Of the fighters who have won four or more titles

Who cares about belt-collectors?

Let's not join the legion of boxing dunces and start pretending that Hearns' 5 "belts" is worth more than Henry Armstrong's three CROWNS.

 

No need to pretend it isn't worth anything either, least of all with someone like Tommy.

 

I'm not pretending. I've merely opened my eyes.

They only time a champion can rightfully be called THE champion is if he defeats the rightful champion, not a belt-holder. Belt-holders are too more or less appointed by those corrupt little organizations that too many of us pretend are legit. If a belt-holder also happens to be the rightful champion or even the best guy in the division, it is merely accidental.

I love Hearns, and those belts do not make him greater than he is. I love Duran even more than Hearns. I have an essay out there somewhere about Duran-Barkley called "The Fourth Crown." I regret that title.

 

We talking weight classes or just titles (so regaining championships count or not).

Also are we going by official weight captures (ie pacquaio in seven weights) or legit which will put him at 4-5?

 

Stone, I think you sometimes skew the value of a fighter capturing one of your lineal thrones.

For example hearns destroying cuevas means a hell of a lot more than briggs getting a gift against 978 year old foreman.

 

My thrones are for clarity alone. They are not to identify "the best fighter" in any division.

Again, the best fighter in any given division in any given year in boxing history is not necessarily the champion -or even THE champion.

* Was Johannson the best fighter in the division in 1959?

* Was Braddock the best fighter in the division after he stopped Baer?

* How about Johnny Wilson? Was Johnny Wilson better than Greb in 1922?

* How about Terry Downes? Freddie Cochrane? Marty Servo?

They were not the best fighters in their divisions, and yet no one in their right mind would claim that these men weren't the real champions at the time.

You study boxing history, go back and look how many times the best uncrowned fighters in a division were duking it out while an inferior champion was fighting unrecognizables. Add to that the number of bad decisions in championship matches. Add to that the number of times a no-shot wonder took a throne, only to be whipped the next time out.

 

that's kind of the point though. if you denegrate the value of the lineal championship with one hand, you can't prop it up as vastly superior to alphabet titles with the other.

i think you need to compare the fighters that hearns beat to the fighters that armstrong beat for their respective "titles". it's the victories, not the titles, that really matter and i think that may be the crux of your argument

 

I do agree. But the thread is asking specifically about the guys tommy beat for the belts. Whether you put emphasis on the belts or not, whether it's a alphabet, ring or lineal belt at stake, names can be compared.

In title fights who can realistically compare with cuevas, benitez, duran, roldan and hill?

You mentioned armstrong. Can't remember the fw guy but it was ambers and ross in the other two divisions, the names aren't that far off.

The belts aren't the issue, it's the guys the people beat for those belts.

Btw ingo after sparking machen and floyd in less than 4 rounds aggregate was the premiere hw imo.

 

Stonehands....You should have just joined in and went with the flow. He wasn't asking about Armstong's three crowns. Even though Hearns never beat the legit champion or the lineal champion at every weight he won a world title.....He still won alphabet world titles in 5 divisions. The guy only posted and asked whom out all the champions to win world titles in 4 divisions or more, has the best list of fighters.

PS: We all know it doesn't hold the same credibility as when Armstrong was the, real and only, champion in the three divisions.

 

..armstrong and fitzsimmons won more than two crowns...armstrong three at the same time. no on has won four or more titles, so the thread is not valid.

 

if you're talking lineal? argument can be made.
titles? plenty of fighters have. roy jones clearly won titles in 4 weight classes.

 

Albino red, even using stonehand's strictest of establishments I can tell you right now that pac will have taken 4.

Sasakul, barrera, marquez, hatton.

I think it's easier just to treat the belt as a title claim. The claim gets stronger if you beat other claimants or if you beat better guys than the other claimants.

Stoney is ruthless in that the mere mention of belts having any worth other than holding pants up sends him into a very angry man.

If you're talking guys where their claim is generally accepted (today that's ring champions as far as I can tell but in the past it's been murky) then the field is narrowed. However I say people should be a bit more light hearted regarding the thread question.

Who's picked up the 4 best wins when staking a claim for the world championship?

Hearns: cuevas, benitez, roldan, hill.
Duran: buchanan, leonard, moore, barkley
Leonard: benitez, duran, hagler, lalonde
Jones: hopkins, toney, mccallum, ruiz
Mayweather: hernandez, castillo, de la hoya, mosley

I can't remember many others from the top of my head.

 

If a magic wand could be waved and boxing was to be restored to it's classic days of one champion per division, then the TITLES would be of the ultimate importance...like they once were universally.

 

Manny Steward always said that since Hearns could not get a rematch with Ray he went after the title as a consolation prize. It was just something to focus on. Hearns did get a 5th title. he was the first WBO champion.