Do you as Brits want a lot of "World" Champions??

Or would you rather saviour the ones that earn it and are genuinely World class????

The USA is obviously massive compared to Britain and as the home of modern Boxing (John L, Corbett, Ketchel etc) was always going to have plenty to stake a claim on a World championship....We've had great success but have obviously had the cards stacked in our favor!!

For me... compared to the rest of Europe... Britain has had great success in Boxing over the years and has laid claim itself to plenty of great champions and legends of the sport...

Are you one of those who likes to see plenty of shall we say lesser World champs to put the British the flag on the map.....

Or do you think too many cheapens the honor and takes the gloss off those who are more deserving of such claim????

Do you as Brits want a lot of "World" champions????

Only if they are proper world champions like Froch, Khan, Harrison Haye, Calzaghe, Hatton, Wood and Witter to a lesser degree but the likes of Rees, Cleverly, Maccarinelli don't add anything to british boxings reputation.

British fighters fight more for crowns now than they ever did and yet Boxing is on the wane over here...

Maybe there is such a thing as too many chefs!!!

Interesting response Ghosty......I imagine when Honey beat The Don it was massive over here!!! However shouldn't think anybody other than Boxing fans would care if Macklin beat the no3 p4per...

and that's sad......probably because of the title pollution real achievements are being overlooked!!!!

I'm very much in the quality over quantity camp. Think I am right in saying there is no world title on the line tonight in New York but where Macklin to get the win that would mean far more to me and is an acheivement I would get way more excited about than Warren handing one of his boys an interim WBO world title.

I agree Jeffrey........Too many people reaching Everest..lessens the achievement.....

Macklin wins he has every right to take great pride in it..

Which is more than can be said for Maccarinelli and the like...

Give me 1 great champion for 3 paper champs - but I don't expect someone to win the world title and be the finished article any more.

If I was Argentinian - I'd take Martinez over 4 or 5 mere beltholders.

I think the WBO has had a big effect on Boxing in this Country..

How does Burns hold up as a "proper" champion?

The defence last week showed he is class and has more to offer.

Our best current champ in my opinion.

Don't think he's fought anybody to be honest........

Katsidis is a heavy bag with arms..who in fairness got absolutely caked off guerrero...

Need too see more of him.....before giving him class..........

I agree with Rowley definitely quality over quantity.

I would much rather see a British fighter fight the best in the division than fight for a paper title and avoid the best fighters in that division.

I look at Froch who is looking to fight the very best win lose or draw and gets my respect for doing so.

I personally feel British boxing at the moment lacks quality.

Burns is a tough one, think its partially due to the fact that he doesnt look the part at a glance.

But gotta be fair in his biggest fights where he's been a big underdog hes come out trumps. Katsidis - even a slightly weathered version is generally gonna be a tough ask for most fighters at LW ask Marquez. Also he was an even bigger underdog for his title shot at SFW and came up with an extremely gritty performance, worthy of the World Champ status if you ask me.

Adam D wrote:How does Burns hold up as a "proper" champion?

The defence last week showed he is class and has more to offer.

Our best current champ in my opinion.

At super featherweight maybe but his defences were so awful its hard to take his reign seriously while at lightweight he's simply a paper champion who would be blown away by the big players in the division.

I personally don't find Burns that impressive. He would be found out if he took on any of the big boys.

I personally don't find Burns that impressive. He would be found out if he took on any of the big boys.

This is a slightly daft article in that it subtly coerces the reader into giving the answer you're supposed to give.

Afterall, who on earth is going to choose quantity over quality, (apart from me) I mean really?!

For all the British world title holders we've had in the last few years, which ones have been the genuine number one in their division.

Aja off the top of my head would have to say Hatton at light welter, Calzaghe at supermiddle and Haye at cruiser, may be wrong but think you would be stretching it to make a similar claim for many others without going back to the days of Naz and Lewis.

Yep, got to agree with rowley. Calzaghe, Haye and toward the end of his days Hatton. The amount of time Ricky spent defending his WBU title was cringeworthy. You could argue Froch for a while but Ward took that from him.

We all know the amount of titles now is just a joke, for a while I chose to recognise only the WBC but thjat's firmly oput of the window.

The photo of Brook with those belts post Hatton fight is just laughable.
Sums it all up.

KingMonkey wrote:Yep, got to agree with rowley. Calzaghe, Haye and toward the end of his days Hatton. The amount of time Ricky spent defending his WBU title was cringeworthy. You could argue Froch for a while but Ward took that from him.

We all know the amount of titles now is just a joke, for a while I chose to recognise only the WBC but thjat's firmly oput of the window.

The photo of Brook with those belts post Hatton fight is just laughable.
Sums it all up.

Yes well I have to take issue with Froch. At no point has Froch proven to be any more than a paper champion. You could claim that he's held the best belt but is that really so given the WBC is as much a joke as the others - Chavez Jnr, Don King etc. I know everyone likes him for his bravery and take on allcomers attitude but sorry he was never the main man.

Much as I am a fan of Froch would similarly have to take issue with claims he could ever be classed as best in the division, for me to be the best in the division you either have to beat the person considered to be the man at the weight as Hatton did with Kostya or Haye did with Mormeck or unify as Calzaghe did when beating Lacy and Kessler, as good as his opposition was Carl did not really do this and there was always people throughout his reign with equally as good or better claims to be considered the man at the weight

He was as much the main man as Ward until they came together. Bute couldn't lay claim and Kessler only beat him narrowly before having to vacate.

Anyway, the super six sorted all that out.

I would love Froch to beat all others around him and be undisputed champion, but now with Ward on the scene and Froch's age it aint gonna happen.

KingMonkey wrote:He was as much the main man as Ward until they came together. Bute couldn't lay claim and Kessler only beat him narrowly before having to vacate.

Anyway, the super six sorted all that out.

Froch can never claim to even being equal to the main man at anytime. Given that Ward beat Kessler (regarded the best post Calzaghe), Kessler beat Froch then how could Froch be regarded as the man or even hold a share of that distinction?

Froch v Bute is Froch's biggest test of his SMW credentials yet. Froch has not beaten any of his esteemed Super Middleweight peers. His big wins coming against drained Light heavies or blown up middles.

Wow, that told me then.

Super D Boon wrote:

KingMonkey wrote:He was as much the main man as Ward until they came together. Bute couldn't lay claim and Kessler only beat him narrowly before having to vacate.

Anyway, the super six sorted all that out.

Froch can never claim to even being equal to the main man at anytime. Given that Ward beat Kessler (regarded the best post Calzaghe), Kessler beat Froch then how could Froch be regarded as the man or even hold a share of that distinction?

Froch v Bute is Froch's biggest test of his SMW credentials yet. Froch has not beaten any of his esteemed Super Middleweight peers. His big wins coming against drained Light heavies or blown up middles.

Big Froch fan then I take it.

Look all I'm saying is Froch hasn't beaten any of his main rivals. There are three, and so far he's down 0-2. If he beats Bute however he'll go up massively in my estimation and that of everyone else's. Big ask though.

To be fair to Super, I am genuinely as big a Froch fan as anyone on here but he is right on this one. Froch has never won a unification bout and did not win his title off the man at the weight, for me those are the only ways you can be considered the top dog at the weight, there are points you can argue he may have had as good an argument as anyone else to be considered top dog but this is not the same.

Not saying he was ever the main man but to say his best wins have come against drained Light Heavies or blown up middles is a bit unfair.

Dirrell and Taylor were good wins and beat Abraham comfortably.
Lets be fair Abraham wasn't been called a pumped up middle when he knocked Taylor out.

Theres no evidence to say Pascal was drained at the weight despite moving up to Lightheavy,if Pascal was drained he done one hell of a job of hiding it, the fight with Froch was a cracker.

Froch whilst not the best in the division proved time and time again to be far more than a paper champion, the overly critical assessment of his opposition just comes across as sour grapes.

Froch was a paper champion. What seperates him from other paper champions was his willingness to prove himself to be the best at his weight. Alas it was not to be seeing as he came up short against Kessler and very short against Ward.

Credit to him. Wish there were more like him (Chavez Jnr anyone).

azania wrote:Froch was a paper champion. What seperates him from other paper champions was his willingness to prove himself to be the best at his weight. Alas it was not to be seeing as he came up short against Kessler and very short against Ward.

Credit to him. Wish there were more like him (Chavez Jnr anyone).

This ^. Froch has balls of steel and more heart than most but he's never actually beaten a current or former SMW champ in a title fight. Only SMW champ he's beaten is Robin Reid. Vacant WBC fight vs Pascal, same against Abraham. Definition of a paper champ, but the very least deserving boxer out there to be called that.

Considering all the interim, diamond, emeritus and super championships knocking about. Perception is just as, if not more important than tangible championships. If the fans thought Froch was a bonafide champ, then he was.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Froch whilst not the best in the division proved time and time again to be far more than a paper champion, the overly critical assessment of his opposition just comes across as sour grapes.

There's no sour grapes, just a statement of fact.

You cannot fault Froch for his ambition, the most ambitious boxer on the planet quite possibly. However, ambition and success are two different things. Given that Froch has never proved himself the best at the weight or the true world champion at the weight he can only be regarded a paper champion.

I suppose we all have our own particular ideas about what, exactly, constitutes someone being a 'paper champion.' Simply dismissing any beltholder who has a title but not Ring Magazine recognition, as some on here are, is one way of doing it.

To me, though, a paper champion is someone who collects a belt while undeserving, and afterwards loses almost immediately or doesn't defend this belt against quality opposition. With that in mind, I think calling Froch a paper champion is harsh; I'm not sure that labelling any titlist outside of the Ring Magazine champions with this term is fair.

Cleverly, to me, is the very definition of a paper champion right now, in much the same way that Chavez Jr is. Povetkin, Shumenov, perhaps Geale etc are all in this class, too. Froch, however, doesn't belong in it, I'd say. But I'll stress again, the term 'paper champion' does seem to be very much open to interpretation.

A lot depends on how you define paper champion Super, but for me a term like that has certain derisory and dismissive connotations which are more than a little harsh when applied to Froch, for me a paper champion is a guy who has received the belt under dubious circumstances and then shown a complete or marked unwillingness to prove himself worthy of the title of world champion or match himself with the other people making similar claims in the division, a perfect example would be Povetkin.

None of this really applies to Froch who whatever his limitations has tried to fight the best and has behaved like a proper world champion, obviously paper champ is a completely subjective term but I prefer to describe Froch as a belt holder rather than a paper champ.

Think the likes of Gavin Ress and Enzo Maccarinelli are the very definition of a 'paper' champion.

Being fair to Enzo he did have one good fight against Big Truck

Well perhaps I'm a bit harsh in my definition of Paper Champion as I see it as follows:

Paper Champion = Someone who holds a "world title" but at no point has proven himself to be the world champion in the classic sense of the world i.e. the number one fighter in his category.

I agree that it isn't really fair to put Froch in the same company as Cleverly, Shumenov, Stieglitz etc but like I said ambition and success don't necessarily go hand in hand.

As for Povetkin I don't regard him as a paper champion at all, I think he's lower than that - I classify him as a "Fake Champion" as he's not even the best according to his governing body.