Have there ever been so many unified champions

Certainly not since the ‘60s and ‘70s. I haven’t got time to look it up right now but I’d imagine there were more then, but I’d be interested to know.

 

Certainly not as far as including the WBO which was traditionally considered the least important, hell even Tyson was never fully unified was he?

I think it is a good trend as far as fighters wanting to stamp their authority on a division. I also wonder if current champs are getting savvy to the fact many fans are getting tired of waiting for "super" fights that never happen and then are a damp squib when they do and instead are focused on fighting less glamourous but still solid rival champs?

However it does still flag how out of hand the situation is and also as soon as any of these guys vacate chaos resumes. I feel it is not really any different from the various Don King unification tournaments from the 90s and 2000s. This is brief phase depending on the individuals involved that will pass. Frankly with stuff like Bridger weight, proposed Super HW and no doubt another bunch of greedy cowboys on the horizon with more pointless titles and possibly organizations I can only see it getting worse.

 

Actually, Tyson was. The WBO didn’t have a champion at heavyweight until 1989 by which time Tyson had all three straps and had made Spinks’s lineal claim irrelevant.

Unlike the IBF, who wisely elected to simply give their titles to the most deserving (and already established) world champions when they formed five years earlier, the WBO crowned Francesco Damiani as its first heavyweight champ. And everyone ignored it like they ignore the IBO now.

I don’t think the WBO established a genuine foothold at the title table until the early 2000s and that was based on longevity as much as anything else. But in the late ‘80s and ‘90s their ‘world’ titles were basically treated as meaningless in the US and at least lesser versions elsewhere.

 

I think Crawford was first since Hopkins(And briefly Jermain) - and We had 7 since, so yeah... It's definitely a trend - and while it's definitely good, I think it would be better if fighters were not only looking to achieve that goal, but also defend the title as sole champion against top contenders and I think only guy who's trying to hold on to his title is Canelo... and even with him, it's not like He's taking on the number 1 contender.
I think governing bodies are not making it easy. You have to pay 3% to each - 12% is quite a bit of money - and deal with 4 mandatories. They at least came to some sort of agreement where They are "rotating" mandatories now (At least usually - like with Heavyweights today. Josh Taylor I think had 2 mandatories thrown at him simultanously), but I think They should be working on establishing "collective mandatory" of higher caliber.
They could have eliminators with IBF number 1 contender fighting WBC number 1 contender for example - and winner becoming mandatory to unified champion. With 4 titles, You could have a 4-man tournament - but in practice, I think it makes things more compliacated for governing bodies and also They all get their fees for eliminators and regional title fights also - so I'm not sure how realistic it is.

 

I think Marco Antonio Barrera was the first WBO champ that people took seriously….if you remember after his first fight with Erik Morales …Morales actually handed him the belt back as a sign of respect

 

To further my point ….A lot of people forget that Chris Eubank Sr was never “ The Man “ at 160 or 168…I don’t think Ring magazine ever had him the top 3