I was a world champ. I claimed my title in a letter I wrote to Boxing News in 1987, after Tyson was claimed universal champ despite not fighting THE champion of the time Michael Spinks. My point being titles can be totally worthless. Arthur was a champ and unlike me he did make a little money when fighting Cook (and the two other fights), good on him. The secret is what comes before champ; a/the does all the work!
In a technical sense I suppose he is, but the fact he didn't win a title in the ring or defend his title in the ring means it's a bit hard to accept as fully legit. That said, he achieved more than 99% of everyone who takes the sport up, so the fact he only had it in the above sense shouldn't be held against him. A bit like someone who only ever won a single cap for their country and that in a friendly as a last minute call-up. You should still be proud of it.
Flanagan won a vacant belt after his opponent got injured in the early rounds..technically that made him a World Champ, yes, but it was hardly a stellar win. I was also thinking Crolla’s belt was one of those multiple WBA belts at the same weight-but I guess I’m wrong. The point I was trying to make, was that I don’t consider Arthur, Crolla or Flanagan to have been proper World Champs...they were belt holders at best, which technically might be the same thing, but not to me if that makes sense.
Still never a World Champion having never won a World Title Fight or defended a World Title in the ring - no different to the English Football League writing a letter to Liverpool FC congratulating them on a great season and playing like champions. Just about to watch Josh Taylor at the weigh-in - a man that will be a World Champion EARNED IN THE RING.
It's really just a case of defining what "world champ" actually means. If you include anyone that has held the top belt at any given time for either the WBA, WBC, IBF or WBO, then Arthur qualifies. He won the interim title, the existing champion vacated, and Arthur was elevated to champion as a result in line with rules of that boxing organisation. Nothing subjective or shady about it; he was the WBO 130lbs champion at that time. By that criteria he was a world champ, and perfectly entitled to refer to himself as such. You can of course apply stricter criteria than that, such as requiring that they have to win a title fight, exclude regular titlists and so on. That's all fine as well as long as it's applied consistently - ie Ken Norton was never WBC heavyweight champ for example. Bringing the subjective element back into it, Arthur wasn't at any point an elite fighter, and probably not top 5 in the division even when he held a title. As paper titles go, it was of the biodegradable recycled chip shop variety and his achievements don't compare in any way, shape or form to most British World champions. It may indeed be the least credible world title reign of any British fighter in history.
It should also be noted those claiming Arthur did not defend his title are wrong. Arthur won the interim title and defended it twice, once successfully against Steve Foster Jr (and then the defeat to Cook). He was a title holder, just as stated by many sane people here, it needs perceptive. If boxing was just about title holders and defences then everyone could go home after giving the 'best fighter ever' award to Dutchboy Gym or whatever his name is today.
Defending the interim title and defending the real title is not the same thing. Obviously boxing isn't just about title holders and defences, no one is claiming it is. My criteria is simple. Has he/she won a world title fight? If yes, you are / was a champion. If no, you wasn't.
Amazon Arthur never done a Josh Taylor on Saturday - never a World Champion and him being referred to as a World Champion completely devalues every hard earned World Title won in the ring. Amazon Arthur is his name, false representation is his game - particularly when introduced on TV.
Your criteria is thus anything but simple. You need to explain what is and is not a world title, who is and is not a world title holder in a formula... There is likely no hard and fast rule, everyone has different values, and is neither right or wrong on the subject. What is beyond doubt in this situation is Arthur had a belt as a champ and thus if you recognise the legitimacy of the WBO as an organisation with the authority to create world title holders, then he was by definition a world title holder.
Arthur was promoted to full champion when Guzman vacated and moved up to lightweight. When Arthur fought Cook he was the WBO champ there was no other reigning WBO champ in the division. Don't just go by what it says on Boxrec do your research properly. http://www.scorescan.com/2008/05/arthur-gets-wbo-belt-as-guzman-changes-weight/
