[BDUB2112]

Originally Posted by Intellectual 1

I don't understand...if you can defend both titles and you intend to defend both titles in reasonable amount of time, then why strip the fighter?

That's what I'm saying. There should be a certain time limit, say 10 months or so where you have to defend the title within that time period.

[Unseen]

Originally Posted by Intellectual 1

I don't understand...if you can defend both titles and you intend to defend both titles in reasonable amount of time, then why strip the fighter?

i think it is because they usually dump a title when times up. they use it for bargaining etc

[Intellectual 1]

Originally Posted by bweisman12

That's what I'm saying. There should be a certain time limit, say 10 months or so where you have to defend the title within that time period.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by Unseen

i think it is because they usually dump a title when times up. they use it for bargaining etc

ahhh great point...if I was a sanctioning body I would get pretty heated if someone pulled that act on me.

[TommyGunn]

Originally Posted by LeedsLad

IMO if a fighter moves up in weight to fight for another title he should be stripped. But its the double standards that annoys me, Calzaghe goes upto 175 and he wasn't stripped for about 8 months. Floyd held the WBC at both 147 & 154 at one point. All sanctioning bodies should strip fighters when they move up in weight, especially when there fighting for titles at that weight.

Agree with all of this!!!!

[Violent Demise]

Seriously who gives a fukk? The WBO has always been pretty much a minor league belt. No big loss for Williams.

[TommyGunn]

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

Seriously who gives a fukk? The WBO has always been pretty much a minor league belt. No big loss for Williams.

I agree VD, i dont have many british guys to defend with it now so i agree 100%. LMAO!