WBC - Take Vitali's title off him now!!!

First topic message reminder :

This has to be a joke.

Vitali having just pulled out of his latest match against Stiverne again.

http://www1.skysports.com/boxing/news/12183/8870089/vitali-klitschko-pulls-out-of-mandatory-wbc-title-defence-against-bermane-stiverne

Say what you want about Stiverne, but he has fought 2 eliminators to get the match and like it or lump it he deserves his shot.

Vitali hasnt fought in a year and a half and this set back looks like it will be about 2 years without Vitali facing his mandatory. Ward must be loving this. Being stripped himself for not defending his WBC title within the timeframe.

Whats your thoughts lads?

Cheers

Dee!

JabMachineMK2 wrote:I think the general consensus will be that Haye and Leonard are a massive gulf apart in terms of why they got a shot. Ali is Ali. Leonard is Leonard.

So you're just a hypocrite then ??

JabMachineMK2 wrote:I think the general consensus will be that Haye and Leonard are a massive gulf apart in terms of why they got a shot. Ali is Ali. Leonard is Leonard.

Find me a period where the heavyweight scene stinks and pull out a comparison thats fair.

Just because you have a name doesn't mean you should be treated any differently, if Haye has to earn a shot then everyone else does. The similarities between Haye, Ali and Leonard are obvious, they bring more money to the table than anyone else.

The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:

JabMachineMK2 wrote:I think the general consensus will be that Haye and Leonard are a massive gulf apart in terms of why they got a shot. Ali is Ali. Leonard is Leonard.

Find me a period where the heavyweight scene stinks and pull out a comparison thats fair.

Just because you have a name doesn't mean you should be treated any differently, if Haye has to earn a shot then everyone else does. The similarities between Haye, Ali and Leonard are obvious, they bring more money to the table than anyone else.

Absolutely right......Haye brings more money to the table...

Stiverne can wait a bit longer..He won't mind a few bucks chucked at him

Or just in general being much better received, had better careers, made more of a claim to be the very best in their division etc etc.

The way the scene is at the moment, Haye and Fury getting a shot is ridiculous. I'm not rubbishing the fact Haye vs Vitali is a given, more the fact Fury hasn't faced anyone to qualify him as being worthy for a title shot, being that Haye is facing him, he doesn't either. Forgetting about Stivern is stupid too.

Mormeck beat to get a shot??...Chisora beat to get a shot ??

and it's ridiculous Fury gets a shot....and he beat chisora..

Just stop now Mate ...you're embarrassing yourself...

How would Stiverne getting a shot against the winner be forgetting him, seems a pretty reasonable outcome to me.

You may need to enlighten me but I can't see what Leonard had done to earn a shot against Hagler, it was a fight that made sense but I don't think he'd earned the right to challenge the middleweight king.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Mormeck beat to get a shot??...Chisora beat to get a shot ??

and it's ridiculous Fury gets a shot....and he beat chisora..

Just stop now Mate ...you're embarrassing yourself...

Embarrassing myself infront of a clown isn't really something I'm too worried about right now.

You're skewing and slicing my argument to make your own more viable without consistency. Same old Truss.

I actually don't think he's the one skewing anything, you seem to chop and change what's acceptable based on how much you like them.

Allow me to lay out my argument, as you both seem to be having issues reading things - maybe a session with your local GP will help with your mental health issues.

Haye vs Fury - neither is a champion. Neither holds #1 contender status. One of them is a former WBA Heavyweight champion (not same organisation as WBC) Fury is ranked #6 by the WBC (haven't checked but that was the last I saw) and Haye #7. Stiverne is ranked number 1. He has jumped through 3 hoops for his position and deserves his shot, which is why he was going to have the fight. The fact it has been called off does NOT demerit the fact he achieved the #1 position. Regardless of who he is, the fact that the belt may be vacant means his next fight should be for the belt, nobody else should be fighting for it if vacant. Different situation to if Vitali faced someone else instead.

This is where you two clowns seem to misunderstand. Paying a mandatory to stand aside gives them the choice to do it or not. The fact a champion exists already makes the fight viable. No champion does not equate to randomly picking another fight between 2 ranked fighters and making it for the title. Stiverne needs to be fighting for the title in his next fight. Not waiting for the winner of Haye/Fury.

In relation to Holmes/Ali/Hagler/Leonard - these were already existing champions choosing already existing boxers who had achieved a lot. If Hagler had vacated, then no, Leonard did not deserve a shot. If Holmes vacated, no - Ali would not have deserved a shot.

This leads me on to my next point. Haye vs Vitali. Viable. Haye/Vitali would have had to pay Stiverne to step aside however.

Is that clear enough?

Who's saying Stiverne's next fight wont be for the title? Were Haye and Fury to fight for a vacant title then their number one contender would still be Stiverne so his situation has not changed in the slightest, he will just be challenging somebody other than Vitali, his number one status means that he has a shot at the title within a certain time frame not that he is the only one who can challenge.

Your Ali and Leonard reasoning doesn't wash as there were fighters more deserving of a shot than them who were bypassed, what about Graham, Tate, Nunn, Hearns and McCallum who had worked hard to get high rankings. They had to settle fighting for a trinket rather than the full bloodied middleweight title.

You seem to have some very severe issues and had you bothered to explain yourself to start with this would have been a lot easier.

But was there a champion at the time? Yes? So they could pick who they faced unless it was demanded they faced their mandatory. So you're expecting Stiverne to wait another 3 - 6 months for a shot at a title contested between 2 guys who weren't in the frame to begin with?

Thats stupid my friend. No title - no champion = Stiverne (if Vitali is stripped) gets to pick from the top 3 ranked by WBC and it would be for the vacant title. Not just gifted to the winner of Haye/Fury. Thats ridiculous. Ali/Leonard if they won (in Leonards case he did) would have beaten the best in the division and deserved the belt. Haye/Fury can have no claim to be the best or beaten the best.

Do you understand that? Or should I speak to you like I do with my 7 year old daughter when she doesn't understand something simple?

I doubt buying him a pony would work jab

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Allow me to lay out my argument, as you both seem to be having issues reading things - maybe a session with your local GP will help with your mental health issues.

Haye vs Fury - neither is a champion. Neither holds #1 contender status. One of them is a former WBA Heavyweight champion (not same organisation as WBC) Fury is ranked #6 by the WBC (haven't checked but that was the last I saw) and Haye #7. Stiverne is ranked number 1. He has jumped through 3 hoops for his position and deserves his shot, which is why he was going to have the fight. The fact it has been called off does NOT demerit the fact he achieved the #1 position. Regardless of who he is, the fact that the belt may be vacant means his next fight should be for the belt, nobody else should be fighting for it if vacant. Different situation to if Vitali faced someone else instead.

This is where you two clowns seem to misunderstand. Paying a mandatory to stand aside gives them the choice to do it or not. The fact a champion exists already makes the fight viable. No champion does not equate to randomly picking another fight between 2 ranked fighters and making it for the title. Stiverne needs to be fighting for the title in his next fight. Not waiting for the winner of Haye/Fury.

In relation to Holmes/Ali/Hagler/Leonard - these were already existing champions choosing already existing boxers who had achieved a lot. If Hagler had vacated, then no, Leonard did not deserve a shot. If Holmes vacated, no - Ali would not have deserved a shot.

This leads me on to my next point. Haye vs Vitali. Viable. Haye/Vitali would have had to pay Stiverne to step aside however.

Is that clear enough?

Why the abuse......grow up Son....

Your argument sucks it's already been blown away.....

Leonard v Lalaonde for the wbc super midd title

Hearns v Kinchen for the wbo 168 even though none had fought there....

You don't understand the landscape of the 1980's middleweight division and I feel like i'd be wasting my time explaining it to you but here goes. In late 1986 Herol Graham was the number one contender for the WBA title which isn't as simple as it sounds, back then being any number one contender meant you were in line to fight for the whole thing. Hagler was stripped of the WBA which was contended between Graham and Kalambay, all sounds very rosy but he wasn't given the opportunity he had earned because Leonard jumped the queue ahead of him. Nothing wrong with that apparently because it's Leonard but it's hardly fair on a fighter in Graham who had worked hard to earn his fight Hagler though is it.

With Vitali pulling out of the fight, Stiverne isn't going to be fighting for the title within 6 months anyway taking into account finding a new opponent and the disruption to his training camp so I see little wrong with him keeping his number one contendership but two other highly ranked fighters fighting for the vacant title in the mean time.

The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:You don't understand the landscape of the 1980's middleweight division and I feel like i'd be wasting my time explaining it to you but here goes. In late 1986 Herol Graham was the number one contender for the WBA title which isn't as simple as it sounds, back then being any number one contender meant you were in line to fight for the whole thing. Hagler was stripped of the WBA which was contended between Graham and Kalambay, all sounds very rosy but he wasn't given the opportunity he had earned because Leonard jumped the queue ahead of him. Nothing wrong with that apparently because it's Leonard but it's hardly fair on a fighter in Graham who had worked hard to earn his fight Hagler though is it.

With Vitali pulling out of the fight, Stiverne isn't going to be fighting for the title within 6 months anyway taking into account finding a new opponent and the disruption to his training camp so I see little wrong with him keeping his number one contendership but two other highly ranked fighters fighting for the vacant title in the mean time.

You're wasting your time...He keeps changing his argument....

The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:Hagler was stripped of the WBA which was contended between Graham and Kalambay

Yes, he'd earned a shot at the title, so he competed for it. Not facing Hagler wasn't the concern, or shouldn't have been.

The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:two other highly ranked fighters fighting for the vacant title

#6 and #7?

 

Not fair on Stiverne. Different situation. WBA is not WBC. Hagler was The Ring champion. Yes, Graham deserved the shot more, but Hagler could pretty much choose his opponent as the champion. Given that if Vitali is stripped there would BE no champion, its a different situation.

Why are we even debating it as one and the same? Truss came up with that garbage response, don't act like him.

I'm actually mistaken slightly, Graham didn't get his shot at the WBA title for another two years, Kalambay and Barkley fought for it in 1987.

Fighting Hagler was the concern when beating him would have made him THE middleweight champion and a bucket load of money, the 80's were different to now in that being a mere title holder didn't mean much.

Mate..........I'm afraid it's hypocritical to treat all cases differently...

Then again you are used to making things up..

smileys with laughing faces don't win arguments..

Terror has wiped your botty..

Hearns was wbc number 1.........Ghosty..........Another guy more deserving..

Jabby......not interested...You've contradicted yourself..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Mate..........I'm afraid it's hypocritical to treat all cases differently...

Then again you are used to making things up..

smileys with laughing faces don't win arguments..

Terror has wiped your botty..

Usual drivel from you. I'd come to expect more. But thats the thing with high hopes, you often end up disappointed.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Mate..........I'm afraid it's hypocritical to treat all cases differently...

Then again you are used to making things up..

smileys with laughing faces don't win arguments..

Terror has wiped your botty..

Usual drivel from you. I'd come to expect more. But thats the thing with high hopes, you often end up disappointed.

Calm down.....You know your stuff....Kell Brook told me..

Reverting to type - don't go changing your stripes now Truss, the fact you're losing arguments and having to resort to childish and womenly tactics means I claim the moral victory.

Are you a plumber?

Because you sure love to bring up old sh*t

(we need to be careful mate I smell the ink of the red pen)

"womenly" is that a word.............

Love the plumber riposte though....

I don't mean it...you always fight your corner and it's always fun.......