We have had many world champs but why have none ever been more than world champ in two weight divisions? With all the great fighters we have had you would have thought we would have a 3 or even 4 weight champ. I know its a very hard accomplishment
The fact that there has never been one from this side of the pond should tell you how difficult a task it is.I mean take someone like Manny Pacquiáo,what he has accomplished in his career unheard of but he still gets stick on the forums.
No doubt its hard but yanks have had many, mexico has so have the phillipines and puerto rico and there maybe one or two other countries. Eubank tried for a third
WHY??? it is far more credible to hold a world title when there was only 8 divisions and 1 champion per division, than to be a multi-champ in a rediculous 17 divisions X 5 sanctioning bodies. Inflated fiat currency does not a stable global financial market make. it is artificial!!!
If we are talking legitimate World Champions no one has won more than three in the classic weight divisions (Armstrong being the only one to do it simultaneously); if you consider him British, Fitzsimmons was our only three time champ. That is the way it should be. Like thistle1 suggests just because everyone in Zimbabwe became Multi Millionaires overnight a few years ago, does not mean it was good thing, indeed it was very, very bad!
Yeah, I mean Broner is technically a 3 time champ, but **** me cherry picking Malignaggi and getting a fortunate decision doesn't exactly make you someone to worship.
Showing the problem of multiple titles has gone on for a long time. Although probably (122 is debatable) a top 10 fighter in the divisions when he won the crowns, he was not considered the best in any of divisions at the time.
