Originally Posted by Stonehands89
Note your word "titlist." That is telling.
Note your word "top dog"; ie: premiere fighter. That too is telling.
Jones was a four-division titlist, but your titlist is my contender.
He never, ever, beat the true champion.
Good argument, but you had to overlook forty years to make it. Before the Walker Law boxing was a fractured mess with claimants springing up out from under the ring. Then it got pretty organized, despite sporadic conflict between the NYSAC and the NBA. It progressed.
After 1963 it got progressively worse and has since returned to the mess of the 1910s. You accept it. I don't. I believe that we can apply an objective standard to find the true champions in every division in every era -and I have. Some of the results are hurtful to be sure -some hurt me- but the price we all paid because of the ABC boys becomes very clear. They've ruined the sport and every time a writer or commentator mentions their tin-belts as if they meant something, they become complicit. It's a hard line, but nothing short of that is every going to change a damn thing.
if noone can be ranked over a claimant that's as good a champion as any.
It's not that I accept it, it's more that it's just how boxing is today. A title has to have prestige to be worth a damn and unfortunately today no one title is as prestigious as the other and we have regressed to a multi claimant system ruled by the man and not the belt. A TRUE champion system has to be prestigious and universal otherwise it serves no purpose.
Your system is idealistic but not objective because of it's history. What was good enough for a champ of yesteryear isn't good enough today. Calling wlad a contender is totally out of context with the reality of his status. Placing his claim below Briggs is even crazier still imo.
Would boxing be better in a 1 belt universe? Of course. It's just not the reality of today.