Do alphabet titles dilute fighters legacies and punish them in the long run?

Well yeah that's the knock on effect that can be derived from the alphabet soup situation, but in general, we'll only look at who they fought and beat in years to come so that's all that counts. Alphabet titles, pain in our purist asses for sure eh Flea?

 

Well yeah, like i said that is the knock on effect derived from the existence of the alphabet titles, the diluting of what the legacies of the greatest fighters of the era might potentially be had they not been around. But they don't directly dilute a legacy so to speak, a fighter actually only achieves his ultimate legacy by beating the men he does, and comprising a resume from that. But i understand what you are getting at, the only thing we can be certain of is this, the alphabet soup doesn't help in purist's terms.

 

IMO, yes. I'll give an example to back this up: Duke McKenzie. Awesome fighter and I'm proud he was a Brit but I don't see him as a three weight world champ considering that two were the WBO in a time when the WBO hardly had any credibility. Now, by legacy, Duke is a three weight world champ. Can he even compare with someone like Arguello's legacy?

I rest my case:good.

 

I mean look at Roy Jones Jr, some people are putting him pound for pound over say Armstrong for the Ruiz win.

And I pretty sure Armstrong might have won a heavyweight title into days's era.

Its not like Jones beat Lewis or something.

 

No one in their right mind is doing THAT.

No one in their mind is SAYING that.

 

Exactly. Even moreso than that, we have the ability to watch a lot more of boxing than was available to previous generations.

I can see for example, that regardless of the names on his resume, Sven Ottke wasn't THAT good. Good? No doubt. The names? Impressive.

But the fighter? Meh.

 

Baldomir was the real champ though. He beat the man who beat the man.

The win over Zab was big for the time. This fight needed to happen more than the Margarito bout imo.

 

Not if you had the dubious honour of watching it.

 

Yeah on the point of how good he was though, i always go on effectiveness rather than how 'good' they actually look. If he's winning rounds......

I'm not talking up Sven Ottke in particular here, i just mean in general. But yeah, in terms of the thred title, i don't think it's the alphabet titles that directly 'dillue' such legacies. It's the fighters, and probably more so their management staff that take advantage of their presence.

 

I saw it, pretty good fight, not great, but a good fight.

I do think Zab lost that fight there. The fight with Mayweather might a lot for the divison imo. It made Mayweather the right full champ.

 

When was there ever just 1 unified champion?

 

On lots of occasions; but the last truly generally considered universal world champion would be Mike Tyson who lost that title in May 1989.

 

He's going to bring up the wbo thing i think, or did hop get that as well actually? Can't remember.