Fury: IBF prefer belt in USA

First topic message reminder :

http://www.skysports.com/boxing/news/12183/10138380/tyson-fury-says-ibf-want-to-keep-their-heavyweight-title-in-america

He's got a point.

Mr Bounce wrote:Maybe so, but he beat Akinwande who was the then WBO title holder - the only reason it wasn't a unification was that the WBC did not recognise the WBO at the time. As a result big huggy Henry relinquished his title and chased the WBC title  and the money.

Exactly my point. Virtually impossible to hold all of the belts at the same time.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:Canelo is only A champion not THE champion and until such time as he has beaten all other belt holders he cannot be "the man"

So Tyson, Holyfield and Lewis were never "the man" because they never beat the WBO "champion"?

Lewis did beat the WBO champion and Tyson was fully unified before the WBO even existed.

So did he stop being THE champion when Damiani became WBO champ in 1989? Do you see how sackless this argument is?

Good night mate..

catchweight wrote:Seldom going to see 4 belts unified. There is an outside shot of it happening at light heavyweight and middleweight if Stevenson and Canelo can step up. The chances of staying unified are zero the way the governing bodies operate.

Isn't Hopkins the only one who's held all the four belts at once? He beat DLH for the WBO belt while holding the WBC, IBF and WBA super world middleweight champ. He managed to hold these four belts for ten months before losing to Taylor.

Floyd could have done it too. He would have made the bodies too much money to be stripped.

You seem to change the goalposts as soon as your opinion is shown to be garbage, the WBO meant nothing until after Lewis.

For me, the WBO has always been the lowest belt anyway. The fact that the other belts have all fallen in prestige hasn't made the WBO belt more appealing. I look at the WBO belt like the League Cup. It's better to win it than win nothing, but I'd sooner win the Prem, Champions League or the FA Cup if I had a choice.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You seem to change the goalposts as soon as your opinion is shown to be garbage, the WBO meant nothing until after Lewis.

My opinion is garbage for suggesting Lewis, Holyfield and Tyson have all been legit heavyweight champions whereas you feel only Tyson was (for a spell until Damiani came along)? You must also think that Klitschko was never the true champion - and that Fury isn't now?

As WBC champ, Lewis could never have won the WBO belt. Akinwande was actually forced to relinquish the belt in order to fight Lewis! And even if you discount that - you must think Lewis had one of the shortest reigns in history after the WBA stripped him for facing his toughest challenger! And my opinion is garbage! Dear God.

Anyone who thinks that to be a true champion you need to win all the ABC belts is living in a parallel universe. To humour you: How does a WBA super champion win the regular WBA belt? Do they also need the interim belt or do you just get to pick and choose which belts are included in your policy?

My stance is pretty simple. A true champ comes out of 1 and 2 facing off (like Rigo and Donaire) and remains that until they're beaten in the ring (the way boxing is supposed to be).

Good luck with your alphabet fetish!

You genuinely don't have a clue what my opinion on the matter is do you and have jumped in with two feet as usual; Tyson and Lewis both had a prolonged period when they were universally recognised as the best in the world. Being stripped of a title means bugger all if you beat all the champions something Wlad has never done, he was the best in the world but was never the undisputed champion because of his brother therefore Fury also isn't.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You genuinely don't have a clue what my opinion on the matter is do you and have jumped in with two feet as usual; Tyson and Lewis both had a prolonged period when they were universally recognised as the best in the world. Being stripped of a title means bugger all if you beat all the champions something Wlad has never done, he was the best in the world but was never the undisputed champion because of his brother therefore Fury also isn't.

Ah, so it's all just an anti-Fury thing?!!

Wlad beat Povetkin (after Vitali had retired) when the pair were ranked 1 and 2. Like Lewis and Tyson, Klitschko was, in your own words, "universally recognised as the best in the world."

Like it or not, Fury is the man at heavyweight. Britain's third ever heavyweight king after Fitz and Lewis.

Lot of hate for Fury.

This idea you need a cast in stone scientific formula to work out who is or isn't the champion at the weight. Perish the thought we should employ our own judgement and intellect to working it out.

Wlad was quite clearly the best heavyweight in the world when Fury fought him. By beating him Fury inherits said status. To argue otherwise seems quite preposterous to my mind.

Rowley wrote:This idea you need a cast in stone scientific formula to work out who is or isn't the champion at the weight. Perish the thought we should employ our own judgement and intellect to working it out.

Wlad was quite clearly the best heavyweight in the world when Fury fought him. By beating him Fury inherits said status. To argue otherwise seems quite preposterous to my mind.

Sums it up perfectly...

Fury for me number 1 heavy....GGG number 1 middle.......Nelson was number 1 Featherweight over Mcguigan/Cruz/Esparragoza...

Rowley wrote:This idea you need a cast in stone scientific formula to work out who is or isn't the champion at the weight. Perish the thought we should employ our own judgement and intellect to working it out.

Wlad was quite clearly the best heavyweight in the world when Fury fought him. By beating him Fury inherits said status. To argue otherwise seems quite preposterous to my mind.

Here here.

hazharrison wrote:

Rowley wrote:This idea you need a cast in stone scientific formula to work out who is or isn't the champion at the weight. Perish the thought we should employ our own judgement and intellect to working it out.

Wlad was quite clearly the best heavyweight in the world when Fury fought him. By beating him Fury inherits said status. To argue otherwise seems quite preposterous to my mind.

Here here.

You're the one promoting this formula...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Rowley wrote:This idea you need a cast in stone scientific formula to work out who is or isn't the champion at the weight. Perish the thought we should employ our own judgement and intellect to working it out.

Wlad was quite clearly the best heavyweight in the world when Fury fought him. By beating him Fury inherits said status. To argue otherwise seems quite preposterous to my mind.

Here here.

You're the one promoting this formula...

Formula? One bloke beating another? You must have been a whiz at chemistry.

I was "here here-ing" the remark about Fury.

Rowley wrote:This idea you need a cast in stone scientific formula to work out who is or isn't the champion at the weight. Perish the thought we should employ our own judgement and intellect to working it out.

Wlad was quite clearly the best heavyweight in the world when Fury fought him. By beating him Fury inherits said status. To argue otherwise seems quite preposterous to my mind.

Wlad was the best Heavyweight in the world because he beat ALL the challengers out there, Fury doesn't inherit that status because I don't think he's the best in the world, it's a status that has to be earned over time not through one fight. Boxing has such a broken system that lineal championships mean about as much as an alphabet title, Alvarez is not the best Middleweight in the world and most probably gets knocked out by GGG so his lineal status means sod all.

Rigondeaux is seen as the best Super Bantamweight in the world and rightly so, he doesn't need that lineal title for us to know that nor does Gonzalez nor did Ward or Mayweather.

Across the seventeen divisions there are 6 recognised lineal champions according to Haz's TBRB rankings;

Fury- Divisional number one but seen as a vulnerable champion
Stevenson- Lineal but a fight against his biggest rival doesn't seem like materialising
Ward- Hasn't fought at Super Middleweight for over 2 years
Alvarez- Won title at a catchweight from a champion who never fought at the full limit whilst the consensus number one has been left out in the cold
Rigondeaux- The divisions number one but fights sparingly against average opposition
Gonzalez- Clear number one who looks set to clear out the division definitively

How I see it....

Fury is number 1 but not the best...

Can't support a system where someone like Nelson can't unify and remains number 2 to Stevie Cruz..

Only Wlad and maybe Haye trouble Fury imo. If he trains hard and is focused, I think he will be hard to beat.

Joshua kills him

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Rowley wrote:This idea you need a cast in stone scientific formula to work out who is or isn't the champion at the weight. Perish the thought we should employ our own judgement and intellect to working it out.

Wlad was quite clearly the best heavyweight in the world when Fury fought him. By beating him Fury inherits said status. To argue otherwise seems quite preposterous to my mind.

Wlad was the best Heavyweight in the world because he beat ALL the challengers out there, Fury doesn't inherit that status because I don't think he's the best in the world, it's a status that has to be earned over time not through one fight. Boxing has such a broken system that lineal championships mean about as much as an alphabet title, Alvarez is not the best Middleweight in the world and most probably gets knocked out by GGG so his lineal status means sod all.

Rigondeaux is seen as the best Super Bantamweight in the world and rightly so, he doesn't need that lineal title for us to know that nor does Gonzalez nor did Ward or Mayweather.

Across the seventeen divisions there are 6 recognised lineal champions according to Haz's TBRB rankings;

Fury- Divisional number one but seen as a vulnerable champion
Stevenson- Lineal but a fight against his biggest rival doesn't seem like materialising
Ward- Hasn't fought at Super Middleweight for over 2 years
Alvarez-  Won title at a catchweight from a champion who never fought at the full limit whilst the consensus number one has been left out in the cold
Rigondeaux- The divisions number one but fights sparingly against average opposition
Gonzalez- Clear number one who looks set to clear out the division definitively

So, who's the best heavyweight in the world?

Rowley wrote:This idea you need a cast in stone scientific formula to work out who is or isn't the champion at the weight. Perish the thought we should employ our own judgement and intellect to working it out.

Wlad was quite clearly the best heavyweight in the world when Fury fought him. By beating him Fury inherits said status. To argue otherwise seems quite preposterous to my mind.

You're covering two different things Rowley, who's the champion and who's the best.

Let's go back to 1978 for a minute. Muhammad Ali was the heavyweight champ until he lost to a seven fight novice called Leon Spinks. Did beating Ali make Spinks the heavyweight champ? Yes it did. Did it make him the best heavyweight in the world? I would say no. From what I've seen, both Norton and Holmes would have beaten Spinks in 1978 if they had been given the opportunity.

It's very possible that Fury isn't the best heavyweight in the world, even though he has earned the right to call himself the champ. There's nothing 'preposterous' about that.

Atila wrote:

Rowley wrote:This idea you need a cast in stone scientific formula to work out who is or isn't the champion at the weight. Perish the thought we should employ our own judgement and intellect to working it out.

Wlad was quite clearly the best heavyweight in the world when Fury fought him. By beating him Fury inherits said status. To argue otherwise seems quite preposterous to my mind.

You're covering two different things Rowley, who's the champion and who's the best.

Let's go back to 1978 for a minute. Muhammad Ali was the heavyweight champ until he lost to a seven fight novice called Leon Spinks. Did beating Ali make Spinks the heavyweight champ? Yes it did. Did it make him the best heavyweight in the world? I would say no. From what I've seen, both Norton and Holmes would have beaten Spinks in 1978 if they had been given the opportunity.

It's very possible that Fury isn't the best heavyweight in the world, even though he has earned the right to call himself the champ. There's nothing 'preposterous' about that.

Exactly. Same situation with Canelo, Spinks, Cruz etc.

For me though the essential difference between a lot of the situations being mentioned such as the current middleweight situation and Fury's is those are situations where somebody in the division has put together a set of wins and a body of work sufficient to have folk really questioning whether he is better than the champion. As such an asterix remains against the champion. No such fighter exists at heavy, at the time Fury beat him for me Wlad had earned his title as both champion and best in the division.

As such to deny Fury the right to call himself both seems more than a little churlish. Is he the best in the division, maybe not, but in the absence of any clear challenger to that title and on the back of what he achieved I am more than happy to call him such. Will accept preposterous was probably coming it a bit strong, but was more referring to the almost byzantine extent some posters seem willing to go to in order to deny him credit for what was a remarkable achievement.

Is there anyone in the division with a more legitimate claim to be #1 at HW than Fury??

Only person with a better CV is Wlad, who Fury beat. Unless you count Povetkin, who's CV outside of Klit is better than Fury's, but chuck their respective Wlad bouts in and Fury leapfrogs him again.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:How I see it....

Fury is number 1 but not the best...

Can't support a system where someone like Nelson can't unify and remains number 2 to Stevie Cruz..

Quite possibly the most sensible argument put forward for a while....if/when Fury beats Wlad again, beats Wilder/Povetkin and dispatches of Haye (who I still think of as a better fighter than Fury), despite my obvious dislike of him, I'll accept Fury is "the man. As it stands I feel one win over Wlad when placed against the dross that id the rest of Fury's record is not enough to elevate him to lofty heights some seems to currently have him.

Bit like calling yourself the best football team in the World cos you're leading Real Madrid 1-0 at halftime but still have to play Bayen and Barca.