british 2 weight world champs how many have there been ?

But that's a problem because Lacy had beaten probably one top 10 rated Super Middleweight by the time he fought Calzaghe. And it seems that he was shot. I think there should be some qualifying criteria to be considered for one of these belts like beating three top 10 rated fighters or something if the belt is vacant.

 

Oh i realise that Haye won belts at both weights - i was just pointing out that he is already listed.

 

Its an idea but you'd probably end up with vacant belts staying vacant though. Lacy was overated and got found out in a title fight. No real harm done.

 

Unlike now?

 

You mean vacant belts? Yep, they have a fair few vacant. Tightening up the criteria for what makes a title fight for a vacant title is hardly likely to help on that score though.

 

If we are talking about "belt holders" Collazo was the weakest belt holder at the time and at LWW, Hatton neve faced the no1 Miguel Cotto.

 

I'd rather see that boxers who stay in the same division and prove themselves as the best rewarded though. Part of the problem today is that fighters are bouncing up and down chasing random belts because it's a convenient match. These titles should be earned by establishing a dominance over one weight category.

 

Cotto never fought Hatton either. Hatton was the champ and Cotto the "belt holder"

Collazao was a paper title but Hattons 140lb title was genuine and didn't/ doesn't depend on having fought Cotto.

 

No argument there.

But doesn't the number of vacant Ring titles show you that these titles arn't being handed out willy nilly? That they have got it about right?

If you make it too hard to win a vacant title eventually all the titles will be vacant and the titles will fall into disuse.

 

Didn't Cotto want to fight Hatton but Hatton fought Muassa instead?

I dont blame him, Cotto would have murdered him.

 

Boxers "say" they want lot of fights. At the end of the day, until those fights happen, its all "he said, she said" and in any case that doesn't affect Hattons claim to a genuine title world at 140lbs one bit.

Cotto-Hatton in 2005/2006 at 140lbs is no walkover for either fighter. It only looks one sided now to people with short memories.

 

Fitzsimmons: Middle, Light-Heavy and Heavyweight champ.

If he was now he probably would have won about 5 different classes.

Is it just him and McKenzie who've done three?

 

Looking back now I think we can confidently say Cotto would have knocked Hatton out.

I suppose it depends if we consider Tszyu as "the man" "linear" or whatever champion.

 

No "we" can't, it might be you're opinion and thats fair enough. I think its a very close fight at that point in time and at that weight.

Theres no "suppose" about this part, Zoo was "the man" and lineal. Hattons title was the genuine title at 140, theres no real debate about it and not fighting Cotto has no impact on the status of that title whatsoever.

 

I suppose you're right but I still think the bias is too American. I know this is a difficult thing to get right but I would like to see a fairer system of ranking.

Also, in terms of fairness, the alphabet champions seem to get automatic high rankings. ie Gavin Rees was either Ring number 2 or 3 at a weight he didn't belong at after beating M'Baye. Then just as quickly disappeared altogether after Kotelnik.

I know I'm picking holes but it does seem that the Ring do take a few wild stabs in the dark at times with their rankings.