Originally Posted by Stonehands89
Robinson became champion in 1946. Between 1920 and the mid-60s, the sport was relatively uniform. It did not descend into madness until the 60s with the rise of the WBA and the WBC. We need clarity now more than at any time since the 1910s. With that in mind, please tell me a better rule for filling a vacant throne besides 1 vs 2 rule.
PS/ "accepted ranking bodies"--?! Come on, man. Using the WBS racketeers as evidence is a sure way to diminish your position.
come on stone that's a cop out and you know it. Wlad beating Byrd or Ibragimov or Haye or Chagaev is just as acceptable as when Robinson beat Bell.
I'm not as bothered about filling vacant thrones because it's not representative of the current landscape. Boxers fight for these belts, it's what they gear their careers towards, unifying the belts is a bigger prize. for me, the best way to become undisputed is to unify all title claims, failing that the guy with the strongest claim is my pick for number 1.