I only counted the Ring, WBC, WBA, IBF, and WBO (no IBC, IBO, WBU, etc.)...although one could argue that the WBO was VERY QUESTIONABLE up until the post Hopkins-DLH era (hell, I think it's still shaky today). The list of fighters with titles at THREE different weights is very long, but I can compile one in the future. Of course, these stats are skewed against old-time fighters because there weren't as many weight classes as there now. For example, Robinson and Armstrong would've probably collected a lot more than 3 belts apiece, but there was no jr. middle or super middle back then. Correct any mistakes you see! SIX DIFFERENT WEIGHT CLASSES 1. Oscar De La Hoya (WBO 130, IBF/WBO 135, WBC 140, Ring/WBC 147, WBC 154, WBO 160) FIVE DIFFERENT WEIGHT CLASSES 1. Thomas Hearns (WBA 147, Ring/WBC 154, WBC 160, WBO 168, WBC/WBA 175) 2. Sugar Ray Leonard (WBC 147, WBA 154, WBC 160, WBC 168, WBC 175) 3. Floyd Mayweather (Ring/WBC 130, Ring/WBC 135, WBC 140, Ring/WBC/IBF 147, WBC 154) 4. Manny Pacquiao (WBC 112, IBF 122, Ring 126, Ring/WBC 130, WBC 135) FOUR DIFFERENT WEIGHT CLASSES 1. Roberto Duran (WBA 135, WBC 147, WBA 154, WBC 168} 2. Pernell Whitaker (Ring/WBC/WBA/IBF 135, WBC 140, Ring/WBC 147, WBC 154) 3. Leo Gamez (WBA 105, WBA 108, WBA 112, WBA 115) 4. Roy Jones, Jr. (WBC 160, WBC 168, Ring/WBC/WBA/IBF 175, WBA Heavy)
Don't you think it's kinda pointless if you don't include the lineal title? Otherwise, it pretty much wipes out everyone pre-1970s.
I did. Name one lineal champ who has won in 4 or more weight classes that I didn't include. Post 1970's, Pacquiao won the lineal at 126 without winning an ABC belt. That's why he has 5 classes and not 4 on that list.
Pac is only a four division champ. Ring and Linear? What about the people's champ? Let's just stick with the main belts that contenders kill themselves to attain. i know of all the arguments that some of you posters will put up to defend the linear and ring so called titles, but main titles is what should count. I mean for an example; Oscar and Tyson could have fought anyone without any titles. That could be another title to be make up; The Ted Debiase Belt. Alot of fighters would fight them for the money instead of a belt. Pac is the only champ you put at a champ at 126 with the so called ring title. Is this thread just to emphasize on his accomplishments. He is a great champ, but he did not win a title and I know all about how you are going to explain why.
The Ring belt has been around since 1922. Before a long hiatus, it was worn by every true boxing world champion, from Sugar Ray Robinson to Joe Louis. If we count the WBO, an organization where a fighter once moved up the rankings AFTER his death and recognized Francisco Damiani as heavyweight champion when Tyson had the other three belts, THEN YES, The Ring counts. But I respect your opinion.
I am going to look into that belt. If what you are saying is that this belt was before all thes alphabet titles, then I will most definitely check the history. If in fact it was back then, then the alphabet belts replaced it. I still believe there should be one belt/champ per division. I heard about that WBO fiasco. I do remember Damiani and the introduction of the WBO belt. The WBO has had alot of good champs wearing the belt. I believe the WBO was more recognized in the lower weights back then. Remember that all these belts have some dirt like the WBC, IBF, and the WBA. Money took over. I also respect your opinion like almost every poster out there.
JCC had two shots at it, but he lost twice for the WBC 147, once to Whitaker ("draw" I guess) and once to DLH. Morales would've been the first if he had defeated David Diaz for the WBC 135. The fight was being billed as the "War for 4." If Barrera can sneak in an ABC belt at 135 in his latest return, then he would qualify for four titles as well.
http://hitterz.files.wordpress.com/2006/01/Marciano with belt.JPG?w=226&h=175 Here's Marciano with his.
