The Man Who Beat The Man

Couple of arguments recently on here about the Man who beat the man not really being the man. Certain situations are more cloudy than others.

Just wondering what your guys' take is on it. I have my own personal view. Though I didn't really realise opinion was split on it.

The man who beat the man, say for example Fury beating Klitschko, is now the man, Fury is currently the number one man in the division. He beat the number one I'm the division, the lineal champion. (Oh my goodness Fury is our number one) Other fighters of course are possibly able to beat him, and he doesn't own all of the belts so he isn't the undisputed champion, but he is classified as currently the main man in the division.

However, this situation gets far murkier as we change the scenarios. At middleweight a little while back we had Cotto as the main man in the division. Why is he the main man? Because he defeated Sergio Martinez, who was the number one in the division. Of course for a long while he had a main rival in which it has been made rather clear he had no real intention of fighting. GGG. GGG has a title belt and is generally seen as the best Middleweight on the planet. If the man who is classed as the number one in the division doesn't want to face his nearest rival, should he still be allowed to be called the number one in the division. Boxing's system isn't perfect, but if the closest contender is trying to get the fight, but the number one doesn't want it, should we "strip" him of this number one spot.

Of course Cotto decided to fight Canelo, which was a big money fight, however he also decided to face Geale when GGG was clearly there for him.

Arguing about all of those particular situations aside, if the number one in the division clearly doesn't want to face the guy who is seen to be better than him by the majority of the fans, should we still categorise him as the number one?

Slightly confusing, I know, just wondering as to what your thoughts on it were?

Oh and hi again by the way.

Hi Alex, when a division like the current middleweight division or heavyweight has a clear traceable lineage, then I think the man that beat the man is the man. Even if he is clearly not the best boxer in the division. It's the way boxing always has been, take the much loved 606 icon Charley burley, he never fought the man, he never became the man.
I find it somewhat reassuring in this time of alphabet soup for fans, things haven't changed.

That being said wasn't Cotto a huge underdog in that fight?

Personally I don't think Cotto beats a prime Martinez (Martinez who fought Pavlik or even post Chavez Jr), but he beat the lineal champ

Now what GGG would have done to Martinez is an entirely different question.........

Canelo is making up his own weight class and I am not really paying any attention, he has a belt, but it doesn't mean he is the best.

That's why I'm hoping that the Heavyweight division keeps growing in stature, these diva demands from the lower weight classes will look laughable and show everyone that they have to step up big time

Canelo wont win any real credibility until he fights at the full 160lbs limit. GGG own two belts and for me is the man. He wont bow down to Canelo's weight demands.

I can see why fans are critical of the current middleweight senario though. Cotto winning the middleweight title at a catchweight of 159, defending it at a catchweight of 157lb, and losing the middleweight belt at a catchweight of 155lbs does muddy the water.

No one is arguing about the man that beat the man..

We are arguing about grey areas...

Spinks vacates and Tyson clears up only for Ring magazine to proclaim Spinks as champion because he is linear..

Holmes ducks Page and Witherspoon and vacates only to fight Stiffs for the IBF belt and stay linear champ..

Cruz linear over the great Nelson..

Linear becomes irrelevant when boxers play the system..

No argument about the man who beats the man being the man....

Everybody recognizes Fury as number 1..

No ones arguing that Fury is the number one, but lrts say for example. Fury manages to beat Wlad then goes to defend agaonst no hopers, whilst say Joshua cleans everyone else up, takes Wilder Povetkin Haye and another few major contenders and holds multiple belts but Fury refuses to face Joshua should Fury still be seen as number one when he's refusing his biggest challenge? Should as boxing fans us stand for that and still accept to see him as linear champ, just for example of course.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:No one is arguing about the man that beat the man..

We are arguing about grey areas...

Spinks vacates and Tyson clears up only for Ring magazine to proclaim Spinks as champion because he is linear..

Holmes ducks Page and Witherspoon and vacates only to fight Stiffs for the IBF belt and stay linear champ..

Cruz linear over the great Nelson..

Linear becomes irrelevant when boxers play the system..

No argument about the man who beats the man being the man....

Everybody recognizes Fury as number 1..

There's a crank on another thread who doesn't recognise Fury (or Klitschko before him) as the number one.

You contradict yourself here: You say there's no argument about the "man who beats the man being the man" yet argue that Tyson, Nelson, Golovkin and others were/are "the men" over Spinks, Canelo and Cruz.

As it stands Fury is definitely the man. However if he did (he won't) fight soft touches and the likes of Joshua cleans up, (he won't) then AJ  would be the man in my opinion.

Shannon Briggs beat Big George Foreman whilst he was still "linear champ". Did anyone consider Briggs as "The Man" apart from Shannon himself? Nope.

Alex, I was on the porter and (your 'hot pick')  thurman thread the other day was, wondering what had happened to you. good to see you posting.

Haz, I'm not seeing the contradiction from Truss. He say's no argument in principle about the man who beat the man... providing the man hasn't obviously ducked or vacated to avoid the best challengers.

Identifying what's a duck, with all the usual contract/promotional/tv platform bollox is of course another matter entirely. Champions have been accused of avoiding the most dangerous challengers since boxing began.

For me, linear is what is, one measure.  It's a useful one, but it might not, as in the case of golovkin, tie in with the 'consensus best'.

When you have a fragmented sport without one over-riding governing body, sadly most of the time the people have to decide who the real number one is.

Mr Bounce wrote:Shannon Briggs beat Big George Foreman whilst he was still "linear champ". Did anyone consider Briggs as "The Man" apart from Shannon himself? Nope.

There were a few elements at play here:

1. Foreman's credibility as heavyweight champion took a nosedive when he elected to face the likes of Axel Schulz and Crawford Grimsley rather than the likes of Bowe or Holyfield (on top of the fact that he cut such an unlikely champion to start with).
2. Most observers thought Briggs was gifted the decision over George.
3. Bowe and Holyfield went to war for "the people's heavyweight championship" while Tyson was on the comeback trail and Lewis started to (finally) impress.

There was far more emphasis on the belts at that point (the situation has now obviously worsened with further proliferation of titles etc.). In reality, Briggs was the man (even if it was barely mentioned at the time). Thankfully Lewis beat both Briggs and Holyfield (to unify the big three belts) to clear that messy situation up.

hazharrison wrote:

Mr Bounce wrote:Shannon Briggs beat Big George Foreman whilst he was still "linear champ". Did anyone consider Briggs as "The Man" apart from Shannon himself? Nope.

There were a few elements at play here:

1. Foreman's credibility as heavyweight champion took a nosedive when he elected to face the likes of Axel Schulz and Crawford Grimsley rather than the likes of Bowe or Holyfield (on top of the fact that he cut such an unlikely champion to start with).
2. Most observers thought Briggs was gifted the decision over George.
3. Bowe and Holyfield went to war for "the people's heavyweight championship" while Tyson was on the comeback trail and Lewis started to (finally) impress.

There was far more emphasis on the belts at that point (the situation has now obviously worsened with further proliferation of titles etc.). In reality, Briggs was the man (even if it was barely mentioned at the time). Thankfully Lewis beat both Briggs and Holyfield (to unify the big three belts) to clear that messy situation up.

You just change your argument all the time.......You're so hypocritical......

Foreman beat the man.....and Briggs beat him......whatever anyone thinks about the decision....Countless challengers and champions have lost controversial decisions..

You either have judges or you don't.....

Stop slipping and sliding to save face..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Mr Bounce wrote:Shannon Briggs beat Big George Foreman whilst he was still "linear champ". Did anyone consider Briggs as "The Man" apart from Shannon himself? Nope.

There were a few elements at play here:

1. Foreman's credibility as heavyweight champion took a nosedive when he elected to face the likes of Axel Schulz and Crawford Grimsley rather than the likes of Bowe or Holyfield (on top of the fact that he cut such an unlikely champion to start with).
2. Most observers thought Briggs was gifted the decision over George.
3. Bowe and Holyfield went to war for "the people's heavyweight championship" while Tyson was on the comeback trail and Lewis started to (finally) impress.

There was far more emphasis on the belts at that point (the situation has now obviously worsened with further proliferation of titles etc.). In reality, Briggs was the man (even if it was barely mentioned at the time). Thankfully Lewis beat both Briggs and Holyfield (to unify the big three belts) to clear that messy situation up.

You just change your argument all the time.......You're so hypocritical......

Foreman beat the man.....and Briggs beat him......whatever anyone thinks about the decision....Countless challengers and champions have lost controversial decisions..

You either have judges or you don't.....

Stop slipping and sliding to save face..

I haven't changed my argument once! Merely explaining why there was barely any credence given to Briggs as lineal champ.

"There are a few elements at play here Mr Bounce because I'm up the junction with my argument !!"...

Give it up Haz..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:"There are a few elements at play here Mr Bounce because I'm up the junction with my argument !!"...

Give it up Haz..

Go on then, elaborate. You're the one contradicting yourself.

Who cares?

shenglong2015 wrote:Who cares?

Me, obviously.

hazharrison wrote:

shenglong2015 wrote:Who cares?

Me, obviously.

So, and who are you?

shenglong2015 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

shenglong2015 wrote:Who cares?

Me, obviously.

So, and who are you?

Your conscience.