Greatest Fighter Never T Be Champion??

I consider an ABC champion a legit champion IF there is no Lineal champion or Undisputed champion in that division at the time. Then all the Title holders, depending on the time frame, have a claim. If there is an Undisputed or Lineal Champion, I consider them title holders.

Langford for me.

 

This is what I'm talking about Brooklyn. This type of thinking is why Asterion said that Cotto was never a champion.

 

:good Thanks for the clarification

 

Cotto is a great fighter. I have him top 5 P4P now. But he has never taken a belt from another fighter, and he has held belts in divisions where there were Lineal champions. I think it diminishes the accomplishment of a Lineal Champion to put other titles on par with them.

 

That's fine. I was just clarifying to Brooklyn why Asterion said that Cotto was never a champion despite the fact that he's listed as the WBA WW champion, and is also in the record books as being a former JWW WBO champion. It was probably not a good idea to put Roy Jones on par with DM. Even though Roy was walking around with like 20 belts, DM was the linear champ. As a result Roy's "titles" were not as highly regarded, even though he was introduced as the undisputed LHW champion.

 

I know, just clarifying for Cotto fans that I don't hate him by saying these things. I have new found respect for his abilities.

 

Jones was to me a Unified Title Holder (I have called him champion in the past, just out of habit). He has only been Champion in the 160 Division by my criteria. He was a titleholder in all the rest.

I still think he was the best fighter in that division. That situation was very odd and hard to distinguish.

 

Hard to say because many people like to seem knowledgeable about boxing by bringing up Langford or Wills but I don't know how good those guys were.

Most fighters from back then were **** compared to modern fighters.

In more recent times I would include Ron Lyle, Ernie Shavers and Jerry Quarry.

 

David tua is the best heavy-weight in recent history to never hold one of the four world titles.

 

Good point. Look at this article I found online

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE6DD1239F935A35755C0A96F958260

Those stupid jerks over at the New York Times claimed that Roy Jones was the unisputed LHW champion. Don't those idots know that Roy's WBA/WBC/IBF titles mean jack **** without the lineal title. Newsflash New York Times, Roy was just a title holder, not a champion.

The fact that he was later named a "champion" by Ring magazine is another disgrace. None of those belts even belonged to Roy. The WBA/IBF belts rightlfully belonged to DM. The corrupt ass ABC's stole them from him. Roy also picked up a phony, vacant WBC interim "title". So Roy wasn't even a unified title holder as DM was still the real WBA/IBF champion at the time.

 

I think he mentioned Cotto coz he hasnt a clue.

 

Titles mean something, just not as much as Lineal championships. No need for your sarcasm....wonder why you resort to that, then claim people attack you.

Ring uses their own criteria. They also later on went on record that if their policy was in effect before 2001, Jones would never have had the titles. DM would have.

 

Yes he does. According to many ESB members, if you're not the lineal champ(and there is another fighter in the division whos is), then you're not really a champ. You're just a title holder. Apparently, I'm an idiot for believing that a guy who holds the WBA title is acutally a champion. At least that's what people on this board have told me.

 

I agree with you. The New York times, WBC,IBF,WBA,IBO,ring magazine; none of these guys know what they're doing. They don't know **** about boxing. Roy = 4 division title holder, DM = LHW champion.

 

Im not neurotic when it comes to the lineal champ thing im with you if you hold one of the 4 recognized world titles (wbc,wbo,wba,ibf) your a world champion in my eyes but to each his own as far as opinions are concerned.