I wonder how many of these paper champions will lose their belts this year? How well would Ward do without his home referees who allow him to cheat?
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Which of these titleholders are "paper" champions?
Collapse
-
-
Originally posted by -Tunney- View PostI wonder how many of these paper champions will lose their belts this year? How well would Ward do without his home referees who allow him to cheat?
Comment
-
It depends on the definition of paper champion.
Some belts are manufactured, but its claimant posts enough wins to legitimize the reign. I believe that to be the case with Ward, therefore would not consider him a paper champion.
I was actually going to use a title trace argument to plead a case for Cornelius Bundrage, but forgot that Spinks never avenged his loss against Verno Phillips (even though you can make the argument that Spinks was robbed in the fight anyway).
So Bundrage goes back to the paper title list, which means that IMO, Ward is the only one of the bunch for whom you can not make the claim.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JakeNDaBox View PostIt depends on the definition of paper champion.
Some belts are manufactured, but its claimant posts enough wins to legitimize the reign. I believe that to be the case with Ward, therefore would not consider him a paper champion.
I was actually going to use a title trace argument to plead a case for Cornelius Bundrage, but forgot that Spinks never avenged his loss against Verno Phillips (even though you can make the argument that Spinks was robbed in the fight anyway).
So Bundrage goes back to the paper title list, which means that IMO, Ward is the only one of the bunch for whom you can not make the claim.
At this day and age I have to disagree with Cliff Rold's notion that only the true linear champion is not a paperchamp. To me the definition must be that a paperchamp is a beltholder who has not been awarded his belt by beating the proper former beltholder (for example Haye not beating Chagaev but Valuev) or by being awarded the belt by some obscure ruling by the alphabet organization (Zbik).
Being a Kessler-fan I need to comment on Ward. Ward IS to me a real champion. It doesn't matter that he won his belt using fouls. He won the belt in the ring and his opponent simply did not respond well to the circumstances (however crooked) that was presented.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by JakeNDaBox View PostIt depends on the definition of paper champion.
Some belts are manufactured, but its claimant posts enough wins to legitimize the reign. I believe that to be the case with Ward, therefore would not consider him a paper champion.
I was actually going to use a title trace argument to plead a case for Cornelius Bundrage, but forgot that Spinks never avenged his loss against Verno Phillips (even though you can make the argument that Spinks was robbed in the fight anyway).
So Bundrage goes back to the paper title list, which means that IMO, Ward is the only one of the bunch for whom you can not make the claim.
Comment
-
How the hell is Andre Ward even possibly considered a paper champion? He beat the hell out the guy most recognized as best at 168.
Comment
-
lol @ Andre Berto. I voted him as a paper champion, back when he won it I didn't think so because I thought he'd keep stepping up in competition, but he's yet to face anyone better than Collazo.
Comment
-
Originally posted by bojangles1987 View PostHow the hell is Andre Ward even possibly considered a paper champion? He beat the hell out the guy most recognized as best at 168.
With a fair referee, Ward should have lost by disqualification because of all the headbutts, especially that deliberate, exceptionally nasty headbutt that ended the fight. Those headbutts may have caused permanent damage to Mikkel.
Comment
Comment