...Not because I don't like them. Usyk, whom I believe should again outpoint the Gypsy King; He's a great boxer, consummate professional and a fantastic personality.
It's because casual fans are MUCH too easily confused about meaning of what is often described as the "oldest, richest and more international title in sports".
Before Usyk-Fury I unified the belts (for a few weeks), even people who frequent this board were unclear about why the linial heavyweight title is the only real title!
If you can learn only one thing about boxing, it should be that the championship officially began when Onomastus of Smyrna, when he won the title in 688 B.C., and that the modern day's era continued with American John L. Sullivan's winning that title, and reigning from February 7, 1882, to September 7, 1892; where he won the title under Bareknuckle London prize ring rules and lost it using gloved, Marques of Queensbury rules.
2,712 years, same sport, same title.
Since Sullivan's time, the title had to be re-engaged just three times using the top active contenders in a box-off, when the reigning champ retired and never came back again. This occured when Gene Tunney retired July 28, 1928, and again when Rocky Marciano retired April 27, 1956, and finally, when Lennox Lewis retired February 6, 2004.
On those occasions, the press and the public saw no issue with how the line was reconnected, and the history was clear. But in very recent years, the collection of for-profit companies who sell title belts to promoters have gained the attention of the boxing writers and bloggers; very few of whom are proper historians of the sport; lending an opportunity to the sanctioning bodies to legitimize their personal claims about the value of their product, by hoodwinking the fans.
Therefore, should Oleksandr Usyk or Tyson Fury retire permanently while holding the title, a drawn-out process will surely follow, with self interested promoters, sanctioning bodies and even media outlets seeking to legitimize themselves and increase their profits, even if that means confounding the fanbase about the history of a sport that is largely tolerated by civilized society only because of it's rich, multicultural history.
Just my thoughts.
It's because casual fans are MUCH too easily confused about meaning of what is often described as the "oldest, richest and more international title in sports".
Before Usyk-Fury I unified the belts (for a few weeks), even people who frequent this board were unclear about why the linial heavyweight title is the only real title!
If you can learn only one thing about boxing, it should be that the championship officially began when Onomastus of Smyrna, when he won the title in 688 B.C., and that the modern day's era continued with American John L. Sullivan's winning that title, and reigning from February 7, 1882, to September 7, 1892; where he won the title under Bareknuckle London prize ring rules and lost it using gloved, Marques of Queensbury rules.
2,712 years, same sport, same title.
Since Sullivan's time, the title had to be re-engaged just three times using the top active contenders in a box-off, when the reigning champ retired and never came back again. This occured when Gene Tunney retired July 28, 1928, and again when Rocky Marciano retired April 27, 1956, and finally, when Lennox Lewis retired February 6, 2004.
On those occasions, the press and the public saw no issue with how the line was reconnected, and the history was clear. But in very recent years, the collection of for-profit companies who sell title belts to promoters have gained the attention of the boxing writers and bloggers; very few of whom are proper historians of the sport; lending an opportunity to the sanctioning bodies to legitimize their personal claims about the value of their product, by hoodwinking the fans.
Therefore, should Oleksandr Usyk or Tyson Fury retire permanently while holding the title, a drawn-out process will surely follow, with self interested promoters, sanctioning bodies and even media outlets seeking to legitimize themselves and increase their profits, even if that means confounding the fanbase about the history of a sport that is largely tolerated by civilized society only because of it's rich, multicultural history.
Just my thoughts.
billeau2
Comment