Alex won the interim title and was handed the full title because the then champ moved up in weight. Alex boxed Cook for the full title and lost on points, so at no point in time did Alex ever hold the WBO belt above his head or win a world title fight What people’s thoughts
Technically, yes, he can, and that's part of the problem with boxing. No disrespect to Arthur, but he wasn't a world champion in the true sense, in my eyes anyway.
If the record books says he is a Champ, than I guess he was. I don’t remember him being one and I wasn’t really a fan of his and I certainly don’t like the circumstances of how Arthur “won” the belt, but if fighters like Crolla and Terry Flanagan are considered former Champions than there is no reason why he shouldn’t either.
The reason Crolla and Flanagan are considered former Champions is because they have both won world title fights. To keep on topic, I don't consider Alex Arthur to have been a world champion for the above criteria alone. He had the title, but I don't think it's fair that someone can be a champion when they've never won or defended the belt they held. A similar example would be Lee Haskins, who was promoted to champion when his opponent didn't make weight. However, Haskins went on to defend the title twice, so I would consider him to have been a genuine world champion.
Totally agree on all the above points, it's how I see it. Nicky Cook who beat him was a low level world champion. I think Alex never helped himself by moving trainer so much and not moving up in weight earlier. I also think though he was good in his prime he was not as good as he perceived. I think if he stayed under Peter Harrison & Billy Nelson's tuataledge he would have had a better career.
I think you have to win at least one fight with a legitimate belt on the line to be considered a world champion. That's my own critetia anyway. The legitimate belts being WBA super, WBO, IBF and WBC.
Not imo At least he didn't hand over cash for his strap like strum Iirc alex got his through a politely penned letter or have i dreamt that? can't remenber
As most have pointed out, until you have won a world title fight where the fulls trap is on the line you aren't a legit world champion in my eyes.
Never a World Champion and he should be red faced accepting being introduced on TV as a World Champion having never won a World Title in the ring and being pumped by the mighty Nicola Cook in his first defence. He was also far from 'Amazing'.
Arthur was not a "lineal" champion but are we only counting champions if they are "the man who beat the man"? In Arthur's case Guzman moved up because he couldn't make weight and he vacated. When that happens are we to no longer have a proper champion? Arthur was WBO champion - it's in the book - end of.
If David Price had somehow landed a shot against Charles Martin after Martin won the vacant IBF title would that make his title reign anymore "legitimate" than Arthur's? Beating a **** champion, one of the worst ever Heavyweight world champions who himself won a vacant belt... Just making the point that beating a champion doesn't necessarily mean someone has done more to become champion than someone who won the strap in Arthur's circumstances. Real fans can tell the difference between technical world champions and elite, true to the word world champions anyway.
