Is Tyson Fury the first non titlist to pretend he has a title?

This

 

If fighters don't fight the best opponents available or sometimes go inactive for years then what's the point of having a champion?

 

Tszyu was undisputed140 aswell.

 

Not hard to fool the Aussie public when it comes to boxing.

 

His 4 or 5 'espn lineal' defences are even funnier

 

He fought Wilder though.

 

Even your argument for having to unify all 4 belts can be thrown out of the window.
It takes the two clear top contenders fighting each other to establish a new lineage.

Everyone has their own made up rules for the title, like you said.

 

I didn’t realise he was pretending, It looks like he really believes it!

 

Doesn't matter. He got popped for drugs and then took three years off. If you are inactive and not giving anybody else their shot, not out there constantly proving you are the best around, you void the title.

If you get injured the other 1,000 fighters in your division don't have to put their careers on hold while you heal up, if you heal up. A championship should come with the stipulation that you will give three or more contenders a year a shot at the title. If you can't keep up with that schedule then you should vacate because it's not fair to everyone else. If you won't vacate you should be stripped by the certifying organization.

Being champion comes with responsibilities. No responsibilities, no champion.

 

Marvellous speech

lets get this on youtube, narrated by a man with an inspiring voice and some dubstep playing in the background

 

10 rounders count.

 

This puts me in mind of the eleven year reign of Johnny Kilbane, the second longest reign in boxing history. How does a man reign for eleven straight years you ask? Simple, you only defend your title three times. Now, Kilbane's no fool, he still made prize money fighting hundreds of fights, but they were almost never for the title. He lost twelve times during his reign. One would think that one of those losses would be an occasion to pass the torch to the next man, but no. Not how they did things back then.

I tried to figure out how things should have gone down if you gave the title to the first guy who beat him in 1914, then gave the belt to the guy who beat that guy etc, but things get kind of murky around the third or fourth transfer. The fourth or fifth guy gets beat by the welterweight champ, and I have to backtrack and try to find some fights with weights listed, so I can determine if these are still featherweights or when whoever moved up moved up and should have vacated the belt I made up for him.

 

Clearly a Wilder fan