Of the fighters who have won four or more titles

I'm not denigrating the value of the true championship, just highlighting a point that often gets confused.

Yes.

 

In that sense, sure. However, there's a giant statistic out there of boxing fans who don't understand that winning multiple belts aren't near what Armstrong did, or what Fitzsimmons did, or what Canzoneri did. Seems to me that there are more than a few posters on Classic who aren't too swift on the record of outrages committed by the alphabets, and think they're worth a damn.

The featherweight Armstrong defeated for the title in '37 was Petey Sarron. He was an excellent fighter -never stopped until Armstrong.

Liston would've killed him dead.

 

Stone did you get anywhere with your quest to find out if holmes ever defeated the number 1/2 hw whilst ranked 1/2?

What are your thoughts on his claim now? Is beating a retired ali strong enough to establish a new lineage in your eyes?

 

"He still won alphabet titles in 5 divisions." Come on, man.

A more sensible comparison would compare the top contenders (belt-holders are subsumed under that) and real champions that Armstrong and Hearns fought and defeated.

The fact that Hearns was given belts by racketeers in an extortion racket counts for nothing.

 

They're not and I agree with you on that front.

However due to the lack of clarity, there are times when it's just as important because the lineage isn't as valued. For example, hearns smashing cuevas means just as much as armstrong beating sarron imo. His victory over roldan means nothing though. His victory andries nothing. His victory over hill is just as good a weight jumping victory we've had in history.

Perhaps but liston hadn't proven himself to be better than ingo at that point and ingo had a better resume imo.

 

Should we just pretend that Tommy had even one super middleweight fight before this one, or should we just pretend that Kinchen was the champ?

The WBO? You mean that organization that installed Francisco Damiani as heavyweight champion in '89 after he beat Johnny DuPlooy?

The WBO? You mean that organization that moved super middleweight Darrin Morris up its rankings twice in 2001,

despite the fact that he hadn't fought since 1999?

And despite the fact that he DIED in 2000?

....
Yeah, that's legit.



Lufcrazy, Robbi --please let me know if I'm being too severe here. I mean we all love Tommy. Should we just recognize this title? because I mean, we all love Tommy.

 

The smw division is difficult in terms of lineage anyways.

You're not being too severe, I just think you get sidetracked and very annoyed at the implications of the belts.

In reality they are just a claim aren't they? Someone wins a belt and claims they're the champion. That's how modern boxing works. Claims get strengthened by performance, opponents and unification.

You might not like it, but it's a reality.

Regarding tommy's wbo belt, i'm not sure who took his claim seriously, I certainly didn't.

But tommy's claim after beating cuevas, I took that one seriously.

 

It's a reality because boxing, of all places, has too many lemmings who follow the crowd. I don't like the sorry fact that the nonsense can end with pressure from the real power in the sport --knowledgable fans.

And that's where your model falls down and can't get up.

Hearns beat Cuevas two months after Duran beat Leonard. Now, are you going to argue that Duran was just "another claimant" or the real champion based on his defeat of Leonard?

Cuevas traces his claim one spot to Angel Espada because the WBA stripped Jose Napoles in '75. Duran's claim went all the way back to Curtis Cokes who became champ in '66 after beating the other top contender after Griffith abdicated and moved up in weight.

The idea of two+ champions hurts boxing. All roads should lead to one man per division. Nothing else makes sense.

 

i guess the question becomes what's more important: being the lineal champion or being the top dog and cleaning out the division.

i come back to roy jones who was top dog and for the most part cleaned out 175 but was not the lineal champ? is his claim on the title legit?

 

It's a reality because the people in power make it so. Pretending the lineal title is worth more than the alphabet belts in today's arena is not realistic because it changes from situation to situation.

I have no model other than recognising each title as a claim and making the choice of which claim is strongest.

Duran had a claim from beating leonard. When hearns destroyed cuevas his claim was stronger imo. Tommy was a physical freak and his claim was legitimate imo.

An extreme example is holyfield knocking out tyson whilst briggs was being bullied by foreman. Both have a claim. Briggs traces back through the man that beat the man. Holyfield's traced through tyson destructions of seldon and bruno (two top 5 hw's) you might prefer a claim with a pure lineage, I prefer a claim with a current claimant worthy of his status.

 

Would like to add that as a disclaimer i'm scrutinising each of my premiere fighter's 1 by 1 in alphabetical order based on hof status.

I've just finished duran so i'll be on hearns very shortly and I might change my mind on whether his claim was strong enough when i've considered the detail in more detail.

 

Softhands, shut the **** up and answer the thread. You've gone all pretentious hipster completely off topic, bro.

 

atsch

 

Yeah.........Just awnser the guys post. I think you have been very disrespectful to the opening post on the thread. Too severe? Totally. And it's nothing to do with loving Tommy. I couldn't care which fighter it is, actually.

We all know Hearns wasn't the lineal and legit champion in each division he won his five belts in.......We all know that in the 30's and 40's it was only one champion in each division and it held more credibility. I think the guy who made the thread knows that too.

 

in the end, it doesn't make them better either. i'll take a win against a fractured titlest in duran or leonard over a victory over lineal champion billy backus or fritzie zivic any day.

it's the fighter that matters, the titles in this thread are used as a starting point to see which fighter collected belts against the best opposition. nothing more nothing less