good world champions of their belts

Not really that way. Throughout history including the old days when there was a smaller number of divisions it could still be murky. We have numerous belts & sometimes its a joke to distinguish who is the man & sometimes its obvious despite the numerous titlists on offer.

Ley me put it this way, Larry Homes was rightly (imo) called the heavy champ until beaten(?) by Spinks. You could argue that Witherspoon & Thomas were the top fighters in division when they held the WBC title but they never won title off of Holmes (some may have Tim winning when he challenged Larry). Looking back they were titlists holding down a strap but not the de facto crown of champion.

Guaranteed many years are blurry for a lot of divsions with too many titlists with no one stranding out, which is unfortunate but there are some instances when boxing fans know who is the man.

Now, regarding Haye who I like but has started being a dick. He won a title of Valuev who gained the title by beating Ruiz after they stripped the title of Chagaev who would lose to Wlad who with the exception of WBC title has unified the major belts, so (imo), is the man although there is debate in some quarters in regards to Vitali having a stake. So Haye won a title but many do but was not a champ (pedantic way to deal with it but it's how I make sense even if others don't agree).

I take my own view on boxing which is not the norm, so I put an asterisk on certain bouts but still accept the situation also. Its a muddled methodology but it works for me. You seem to have different viewpoint which I used to go by but found to be wearisome eventually, but hey - each to his own.

[erics44]

o right soz, we now have gold champs, silver champs, interim belt holders, ring magazine champs, champs in recess, and titlists

that clears things up for me

but if you mean he wasnt the number one in the division then yes youre right, taking that approach tho you would have to go back through the last 30 years and strip a lot of very good world champions of their belts

Not really that way. Throughout history including the old days when there was a smaller number of divisions it could still be murky. We have numerous belts & sometimes its a joke to distinguish who is the man & sometimes its obvious despite the numerous titlists on offer.

Ley me put it this way, Larry Homes was rightly (imo) called the heavy champ until beaten(?) by Spinks. You could argue that Witherspoon & Thomas were the top fighters in division when they held the WBC title but they never won title off of Holmes (some may have Tim winning when he challenged Larry). Looking back they were titlists holding down a strap but not the de facto crown of champion.

Guaranteed many years are blurry for a lot of divsions with too many titlists with no one stranding out, which is unfortunate but there are some instances when boxing fans know who is the man.

Now, regarding Haye who I like but has started being a dick. He won a title of Valuev who gained the title by beating Ruiz after they stripped the title of Chagaev who would lose to Wlad who with the exception of WBC title has unified the major belts, so (imo), is the man although there is debate in some quarters in regards to Vitali having a stake. So Haye won a title but many do but was not a champ (pedantic way to deal with it but it's how I make sense even if others don't agree).

I take my own view on boxing which is not the norm, so I put an asterisk on certain bouts but still accept the situation also. Its a muddled methodology but it works for me. You seem to have different viewpoint which I used to go by but found to be wearisome eventually, but hey - each to his own.

look at it that way if you like

its a bit of a far fetched way to justify david haye not being HW champ tho dont you think?

if we have had multiple titles for the last 30 years then there must have been multiple world champions who werent the number 1 so therefore in your mind only titlists and not world champions, so who decides who are the world champions nowadays? you?

[scribbs]

QUOTE=erics44;1171549]


look at it that way if you like - I do

its a bit of a far fetched way to justify david haye not being HW champ tho dont you think? No

if we have had multiple titles for the last 30 years then there must have been multiple world champions who werent the number 1 so therefore in your mind only titlists and not world champions, so who decides who are the world champions nowadays? you? Yes but in my view of modern boxing[/QUOTE]