This word... BUM... IT'S GARBAGE!

[barrykil1980]

very true Pide Of...
but have you noticed that its mostly either young punks that know absolutely nothing about the sport or people that have never boxed in their lives that like to call fighters "bums".
any man who gets in the ring is a damn sight braver than your average asshole on the street who only feels like he can fight when he`s polluted drunk!!!
i think its the most insulting thing a fighter could be called.i hate the fucking word.
Mickey Goldman`s gotta lot to answer for

[match]

Actually the common consensus is represented by the Ring Magazine's ratings.
This system is held in high regard by all and is generally accepted as the best system available to us and they had Ricky Hatton as their Champion upon his upset victory over Kostya Tszyu. Not Mayweather. You will find few to agree with you there.

Without a formal ranking system boxing would descend into an even more blurry mess with more fighters claiming that they are the champion and various sects of fans inclined to believe them. This disuades the use of "common sense."

Um, actually, it doesn't, considering Floyd was 'Ring Magazine's' #1 P4P fighter in the world

[donnydarkoIRL]

Um, actually, it doesn't, considering Floyd was 'Ring Magazine's' #1 P4P fighter in the world

Pound for Pound is an abstract Title which has actually no physical semblance in Boxing terms.

One could be the pound for pound most talented fighter in the world, but by failing to fight for a world title, he never becomes a champion.

Your contradictory posts are really pretty amusing.

[barrykil1980]

The fact that we WANT one unified champion unfortunately doesn't change the fact that Lewis was not the only champion at the time.


If you take note of the Middleweight division now, We have two World Champions (Abraham and Pavlik) who have legitimate claims at being Champ. (I have discluded Sturm as he has been inconsistent)
The same for the curent Cruiser weight division, Although Haye is the unified Champion, Maccarenelli does have a claim at the World title too.

Macca really has fuck all claim to the title.
who has he really beaten
Haye is THE man until Enzo can prove otherwise.
the middleweights are different.Abraham and Pavlk both have legitimate claims.Bob Arum...lets see`em go at it for chrisssake.all his talk about how great he thinks Pavlik is........and he`s trying to put him in with John Duddy.

[Ghost]

Actually the common consensus is represented by the Ring Magazine's ratings.
This system is held in high regard by all and is generally accepted as the best system available to us

To the fans maybe, but not to all those in the industry.

[match]

Pound for Pound is an abstract Title which has actually no physical semblance in Boxing terms.

One could be the pound for pound most talented fighter in the world, but by failing to fight for a world title, he never becomes a champion.

Your contradictory posts are really pretty amusing.

Almost as amusing as your inablity to comprehend my argument.

[donnydarkoIRL]

Macca really has fuck all claim to the title.
who has he really beaten
Haye is THE man until Enzo can prove otherwise.
the middleweights are different.Abraham and Pavlk both have legitimate claims.Bob Arum...lets see`em go at it for chrisssake.all his talk about how great he thinks Pavlik is........and he`s trying to put him in with John Duddy.

Before the Brathwaite fight, wayne was claimed to be a dangerous fighter who could potentially beat Maccarenelli. What transpired was the vidence that Brathwaite was past it and not a game fighter any longer. regardless, Enzo got in with a fighter who was viewed to be dangerous and won, so why no claim at being a champion?

[donnydarkoIRL]

Almost as amusing as your inablity to comprehend my argument.

I can comprehend your arguement, thats why I can see you hold two conflicting views, which contradict each other.

[match]

Gee, let's see, the best fighter is the true champion. Sounds like one view to me.

sorry

[donnydarkoIRL]

Gee, let's see, the best fighter is the true champion. Sounds like one view to me.
sorry

An to establish the best fighter we utilise a subjective, common sense approach which elects the fighter not on his achievemnets but on his potential achievements.

If you believe as you claim that Mayweather was the best at 140 you completely disregard the thought that to be the best fighter in a division you must beat the best fighters in the division.
You disregard the well established use of rankings and unifications. Could Mayweather have beaten Hatton and Tszyu? yes.,
did he? no.

[match]

Hence the term, 'common sense.'

Good night!

[donnydarkoIRL]

Well as a poster here uses as his signature, Common sense is not all that common. A thought that is reinforced by your posts, should you wish and leave this debate as it is, I think we have established, that to some extent rankings will always be the most sensible way to catalogue boxers and their abilities, however, we do need to conclusively decide on one system to live by.

[Mikkel_K]

The fact that we WANT one unified champion unfortunately doesn't change the fact that Lewis was not the only champion at the time.


If you take note of the Middleweight division now, We have two World Champions (Abraham and Pavlik) who have legitimate claims at being Champ. (I have discluded Sturm as he has been inconsistent)
The same for the curent Cruiser weight division, Although Haye is the unified Champion, Maccarenelli does have a claim at the World title too.

No offense Donny, but I don't get this logic at all. Why does Enzo have a legit claim at the world title, while Steve Cunningham doesn't? (I assume you left him out on purpose). Why does Abraham have a legit claim at the world title, but not Felix Sturm?The 'too inconsistent' remark seems very much like your own application of the concept 'common sense', which you seem to belittle in your other posts in this thread.

I somewhat agree with you that the concept of 'common sense' is highly problematic, and that different sectors of fans are unlikely to agree on things based on this notion (to quote Voltaire: 'Common sense isn't too common'). However, putting the faith in a simple magazine whose rankings are made up by a bunch of random people (yes, I am exaggerating here), and which in turn is owned by a promoter - that seems questionable as well. And the alphabet organizations - no way, they can be trusted (although I do feel that a belt is a belt is a belt, and those have value). So perhaps common sense really is the best indicator?

[donnydarkoIRL]

No offense Donny, but I don't get this logic at all. Why does Enzo have a legit claim at the world title, while Steve Cunningham doesn't? (I assume you left him out on purpose). Why does Abraham have a legit claim at the world title, but not Felix Sturm?The 'too inconsistent' remark seems very much like your own application of the concept 'common sense', which you seem to belittle in your other posts in this thread.
I actually didn't leave Cunningham out on purpose at all. He's as legitimate a champion as any. He holds a belt which is of sufficient calibre to deem him a world leader.
Sturm on the other hand I intentionally excluded. He hasn't been very consistent over the past number of years and although participating in a number of risky and challenging fights, he has taken on very few fighters who are situated in the top ten of the Rankings. I would think that this indicates he is competeing at a lower level of competition...Wouldn't you?

I understand your view on the cpompromised objectivity of the ring and ithe alpahbet organisations, but i reality the ring is the best source we as boxuing fans have. I'm interested in your point of view though Mikkel so what would you suggest?

Thats not a challenge, I'm actually interested in your opinion here.

[Mikkel_K]

No offense Donny, but I don't get this logic at all. Why does Enzo have a legit claim at the world title, while Steve Cunningham doesn't? (I assume you left him out on purpose). Why does Abraham have a legit claim at the world title, but not Felix Sturm?The 'too inconsistent' remark seems very much like your own application of the concept 'common sense', which you seem to belittle in your other posts in this thread.
I actually didn't leave Cunningham out on purpose at all. He's as legitimate a champion as any. He holds a belt which is of sufficient calibre to deem him a world leader.
Sturm on the other hand I intentionally excluded. He hasn't been very consistent over the past number of years and although participating in a number of risky and challenging fights, he has taken on very few fighters who are situated in the top ten of the Rankings. I would think that this indicates he is competeing at a lower level of competition...Wouldn't you?

I understand your view on the cpompromised objectivity of the ring and ithe alpahbet organisations, but i reality the ring is the best source we as boxuing fans have. I'm interested in your point of view though Mikkel so what would you suggest?

Thats not a challenge, I'm actually interested in your opinion here.

To be honest, I don't have the answer. I do think that The Ring is the best thing out there, although I certainly have reservations as for putting it too much on a piedestal. I dont like belts that do not have mandatories (and, yes, I know mandatories can be annoying (see: Ray Austin), but just letting champs decide their opposition themselves aren't a good solution either (see: Pongsaklek)). As for their rankings, look no further than Danish Thomas Damgaard for a fighter who managed to keep a Ring-ranking way beyond what he deserved based on his opposition.

The good thing about The Ring is that they're subjective rankings. And I mean that when I call it positive. Basing rankings merely on the 'a beat b, so he will beat c' doesn't work too well in my book. I had a debate on Marco Huck once - this is a fighter whose best win came against an opponent who decided to leave the ring after the first round and then got disqualified (Pietro Aurino). How do you take that into account in an objective ranking? How do you account for the 'common sense' - yes, I am misusing this concept, but I do believe there is something to be said for this concept, still - that tells you that no, Carlos Baldomir is not the best welterweight in the world?

However, the bad thing about The Ring's rankings is also that they are subjective. Yes, I contradict myself here, but that's because there is two sides to the argument. And Oscar buying into the magazine certainly makes me more worried about this point as well, even if I don't think there has been grounds for concern yet.

I might be the only one in this world, but I actually like the IBO rankings. At least they are rather comprehensive - going to no. 100 - without being so random as the boxrec ones.

If there is to be a solution, it might be The Ring's belts and rankings. On the other hand I actually feel (like you?) that the alphabelts mean something. Not everything, but something. They are achievements - and great ones at that. Since I have anyway written this long, meaningless drivel, I might as well extend this with my tennis analogy (don't worry, it's better than my football analogy, which I could bring up instead): The alphabelts are like grand slam tournaments. Winning the Australian Open was a great thing for Djokovic, but it doesnt make him the best in the world. Common sense will tell you that that's still Federer. That doesnt make winning Australian Open worthless, far from it. Now - in tennis there is an 'official ranking', but does it really matter? Being no. 1 is great - and the boxing equivalent is the Ring title - but no one will remember if you are 5 or 7 or 9. What matters - in history at least - is your wins. Who you defeated, when and where. Did you win a title etc. The same things should count in boxing - but these things does necessitate a certain amount of common sense.

It is us - as boxing fans - who put perspective into titles, rankings etc. The results only matters as much, as we percept that they do. BUT - this does not render titles, rankings etc obsolete, rather they can be used as 'guidelines' for us.

Wauw. What a shit-long post. And I didnt even make the point that I set out to make (yet) - that I disagree with your distinguishing between Sturm and the others (I am sorry for calling you out on Cunningham, as there was no reason to), as it just doesnt fit with the way you perceive the system in other regards. Either you subscribe to the notion that 'common sense' matters, or you don't. I subscribe to the first position, but not to match' idea that it is all that matter.

And - again I might be the only one, but it seem fitting to admit in a thread against denigrating fighters as bums - I don't actually mind having more champs. I don't mind that quite a few fighters get to hold onto something. As long as they are willing to clear up the confusion and prove themselves once in a while.