But that’s not the definition you gave. Here’s the definition you gave in post 229:
In my world, a World Champion is champion of a world wide sport that has defeated all comers on a world stage at a World Championship.
Note the important phrase “defeated all comers”. That’s impossible. By your definition, which you put forth in 229, there has never been a world champion in any sport ever. Now if you want to back track on that go ahead, but acknowledge what you said.
Meanwhile your new definition is much closer to the truth. The problem is you’re all hung up on this international thing. You got item 1 right, a World Champion is the winner of the World Championship. But after that you’re way off in a silly never never land that puts way too much importance on sports, silly worlds, and international approval. A World Championship is any competition where-in the governing body (international or not) SAYS it’s a World Championship.
Because the reality is ANY group declaring they have the World Championship IS a unilateral decision. FIFA, FIA, ISAF and anybody else you want to mention were just as unilateral in their declarations of running World Championships as the NFL and MLB. Remember FIFA was declaring World Champions even they were just a European organization.
There’s nothing that says these groups SHOULD be running the World Championship other than the fact that the decided the do. There could be a split in any of these organizations similar to the IRL-CART argument or various boxing associations, and there could easily be multiple World Champions in that sport until the schism is healed.
Sorry but all the liberal feel good in this discussion is coming from you, the guy worshiping international governing bodies.
Ahh you’re finally starting to get the point. Yes it would be worthless to declare their champion the King of all Siam. Just as it’s worthless to declare a champion the World Champion, or the Stanley Cup Champion or any other title. It’s ALL worthless because it’s JUST SPORTS. We bother because sports are fun, but sports and sports titles have no meaning, no worth. They’re just silly little titles we attach to silly little games that we spend far too much time following. And arguing about.
My definition is entirely consistent. “All Comers” means every one who partcipated in the event. Depending on the structure of the competition, some participants may have got eliminated in qualifying for the final World Championship tournament, such as in the World Cup. But the winner of the final event can be perceived to have legitimately triumphed over all.
Your point about potential splits in Authority is a legitmate one, however there is no argument for the most part about most sports.
Certainly IRL-CART would have a legitmate claim to call their winners “World Champions”. It is an international competition with drivers from all over the world and has multiple international venues. But the winners would be the “IRL-CART World Champion” as opposed to the “Formula 1 World Champion”. Neither would label themselves the “World Driving Champion” though either might think they are.
As for FIFA, their first World Cup in 1930 had 16 teams from all over the world, including the USA!
As for having a World Champion of a non-international sport, well that is just an exercise in futility and a hollow title.
As I said before, why not call them “Intergallactic Champions”? It is just as meaningful. I guess it’s OK for those who like to be big fish in little ponds..